Interaction Through Language

7/26/2019 Interaction Through Language

1/195


2/195

Publishedquarterly by

Unesco

Vol. XXXVI, No.1, 1984

Editor:

Peter

Lengyel

Associateeditor:

Ali

Kazancigil

Design

and layout:

Jacques Carrasco

Picture

research:

Florence Bonjean

Correspondents

Bangkok: YogeshAtal

Beijing:LiXuekun

Belgrade:Balsa

Spadijer

Buenos

Aires:

Norberto Rodriguez

Bustamante

Canberra:Geoffrey Caldwell

Cologne:Alphons

Silbermann

Delhi:

Andr

Bcteille

Harare:ChenChimutengwende

Hong Kong:

Peter Chen

London: CyrilS.Smith

Mexico

City:

PabloGonzalez Casanova

Moscow: Marien Gapotchka

Nigeria:

Akinsola

Akiwowo

Ottawa:Paul Lamy

Singapore:

S.H .

Alatas

Tokyo: HiroshiOhta

Tunis:

A . Bouhdiba

UnitedStates: Gene

Lvons

Topics

of

forthcoming issues:

Industrial

democracy

Migration

Epistemology

of social

science

Coverand

right:

Semeiology

immediately

understandable

to all for

public areasandmass

events

has

becomea

professional

specialization.

Signsshownwere

devisedfor theTokyo

Olympics

of

1964

(front

cover andaboveright)andtheExpoMontreal of

1967

(below

right) to

form

the

elements of

modular

systems

which

allowfor differentcombinations of

symbols.


3/195

INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL s,

SCIENCE

JOURNAL

INTERACTION

TH ROUG H

LANGUAGE

T h o m a s L u c k m a n n

Yunus

D .

Desheriev

ShirleyBriceHeath

Dorothy

E .

Smith

Nelson E . Cabrai

Robert

L .

Cooper

Rainer Enrique H a m e l

Wolfdietrich

Hrtung

Jean-E.

Humblet

Mary-Louise

Kearney

L a c h m a n

M .

Khubchandani

Editorial:

the

ISS J

in Chinese, Arabic and Turkish

Sociolinguistictheory

and

research

Language

in

society

Social

progress

and

sociolinguistics

Oral andliterate

traditions

Textually

mediatedsocialorganization

Cases

Portuguese Creole

dialects

in

West

Africa

A framework

for the

description

of language

spread:

the

case

of

modern Hebrew

99

3

5

21

41

59

77

87

Socio-culturalconflictandbilingual

education:

the

case

of

the

Otomi Indians

inMexico 113

S o m e aspects

of

linguisticvariation

in one-language

societies

Applications

The

language problem in

internationalorganizations

Sociolinguistics

and language

teaching

Language

modernization in the developing world

Booksreceived

RecentUnescopublications

129

143

157

169

189

191


4/195

Editorial:

The

ISSJ

in

Chinese,

Arabic

and

Turkish

W e are most

pleased

to

announce

that,

following

successful

negotiations

conducted

between the

editor

ofthis

periodical

and the

staff ofSocial Sciences

in

China

headed by

Ding Weizhi in

Beijing

in M a y 1983,a

full

edition

of the

ISSJ

in

Chinese

is to

appear

quarterly

beginning in 1984.

T h e Chinese edition will go underthe

titleofGuoji shehui kexue

zazhi,

editedby

Feng Shize from

offices

atGulouxidajieJia

158,Beijing.Itwillbetranslatedand produc

ed

under

the

general

responsibility

of

Social

Sciences

in

China,

a

periodical

issuedbi

monthly

inChinese and

quarterly

inEnglish

by

the Chinese A c a d e m y ofSocialSciences.

T h efirst number, corresponding to ISSJ,

N o . 91 (Images

ofWorld

Society),

is to be

followed by N o s . 92(Sporting Life) and 93

( M a n

in

Ecosystems). Starting

in 1985,all

ISSJissuesfor the previous year are to appear

regularly

inChinese.

Subscriptions

toGuoji

shehui kexue

zazhi

can be placed through

its

editorial

officesat the

rates

s h o w nin thetable.

T h e

appearance ofaChineseedition will

not only significantly extend our readership

but

also

nodoubt

increase

thenumberof

Chinese

contributorsto the

ISSJ.

Tofacilitate

communications,

Li X u e k u n willactasISSJ

correspondent in

Beijing.

Furthermore, arrangements have been

concluded with theCentre d'Etudeset Re

cherches

conomiques

et

Sociales

( C E R E S )

in Tunis, under the directorshipofthe ISSJ

correspondent inTunis, A .Bouhdiba, and

the publishingfirm,

Maison Arabe

du Livre,

Country/

currency

Africa ( C F A F )

Australia

(A$)

Canada(C$)

Federal Republic

of G e r m a n y

( D M )

France

(FF)

Japan (yen)

Other

Asian

countries ( U S $ )

Switzerland (SF)

United

K i n g d o m

andother

European

countries

( stg)

UnitedStates

and

Latin

America

( US $ )

Price

(percopy)

1 500

4.25

4.60

10

30

91.50

2.60

8

2.50

3.70

Annual

subscription

(surfacemail)

6

000

17

18

40

120

366

10

32

10

14

4

rue 7101

M a n a r

II,

B . P .

110 4 ,

Tunis,

for

the

publication

of

three

paperback

volumes

of translations into Arabicof thethematic

portions

ofISSJ, V o l . X X X I , N o . 3

(Patterns

of Child

Socialization).

Vol. X X X I I , N o . 3

( W o r k ) and N o .92

(Sporting

Life), in a

series entitled

'Sociological

Studies'. These

threevolumeswillalsoappear in 1984 ;others

m a y follow.

Lastly,

aselectionof

articlesfrom ISSJ,

Vol. XXVIII, No.

4,

Vol.

X X I X ,

No.

2,

Vol. X X X , No. 4, and principally Vol.

XXXII,

No. 2 (Dilemmas of Communi

cation:Technology

versus

Communities?)in


5/195

4

Editorial

Turkish

translation has appeared

under

the

title

ofIletiim ve toplum sorunlari:

kuram

ve

uygulama (Questions of

C o m m u n i c a t i o n

and

Society:

Theory

and

Practice)

published by

the Turkish Social Science Association/

U n e s c o

under

the

editorship

of D r Oy a

T o k g z . Another v o l u m e

on

' H u m a n

Settle

m e n t s andEnvironment'

will

be published in

1 9 8 4 ,

as

part

of the Turkish

series.

W e

wish to express our

gratitude

to Professor

Richard

Grathoff of the University of Biele

feld, Federal Republic of G e r m a n y , S e c

retary-Treasurer

of the

Research

C o m m i t t e e

for

Sociolinguistics

of theInternational

Socio

logical

Association

from

1 9 7 4

to

1 9 8 2 ,

for his

advice and

assistance

in

putting together

the

present

issue.

P.

L.


6/195

Languageinsociety

Thomas Luckmann

The

study of language

insociety

Looking at theremarkable achievementsin

the studyof languageduringthelast

years

and

decades,

andnotingthat

a

simple (or, perhaps

only seemingly simple) insight

c a m e to be

widely acknowledged during

the

earliest

phases

of

this development, one

is

strongly

tempted to

conclude that

the

connection

between these

two

facts

might

not have been

purely

coincidental.

Is

there, perhaps, acausal

relation?

T h e point that lan

guage

is a

communicat

ive

and

thus

a

social

p h e n o m e n o n

was, of

course,

not

new. M o r e

over, even

if it

had been

n e w ,

it

does

not s e e m

likely that

a

single

in

sight,

although un

doubtedly shedding an

unexpected light upon

the nature

of

language, would have been

in

itself capable

of

producing such

a

sudden

surge

in

the studyof language. The advances

in the various

disciplines

which,

incontradis

tinction

to the

traditional

limitation of the

several philologies to

language

as it

was

embodied

in

literary

texts,

took upthesys

tematicinvestigationof'living' language,of

language in use, might indeed have been

predicated on

the

notion that language

is a

T h o m a s L u c k man n

is

President

of the

International Sociological Associ

ation'sResearch

Committeefor

So-

ciolinguisticsand Professor

of

Soci

ologyattheUniversityofKonstanz,

P . O . B .

5560,

D - 7 7 5 0 , Konstanz

1,

Federal Republic

of G e r m a n y .

He

is theauthor ofThe Sociology of

Language (1975)

and

Life-world

and SocialRealities (1983)

as

well

asseveralotherauthoritativecontri

butions

to

the sociology

of

language

in G e r m a nand English.

social

fact.But the

recent rapid

accumulation

of

detailed

knowledge about language,

in

anthropology,

sociology,

psychologyand

' m o d e r n ' linguistics, is notprimarily attri

butable

to the

theoretical soundness

of

this

general point

but to the

painstaking explo

rationof

its

far-flung implications.

It is

due

to

yearsofconcentratedresearch

into

thesocial

construction,

socialtransmission,social func

tions

and

social

change of language.

In any case, the

gen

eral point today seems

so obviousnot to say

trivialhat it is diffi

cult

to

credit

it

with

having produced such

considerableeffects even

in

an

indirect way.

In

the

present

climate

of

scholarly

opinion

ittakes

a distinct

effort

to re

call

thefollowing

minor

but

interesting

historical

fact:

the

notion that

language

is

social,

al

though

of

ancientorigin,

only recently gained ground against other

and

partly

even

olderideas

about

the

essential

nature of

language.

N o w a d a y s

we

tend

toforget

that

thinking

about language

w a slong dominated by

biological

theoriesthat

werefirstspecifically creationist and theo

logical,

then

specifically

idealist,

subjectivist

and philosophical, and

later

specifically ma

terialistandreductionist.

T h e insight into thesocial characterof


7/195

Thomas

huckmann

WBP-

Hl

August

Wilhelm

von Schlegel (1767-1845), who

translated

Shakespeare

and

Caldern

into

G e r m a n ,

foundedSanskrit and Orientalliterature

studies

in

G e r m a n yand w asamajordisseminator of R o m a n

tic ideas

throughout

Europe.

Etching

b y G . Z u m p e

in the Bibliothque Nationale, Paris. Roger-vioiiet.

language m a y

be old, but the systematic study

of language

in

society

is anything but ancient.

B u t ,

then, of course, the systematic study of

anything whatsoever in

society

is offairly

recent

origin.

To be sure, one

m a y

think of

philosophy

as the truebeginning of

rational

and systematic thought from which m o d e r n

science

ultimately developed,

thus

m a k i n ga

casefor, say,Aristotle'sPoliticsandEthicsas

the beginning ofsocialscience. A n d ifoneis

unwilling

to

goback quite

that

far, one

still

cannot

miss the foreshadowing ofthingsto

c o m e

in the writings of

Vico

and,

s o m e w h a t

later,in thepolitical

e c o n o m y

of A d a m Smith

and

the

social

doctrines of

Saint-Simon.

Social

science as

w e

k n o w

it

today isnonethe

less

no

older than a hundred and

fifty

years;the

customary dating ofitsbeginningiswith the

publication

of

Auguste

C o m t e ' s

Coursde

philosophie positive, 1 8 3 0 - 4 2 . Neitherin its

prehistory,

withthe

partial

exception of

Vico,

nor in theearly

history

of

m o d e r n

social

science

is there m o r e

than

a

trace

of a

'sociological' approachtolanguage.

The

pos

sibilityof communicationin

society

w a s evi

dently taken to beessentiallyunproblematic,

whereas

the study of

language

as

a

separate

entity

w a s

left

to others.

T h e

study

of language,

taken

as an

autonomous

structurein

and by

itself,

had

a

different yetincertain

respects

parallelpre

history

and

history.

1

Until

theearly

nine

teenth century

little

progress had

been

m a d e

beyondthe (not in all

respects

inconsiderable)

linguistic knowledge

of

classical antiquity.

O n l y then did European scholars 'discover'


8/195

Language

in

society

7

Wilhelm vo n H um bo ld t

(1767-1835).diplomatand

philologist,

translator

of Pindar

and

Aeschylus

into

G e r m a n , scholar ofBasque and the ancient Kawi

language

of

Java,

most of whose important work

appeared posthumously

between

1836 and 1876.

Keystone.

Sanskrit and,perhaps even m o r e important,

the highly developed Indian tradition

of

rational,

systematic studyoflanguage. With

slight overdramatization one may

say

that

m o d e r n

comparative

linguistics

began

with

these twin 'discoveries'.Itm a y not be as

easy

as

in the

case

of

sociology

tosettle

on one

date and asinglescholar in order to m a r kthis

beginning.

H o w e v e r , after

making due

al

lowance

for the

attention

paid to Sanskrit by ,

a m o n g others,SirWilliam Jones

late

inthe

eighteenth century, and

the

von Schlegel

brothers, August Wilhelm

and

Friedrich,

earlyinthe nineteenth, the most important

figure

in the formation of

m o d e r n

linguistics

w a s

undoubtedlyFranz B o p p and

w e

m a ywell

note

thepublication date of his

ber das

Conjugationssystem derSanskritsprachein

Ferdinand

deSaussure (1857-1913), theSwisslin

guist,

w h o

published his

only

book

at21 years of

age. Hiswide

influence

w as

based

on

his teaching in

Paris andG enevaand on thecollectionof hislec

tures,publishedbyhis

disciples

in

1916

asCoursde

linguistique gnrale. Coll. prive nvel

Photo

Acschimann.

Vergleichimg

mitjenem dergriechischen, per

sischen und

germanischen Sprache

(On

the

System ofConjugation in Sanskrit,

compared

tothatin

Greek,

Persian andGermanic),to

wit,

1 8 1 6 .

The

fascination

with

etymological

reconstruction and the impressive successes of

the

comparative

method overshadowed any

consideration

of

the basic social function of

language anditsstructural consequences.It

w a s

along timebeforeanyoneevensuspected

thatkeyelementsof the

structure

oflanguage

m a y derive from itsuse,from social interac

tion.

With the

Y o u n g Grammarians

of the

following generation

the

model

of

physical

science prevailed in

their

confident search for

immutable lawsoflanguage. A n d despite the

growth

ofsignificantly different ideas on the

nature of

languagein

the

second

half of the


9/195

8

Thomashuckmann

nineteenth and then

in

thetwentiethcentury,

theorientation

to

this

model

prevailedwell

intoBloomfield'stime.

It

w a s

notedthat theearlydevelopment

of the

social

sciences,

especiallyof

sociology

and anthropology,

showed

s o m e

parallels

with

the development

of

modern linguistics.The

similar directiontaken by the

several

budding

sciences

of

h u m a n affairs was due

in

great

measure

totheeffect ofcertainintellectual

and ideological

paradigmswhich

c a m e

to the

fore during this period. T wo

particularly

influential

ones a m o n g

them,

physicalism and

biologism, their

m a n y differences notwith

standing,

jointly

left

a

legacy

of

pervasive

reductionist

attitudes.

In

consequence,

even

in thedisciplines involved in thestudyof

h u m a n

affairs,thespecifically

h u m a n consti

tution

of

social

realityw a s ignored or taken

to

be

a

matter

of

surface appearancesrather

than

the

profound nature

of

society. There

foreso

went

received opinionthe lawsof

economic,politicaland other kindsofsocial

(including communicative)

behaviour had

to

be sought beneath.

that

surface.

Another

paradigm

which

exerted a

certain

influence

on

the

social

sciences from

the

late nineteenth

century

onward,

historicism,

was

not re

ductionistbutseemedtodenythe very possi

bilityofagenuine scienceof

h u m a n

affairs,

no t excluding

language.

In place of the aim of

science

to

explain h u m a n behaviour n o m o -

thetically,it

offered themodestgoal

(to

s o m e

it

seemed

a

disappointingly modest one)

of

ideographicreconstructionand understanding

o f h u m a n

action.

Thus it is

hardly surprising

thatthe

parallelsindevelopmentledneitherto

a

close

relation

between

thenew sciences norto a

mutual interest intheir

respective

subject-

matters.

Remaining truetotheir

nature,

the

parallelsdid not

meet.

Littleserious

attention

w a s given

to

language

inthesocial

sciences,

justas

there

w a s

little

well-informed

concern

with society

in

linguistics. For

the

sake of

accuracy

one

must

acknowledge

that

there

were exceptions,

even

significant ones. It is

noteworthy, however, that

a m o n g

thethree

major

figureswho may

be

n a m e d

as the

foremost

examples, only one was placed

in

the

'mainstream'

of his

discipline,

whereasthe

other tw o

were

outsidersalthough

itmust

be

added

that

they werenot

outsiders

in

quite

thesamesense.

Wilhelm

W u n d t w a s

indeeda

major

figure

in his

field;

he

sensitivity

to

linguistic and,

generally,

communicative

issuesinhismain works in

psychologyand

ethnology

w a s ,

however,

exceptional

as

late

as the

turn

of the century.

Karl

M a r x w a s ,of

course,

anythingbut

a

recognized academic

figure;

in any case,thepassing remarkson

language

in his

early

writings, although poten

tially

important,

were

not

developedfurther.

Another academic outsider,

Wilhelmvon

Humboldt,

completes

the

list;

his

essays on

language

(among

whichthereis,for example,

o n e

on language andits'nationalcharacter

istics') andtheintroduction to hismajor

treatise

on

the

K a w i language

were remark

ably

'sociolinguistic' in spiritbeforethe

event,to

be sure.

In sociology, ethnology

and linguistics

this

situation

began

to

changeduring the

first

decade

of the present century. W h a t informer

times had

been

an

exception

to

prevailing

notions,at

that

timebecame the cornerstone

of an ambitioustheoreticaland

methodologi

cal

programme. Originallyrestrictedto

one

sociologicalschool

of

thought,

in

due course

thisprogramme

ledto a

pervasive change

in

the approachtothe study of

language.

If one

were to

yield once again

to the

temptationtosymbolizea

complex

process of

change byasingle

n a m e

and date, oneis

certain

to

select

withouthesitation Antoine

Meillet'sdeservedly

famous

essay ' C o m m e n t

les

mots changent de

sens'.

The

date:

1905-1906.

And

the

place

ofpublication:

L'anne sociologique]

The very

first

sentence

establishesthemainpoint of the programme:

' L e

langage a

pour

premire condition

l'existencedes

socits

humainesdont

il

est de

so n ct l'instrument indispensable

etcons

tamment employ . . .le

langage

est

donc

m i n e m m e n t

un

fait

social.'('Thefundamen

talcondition forlanguage

is

the existenceof

h u m a n

societies, ofwhich it is theindis

pensableinstrument, andinconstant use. . .


10/195

Languagein society

'Sociality

refers

to the

regulation

of whatever in a

species

has the

function

ofcommunicativebehaviour by

m ea nsof acode": Liverpool

footballsupporters displaying

ownership of a

section

of a grandstand and

transmitting

the group

image. RayGreen.

language

is thus an eminently

social

fact.')

2

Meillet thus placed himself in sharp

oppositionto thevarious

reductionist

viewsof

language

andsocietywhich were dominant in

linguisticsand thesocialsciencesatthattime.

H e fully

aligned

himself with Durkheim and

asserted, infull awareness of the theoretical

and

methodological

implications

of

this pos

ition,

that

linguistics

is, or at any

rate

should

be,asocialscience.His

teacher,

Ferdinand de

Saussurewho

together

with Charles S.

Peirce

was one of the founders of m o d e r n

semioticshad suggested as m u c h at approxi

mately

the s a m e time. In his case, too, the

influence of Durkheim is unmistakable.

3

Semiotics or, as he preferred to call it,

semiology,

w a s to be 'une

science

quitudiela

vie des signesau seinde la vie sociale;

elle

formerait

une

partie

de la psychologie

sociale'

('a

science

whichstudiesthe

life

ofsigns

within

sociallife; it is to be part of social psy

chology'emphasis

in the

original).

4

For

Durkheim. de Saussure and

Meillet

language

w a s a

social

institution,

irreducible

to psy

chologicalcircumstances orphysiologicalsub

strata.

It

differed from other social insti

tutions

only by its relatively autonomous

semiological

structure.

Henceforth the 'socio

logical'

approach to the study of language

steadily gained ground. It wasdiffused far

beyond

the boundaries of the

Durkheimian

school and the nascent semiotic m o v e m e n t .

A s w a s indicatedbefore, theviewof language

as the highly

structured

core of c o m m u n i

cation in societyhadalready been developed

in relatively ' m o d e r n ' terms byWilhelmvon

H u m b o l d t ; it had appeared aphoristically in

thewritingsof M a r x and, towards the end of

the

nineteenth

century, it informed the psy

chology and ethnology of

Wilhelm

W u n d t .

N o n e

the

less

it m a ybe

said

with

justice

that

it

w a s Durkheim, his

followers

in sociology and

ethnology and themajorlinguists

upon

w h o s e

thinking

he had exerted a

strong

influence


11/195

10 ThomasLuckmann

w h o decisively

changed

the

general

(and

international)climate of opinioninthe study

of

language. This changeaffected sociology,

linguistics,

ethnology and

psychology

at

varying

speed and

inunequal

measure,

but

eventually

it

affected

them

all.

M o s t

im

portantly,

in the

aftermath

ofthis

change

a

n e w discipline

was

born

which

c a m e to e m

body

the

'sociological' approachto

the study

of language,the sociology oflanguage.

Dating back theinception of thesoci

ologyoflanguage

to

Meillet'sarticle,

I

defini

tely

donotwishtoimplythatthen e w

discipline

emerged

overnight, nor do

Iwantto

suggest

that it

was

developed

exclusively

by

Dur-

kheim

and his

school.

Progress in the

field

was

relatively

slow during

thefirstdecades

and

increasedratherslowly in the

1950s.

T h emost

productive period

started

in thelate

1960s.

B y that

time

m a n y quitedifferent kinds

of

influence on

the

study

of

language could

be

registered,

s o m e of them of a

passingly

fashionable character,

s o m e of

more

lasting

consequence. Onlya

few

were

linked

to the

Durkheimiantraditioninsociology andthat,

asin the case of the

severalstructuralisms

and

of

renascent semiotics,indirectly.T h e

view

of

language

as asystemof

communication

with

socialfunctions, constructed, maintained and

modified in

social interaction

and as an

intrinsic

partof the

social

stock of

knowledge

(of

the

reprsentationscollectives)

,

which

is at

theheartoftheparadigmof the contempor

ary sociologyoflanguage,

none

the

lessstill

exhibits

significant traces

of the

original

Durkheimian

imprint.

In

the

spaceallottedIcannot

undertake

to

review indetail the

various important

threads of theory and research

which

are

w o v e n intothepresent

pattern

of thesoci

ologyoflanguage.

5

Instead Ishould

like

to

describe

in

general outlineI

hope

without

undue

simplificationwhat to

m y mind

is

n o w

the

paradigm of this discipline

'between'

sociology,

ethnology,

psychology

and

linguis

tics.

I

want

to

s h o w

which

assumptionsare

taken

tobetheoreticallysoundandinternally

consistent, productiveofhypothesesfor fu

ture research andconsonant

with

theresults

of

past investigations.

Ishall

not

report

on

specificfindings

6

butIwouldliketos u mup

those general points about the natureof

language insociety

which

seem to bemost

strongly supported

by the

findings accumu

lated

in the

sociology

of

language

since

its

programmatic

beginnings almost three-quar

ters

of

a

century ago.

Evolution

ofcommunication

andthehistoricalformation

of

language

W e r e one

to

accept

the

term

in its

widest

sense, all

communication

would

have

to be

considered'social'.

After

all,w h y

should the

transmission

of

information

from

one

cellto

another

not be

called

an elementary

form

of

social communication? Butcommunication

thatissocialin a strictsenseofthe wordis

communication that takes place between

or

ganisms and not within

themand perhaps

one

should add,between

fully

individuated

organisms. The elementary forms

of

c o m

munication

such

as

genetic

coding,

infor

mation processinginphysiological feedback

systems,

etc., are adaptiveinthe evolution of

life-forms. Social communicationin the nar

rowersensem a ynodoubtalsobe regarded as

an

adaptive process, even

if on a

more

complex level of the

organization

of life.

H o w e v e r ,

suchconsiderations of adaption and

evolution are so general and

abstract

as

to

be

ordinarily ofremote

interest

in thesocial

sciences. T o

them,

time-spans

of

an

entirely

differentorder ofmagnitude,and events

with

quite

different

kinds

of consequencesare

relevant.

Social communication

is ofinterest

inasmuch

as

it

determines

in asignificant w a y

the

everyday conduct

of the

m e m b e r s

of our

species andinsofar as

itconstitutes

the

fabric

of h u m a nsocialorganization. A nunderstand

ingofh u m a n communication m a y neverthe

less

benefit from

a

brief consideration

of

the

most

important

dimensions

of

social

c o m

munication

in

general.

These dimensions are sociality, reci

procity,

abstraction

and

intentionality.

Social-


12/195

Language in society

11

ity

refers

to the regulation of

whatever

in a

species has the function of communicative

behaviour by means of a code which is

establishedwhether by genetic program

ming,learningor a

combination

of the two

in a species or

groups

within the species.

Reciprocity is constituted in a continuous

alternation of 'feedback' from oneorganism

to another; itpresupposes

that

oneorganism's

ability to observe (and to 'interpret') the

behaviour of other organisms is imputedby

that

organism

to others and that its own

behaviour is correspondingly adjusted to an

ticipated observation (andinterpretation)by

them,

and vice versa. Abstraction is the

faculty

to

refer

in

communication

not only to

the concrete components of theactual

c o m

municative

situation but also to elements

transcending it in space and

time.

A n d inten-

tionalityrefers

to the

awareness

on thepartof

anindividualorganism of the communicative

repertoire of his species or

group,

and his

abilityto use it or,

under

circumstances,not

to use it.

Socialcommunication in

different

species

is evidently

characterized

by

different

kinds of

sociality,

different

forms of

reciprocity

and

unequal

degrees of

abstraction

as well as

intentionality. A n d it is, of course,

character

ized by

different

combinations of these di

mensions ofsocialcommunication.Sociality,

for

example,

is

programmed

for theindividual

members of

most

species in a rather

rigid

fashion; butwiththe m a m m a l s and

especially

with

the primates it begins to depend in

increasing

measure

upon

experience and

learning,

although it unquestionably continues

to be

based

on genetically more

directly

determined elements. Or, to take another

example, it is well k n o w n

thatabstraction

is

highly

developed

in thesocialcommunication

of thehoneybee but is absent or low inmost

other species, including

most m a m m a l s ;

it

reappears significantly with the higher

pri

mates.Intentionality

has,

ofcourse,extremely

complex

physiological presuppositions and

its adaptive value is probably linked to the

individualization

ofsocialrelationsincertain

m a m m a l

species (perhaps

mostpronouncedly

in hunting species?); it undeniablydoes not

appearuntillatein the evolution of life-forms.

W h e nflexible('individualized)sociality,

fullreciprocity,high

abstractionandadvanced

intentionality have evolved, their systematic

combination

allows for the

development

of

the

most

complex and

most

highly differen

tiated form ofsocialcommunication. W h a t

ever the conditions for the

separate

develop

ment

of these

faculties

and,morespecifically,

whatever the conditions for their systematic

combinationfull consensus on these

ques

tionshas notbeenreacheditseems

obvious

that they obtained in hominid evolution,

althoughtheir

combination

in a

fully

fledged

system

of

social

communication

m a y

be lim

ited

to hom o.

Another moot

question is

whether the development of such a

system

presupposed,or

was

co-ordinatedwith,ashift

to vocal expression. The evolutionary advan

tages of vocal language

must

undoubtedly

have been considerable.

7

With the mention of language westep

over

a threshold in the

development

ofsocial

communication. It divides 'natural'systemsof

social

communication from

'historical'

ones.

It

is a threshold of considerable importance

although, in a metaphorical sense,

history

itself may be said to have emerged from

nature

while,

at the same time, having re

mained

part of it. Putting it

differently, sys

temsofsocialcommunication are products of

natural selection,

and languagesbeing the

main elements of h u m a n social communi

cationare

therefore

unquestionably the re

sult

of evolutionary processes. But languages

are verypeculiar

systems

ofsocial communi

cation

and they are products of evolution in

a lessdirect

w a y than

social

communication

in other species.

T o be sure, language cannot be under

stood except as having evolved from some

prior and more primitive system of social

communication. And the functions of

language

m a y

be consideredanalogousto the

functions of

social

communication

in other

species, at least in a formal andabstract

sense. Yet languages cannot be understood

adequately only in simple analogy to older


13/195

12

Thomashuckmann

forms. W h e n

it comesto

language,

there is a

qualitative

change

in the

method

of pro

duction, transmissionand use of thesystem

of social communication. In other words,

language is an evolutionary emergent.The

elementary

presuppositions

for the

produc

tion, transmission

and use of the

linguistic

codeincluding

a

cognitive 'depth-structure'

that

must

presumably b epresentin the h u m a n

organismif anyof

theseprocesses

are towork

properlycontinueto be genetically

transmit

ted,

as part of the

h u m a n biogram.

8

B u t

the

linguistic

codes

themselves

are the

result

of

social interaction.

M o r e

precisely,

they

are

the

cumulative

historical resultofcommunica

tive acts; thetransmissionof the

code

consists

ofintentional

communicative

acts,too, andso

doestheordinary

everyday

use of thecode.

Before

takinga closerlook at

this n e w

level of social communication it

should

be

noted

that

languages

ashistorical

linguistic

codesdid not entirely

replace

thephylogeneti-

callyolderelementsof socialcommunication.

Thusa situation ofunprecedented

complexity

arose. Language became

the

main

and

most

important

system of social communication

a n d w a s substituted for

what

m a y

have

been

its primitivepredecessor as the main

code.

B u t

elements

of the phylogenetically older

components of social communication, most

importantly

those

linked

to

gesture, posture

and facial expression, continued

to

coexist

with

language.

Theyfilled

partiallyindepen

dent

communicative

functions and wereordi

narilyusedby

instinct.

B u t a certainmeasure

of consciouscontroland intentional use also

became possible. In face-to-face c o m m u n i

cation

the use of

language recombined

with

the

partly instinctive, partly intentional

e m

ployment

ofothermeansof social c o m m u n i

cation.

Moreover, the

development

of ab

stract codes based onother

than

thevocal

modality became possiblein analogyto the

development

of a

linguistic code. A n d

all

thisdoes

not

even take

intoaccountthe ad

ditionalhistoricalcomplexityand

richness

of

h u m a n systems of social communication

which obtained after the introduction of

notational

systems and of

writing.

T h e immediate

antecedentsof

languages

as historical

sign

systems were nonethe less

probably rather rudimentary

communicative

codeswhicharosefromuncodifiedorweakly

codified social communication. Thebegin

nings

of the

construction

of

communicative

codes

must

be traced

back

to a

stage

inwhich

phylogenetically older

elements

of social

c o m

munication

could

beused with considerable

flexibility and in which, at the same time,

highly individualized social interaction was

possible.Highly

individualized social interac

tion

is

characterized

byfull reciprocity and

thus

allowsfor effective intersubjective

mir

roring.

9

In such interactions those

elements

thatwererelevant to theotherparticipants in

the situationcouldbecommunicatedtothem

b y typical expressive forms of avocal, ges

tural,

postural and

mimetic natureand

the

expressive forms could

be reproducedand

imitated.

T h e

most important

itemsof

inter-

subjectiverelevancewere n o doubtsubjective

actionprojectswhichplayeda role in the co

ordination of social action such as, for

example, big-game

hunting,

marriage

ex

changes,

ritualization of

aggression, coping

withthe

dead,

etc.

It seems obviousthat atfirsthe objects

and events to which

communicative

acts

referred successfullyh a d to be in the c o m m o n

reach

of the participants in the

communicative

situation. But the importance ofdeixis

very

likely

decreased an d

therefore

this

limitation

could

be overcome after the faculty of ab

straction reached a certain level ofdevelop

ment.(It shouldbenotedinparenthesesthat

thisdevelopment neednot

have

beendirectly

and exclusively linked

to social

c o m m u n i

cation; another important

factor

m a y have

been the

adaptive value

of certain kindsof

generalization

for subjectivem e m o r y and the

planning

of individualaction.)In theprocess

ofintersubjectivemirroringtheproductionof

expressive forms became standardized,

and

the

interpretation of the meaning of an

expressiveform

by its

producer,

the interpre

tation of it by the

addressee,

andthisin

terpretation (by the

addressee)

as anticipated

by the

producer

became congruent for all


14/195

Language in

society

13

'Highly individualized social interactionischaracterized byfullreciprocityand thus allows foreffective

intersubjectivemirroring."Henri Cartier-Brcsson/Magnum.

practical purposes. T h u s

once

m o r e arela

tively

fixed

code

could be

established,

now

h o w e v e r

forintentional

use.

In

the

full

reci

procity ofthe communicative situation,with

an

increasing

degree

ofabstractionand

g r o w

ing

intentional

control

of

production and

interpretationof expressive

forms,

contextual

ellipsis

b e c a m e

possible. In other

w o r d s .

communicativeactscouldrefertoelementsof

the everyday realityofspeaker and

listener

wh ich transcended

the

communicative situ

ation inspaceandtime. T h e expressive forms

b e c a m e

proto-signs.

T h e y b e c a m e signs in thefullsense of the

w o r d w h e n therelation

between

thesig-

nificans,

thevehicle, theincorporationof

m e a n i n g , and the

signification,

the intended

m e a n i n g , b e c a m e

socially

obligatory. The

congruenceof

meaning

in

decoding and en

coding wasofcourseof

extreme

social sig

nificance. It

m u s t have been

subject tosocial

control from the beginning,that

is,

with

the

intersubjective construction ofproto-signs.

W e

ma y

speak

of aninstitutionalization of

proto-signs and thus oftheir

shift

to

fullsign

status as

soon

as such control was also

exercised

in

the transmission of the elements

of the code toothers, especiallytoanother

generation.

I n sum:languages arehistorical sign

systems.

T h e

bare

bones

of the

h u m a n

system

of

social

communication

are

shared by

the

m e m b e r s of thespecies;all the

rest

is the

productofsocial construction andhistorical

sedimentation.

L a n g u a g e ,socialreality

a n d

social structure

T h e point was m a d e that language is an

evolutionary emergent, whereas languages

are

formed

historicallyinspecific chains of


15/195

14

Thomashuckmann

communicative

acts over thelong

course

of-

generations.Languagethus'originates'phylo-

genetically

aswellas

ontogenetically,

in the

evolution

of

mankind and

in thelife-history

of

every h u m a n being,

in aparticular

form

of

social interaction:

in

acts

of

social

communi

cation. In general terms this defines the

relationbetweenlanguage an d society.

People

ordinarily

do .not

communicatein

order

to establish a

communicative code.

Theydo not talk

among themselves

in

order

tomaintainlanguage. Peoplecommunicatein

order

todosomething, with oneanother,

against each other and,onoccasion,by

themselves.

In communicative acts people

prepare

to

cope

with

the

diverse

problems

of

everyday

lifein

society.A n d they

oftenalso in

fact

cope

with

them

in

communicative

acts.

Evidentlycommunicationisnotallthereis to

it and there are m a n y kindsof social interac

tion that are not

communicativeunless,

in a

severe

bout

of

pansemioticism,

oneunduly

extendsthe meaningofthat

term.

It

m a y

be

said

with

justice,however,

that

communicative

acts define

reality

inasmuch asthey define

ways by

which

to act

upon

it.

To

a

certain

extent these

waysarepredefinedinlanguage;

and languageisthe repository ofpast c o m m u

nicative

acts in

which people coped

with

problems

of

everyday

life.

Languages

arethe

core

ofsocialstocksofknowledge. Theyare

no t only waysof

looking

at

reality

but also

waysofdealingwith

reality

and thus,evenif

indirectly,waysofmakingreality.

Language

and

society

stand

in adialecti

cal relationship

to

one

another.

Language

is

the product of an initiallypre- andproto-

linguistic

sequence

of

h u m a n

coping

with

life

and

the

world

insocial

communication. Life

and

the

world m a y

be

thought

of as

predeter

mined

by

'nature'

aswellas bya setofmore

or less 'natural' social relations, aprimitive

social structure. Coping with

reality

in c o m

municative acts,people begintoconstructa

coherentworld and at

the

same

time

tobuild

u p

a language 'unintentionally'.

W h e n

a

language

develops

as the

core

of social

c o m

munication

and

gainsacertain

autonomy

asa

systemof

signs,

asacomprehensive

inventory

of significations, it determines themaindi

mensionsof the acts of socialcommunication.

Therefore it

proximately

also

codetermines

the way

inwhich

people

dealwith

everyday

problems. Languageswhich

are

products

of

the

social

construction

of

realitymost

sig

nificantly contributetothe social

construction

of reality. Thus ahistorical social product

becomes an

important

factor insocial pro

duction and

reproduction.

Social

interaction, including specifically

communicative

acts,is

only

in part amatter of

objectivespontaneity and situation-bound and

concreteintersubjectivenegotiation.Inlarge

part it is predetermined socially. The

pro

portion

of interactional

freedom

to

structural

constraint

varieshistorically

from

societyto

society,

andwithin asocietyinanygiven

epoch from one

type

of

action

orsituationto

another. Communicative actsare of

course

predefined

and predetermined,firstand fore

most,

by thesocial

code

of

communication

and

the

core

ofthat

code,

a

language,

in its

'inner'

phonological,

morphological,

semantic

and syntactic structure and byits'external'

stratification

in

versions,

styles, registers,

socio- and dia-lects. Inaddition, communi

cativeacts are

predefined

and predetermined

by

explicit and implicit rules and regulations

of

the use of

language, most importantly

by everyday

(and

literary) communicative

genres,

forms

of

communicative

etiquette

(forms ofaddressandthelike),etc. M o r e

over, communicative acts, as a formof

social interaction, areprefinedand

predeter

mined

by

non-communicative

rules

and

regu

lations: by institutions, a set of social

relations,asystemof

production

andrepro

duction,inshort, byahistoricalsocial struc

ture. This is a matter which is to be

considered n o w in somewhat less general

terms.

10

Social

communication isdeterminedby

the social structure both diachronically and

synchronically. Languagesoriginate,develop

and

change

under varying social

circum

stances. Social

circumstanceswhich

m a yre

main relatively

stable or

change slowly

or

swiftlydetermine

theconditionsunderwhich


16/195

Languageinsociety

15

Overcoming unequal access

to

language:

the

experimental melograph,

amachine to

re-educate deaf

children.

B yvisualizingsound,itenables speakersto

control

the pitchof

their

voices, C N E T :Centrede

Traitement

de

l'Oue et de la Parole Fougres,

France

language is

used

in communicative acts.It

hardly

needs

to

be

repeated

that

c o m m u n i c a

tive actsareinstrumentalin

changing

social

circumstances. M o r eo v e r ,

they influencethe

development of theexternalstratificationof

language;

less directly and, ordinarily, also

less swiftly,

they influence the

maintenance

and thechangeofthe elementsin theinner

structureof

language.

In

v i e w

ofthese c o m

plex,many-layered and

many-directional

rela

tionsit

w o u l d

beimpermissibletouseasimple

(materialistic

or

idealistic)

m o d e l

ofcausa

tion. Social conditions,

social communication

and

language influence each otherinvarious

w a y s ,

inh u m a n space

and

in

socialtime. T h e

eventsinw h i c h these

influences

areconcrete

ly manifested are communicative acts.In

other

w o r d s , the 'causes'

'interact'

(it

is

necessary

to put both terms in inverted

c o m m a s )insocial interaction.

A particular

historical

social structure

thus

determined a

particular

chain

of

c o m

municative

acts. These acts stabilized s o m e

elements ofsocial communication, linguistic

as

well

asnon-linguistic ones, andmodified

others.

Thereby theycontributedtothe

m a i n

tenance

or to the

change,

whether

slow

or

swift,

ofthe externalstratification andinner

structure

of a

particular language.

A

particu

lar language determined thelinguisticcoreof

communicative acts, under

conditions

ofuse

w h i c h

w e r e

codetermined partly by

m o r eor

less obligatory rulesforthe use of thevarious

m e a n sofsocialcommunication (rulesforthe

m o s t part

e m b e d d e d

in theexternalstratifi

cation

of

language),

partly by

n o n - c o m m u n i

cative

rules of social interaction.

A n d

particu

lar communicative acts had specifiable direct

or indirect

consequences

forthe social struc

ture aswell

as

anaggregated

long-term

effect

u p o n the structure oflanguageitself.

Looking at therelation between society

and

language in aslightly different perspec

tive, w e see thatbothan individual'saccess

to

the m e a n s ofcommunication aswell as his

actual useof

t h e m

issocially determined.In

the

first

place

it is the

child's and

the

y o u n g

person'sinitialchanceofaccesstothereper

toireof the m e a n s of

social communication

w h i c h is

predetermined

bya

historical

social


17/195

16

Thomashuckmann

structure. The chancesofaccessaresocially

distributed. The distribution

derives

fromthe

prevailing

system of social stratification

which,

dependingon

time

andplace, m a ybe

anarchaickinship

system,

atraditionalcaste

or

feudal

society

or

any

of

the

modern

class

societies.

Socializationwhich

isbydefinition

acommunicativeprocessthusrepresents the

biographical

dimensionof social inequality.

In

addition

totheunequaldistribution ofgoods,

the structure of inequality consists of an

uneven

distribution of thesocial

stock

of

knowledge, andinparticularofthemeansof

social communication. There m a y merely

be

moderately

decreased

chances ofaccessor

there may

be

outright barriers,

economic

discrimination

orlegal orreligious prohib

ition.

11

In

the

second'place,

the

social structure

regulates

indifferent

ways

andby

various

procedures theactual

employment

of the

means

ofcommunication in

concrete

social

interaction. A s was indicatedearlier,the el

ements

of

social communication consist

both

of

theinternally structured andexternally

stratifiedlanguage,

and

of

the

less

systemati

callyandintricatelystructured (and generally

less strongly conventionalized)

mimetic,

gestural, postural,

etc.,

expressive forms.

Furthermore,

thereare

composite means

of

social communication which m a y becalled

communicative genres. These

are

obliga

tory

selections and combinations of the

linguistic andnon-linguistic elements of

social communication which

serve

specific

communicative

functions

in

socially

defined

typical situations,

by

socially defined typi

cal

producers, for socially

defined

typical

addressees. Theuse ofcommunicative

genres

is

thus

clearly also determined bysocial

structuralconditions.

12

The

terms

'socialconditions', 'socialcir

cumstances'

andsimilar

expressions have

been usedsofar inanencompassing senseto

refer to avarietyofsocial facts. These facts

have

in c o m m o n

that

they

are

characterized

by a

certain degree

of

intersubjective con

straint.

Whereas this

would customarily

also

include everything

connected with

social c o m

munication, it is clear that in thepresent

context only non-communicative social facts

were considered. But

w h e n

we

speak

of

'determination'

bysocial structure, a nar

rower

and

more precisely defined part

of

social

reality

is

meant,

the part that

is

marked

by

thehighest degreeofsocial control.

Such

controlisbasedon

sanctions

that are

backed

by

organized

power andconsideredlegitimate

by the

members

of a

society,

at leastin

general

principle,

permitting

m a n y exceptions

in fact.Thispart of social structure consistsof

a more

orless

coherently arranged

set of

socialinstitutions. Institutionsareobligatory

'solutions'

of

themost c o m m o n problemsof

the

social

organization

of life.

Institutional

ized social interaction is more

rigidly

con

trolled with respectto

means

and has

more

clearly

defined endsthan

otherkindsof social

interaction.

This

areaof social

life,

therefore,

exhibitsalow

degree

oftolerancefordevi

ations from established

procedure.

Insti

tutions

organize

the central

functions

of social

life,

such

asproductionanddistribution of the

means

of life

reproduction,

the

exercise

of

power,

and the

construction

of

'meaning',

thatis,oflegitimacyforthe socialorder and

of cognitive

coherence for

individual

life in

society.

Institutions

have

aspecific locationin

social

space

and

time

andthey m a y ,ofcourse,

be

also seen as a specific aggregationof

personnel.But essentially theyare a

code

of

action.

The

regulationofcommunicationisob

viously anelementary prerequisite for the

day-to-day

working

of

institutions.

The

flow

of

communication in

institutional

settingsis

channelled according to thefunctionalre

quirements

ofthe

institution.Frequency

and

direction of

communicative

acts are subjectto

normative

regulation.Specialcommunicative

networks m a y become

established and segre

gated in order to prevent outside, 'non

functional' interference. There

is, ofcourse,

considerable variation in thelevelof c o m

plexity

and

degree

of

specialization

which

characterizes

different

institutions

inthe

same

society,

andthe'same' institution fromone

society

to

another.


18/195

Languagein

society

17

For

thepurposeofcommunicationwithin

an

institution,

available

elements

ofsocial

communication such asstyles,

registers

and

even entire communicative genresareselec

ted from

thegeneralsocial stockofknowl

edge

and put

to

more

or

less

specialized use

such

as the

organization

of

work within

institutional

settings,

recruitment

and social

ization of

personnel,

etc.Underthe differen

tiated

functional

requirements

of

institutional

communication available

elements m a y

not

suffice and

n e w

special styles,

registers

and

genres m a y beformed. Selection

from

the

reservoir

ofsocial communication and ad

ditionsto itare,

however, only

partly deter

mined

by basic

functional

requirements

of in

stitutional communication.

Such

processes

are

also

motivated

byother thanthepurely

semiotic

functions of communication. It is

well

k n o w n , for example, that indicative

('marking')

and phatic ('solidarizing') func

tions playanimportant rolein the

develop

mentof

institutionaljargons.

13

A

society,

however,

isnot

only

a

system

of institutions

that

organize

thebasic func

tionsofsociallifein anobligatory

fashion.

Societyisalsoa setof (potentially or actually)

c o m m o n and (potentially oractually) antag

onistic interests. Under

certain

conditions

suchinterestswill beorganizedmore

or

less

effectively. In the

organization

of

interests

the

formulation

ofprogrammatic versionsof the

social stock ofknowledge, ofideologies,is

instrumental. It is a trivial observation that

such formulations

must

use theavailable

elementsofsocial communication. But

they

not

only usethem, they also change them,

and such changes m a y

initiate oraccelerate

changes

in language and

other

parts

of

social communication. In theorganization

of

c o m m o n andantagonistic class-based,

ethnic,

national andreligious intereststhe

marking

(perhaps

one

should

say 'demar-

cational') and the solidarizing functions

become more important than the semio-

logical

one.

Notes

1. Forapleasantlyandreliably

old-fashioned account

of the

developmentof

m o d e r n

linguistics

in

thenineteenth

century seeHolger Pedersen,

The Discoveryof Language:

Linguistic

Science

inthe19th

Century,Bloomington,

Indiana,

Indiana

University

Press,

1962

(Indiana University Studiesin

theHistoryand Theory

of

Linguistics);originally

C a m b r i d g e ,

Massachusetts,

Harvard

UniversityPress,

1931;

translatedfrom Danish by John

Webster

Spargo(originaltitle

Sprogvidenskaben

i

detnittende

aarhundrede: metoder og

resultater, C o p e n h a g e n ,

Gyldendalske

Boghandel, 1924) .

O n

Jones

see

also H a n s

Aarsleff,

TheStudyof Language

inEngland, 1780-1860,

Princeton, N e w Jersey,

PrincetonUniversityPress.

1967 .

For

abrief

general

review

of

the

developmentoflinguistics

inrelation

to

other

sciencessee

R o m a n Jacobson,

Main

Trends

intheScienceof

Language,

London,George

Allen

U nwin, 1973.

2 . ReprintedinAntoine

Meillet,Linguistiquehistorique

et

linguistiquegnrale,Paris,


19/195

18

Thomas Luckmann

Edouard

Champion,

1948

(1921).

The

quotationisto be

foundthereon

page

230.

3. See W . Doroszewski,

'Quelques remarques

sur les

rapportsde lasociologieetdela

linguistique:

Durkheim

et

F .

de

Saussure',

inPierreJanet and

Georges

D u m a s

(eds.),

Psychologiedulangage,Paris,

1933.

4 . Ferdinand de Saussure,

Coursde la

linguistiquegnrale,

Paris,Payot, 1955. Theoriginal

edition, writtenupfrom student

notes of de Saussure'slectures

between

1907

and

1911,

was

published by his

disciples

Charles

Bally and Albert

Sechehayein

1916

and thefirst

revisededitionappeared in

1922.

Itshould be notedthatde

Saussure'sinfluenceon the

developmentofmodern

linguistics

dependedatfirston

his teachingatthe University of

Genevaandlateron the

posthumous

publication

of the

book

mentioned

above.

During

his

lifetime

he had published

only

one importantlinguistic

essay, in

1878

at the age of

21

It

was

on the

vowel

in Proto-Indo-

European;Meillet's o w n

Introductionl'tude

comparativedeslanguesindo

europennes(1st ed. asLes

dialectes

indo-europens,Paris,

1903;rev. 2nd ed.,Paris,

Edouard Champion, 1907),

which

was

reissued

in the

AlabamaLinguistic

and

Philological

Series (University,

Alabama,University of

AlabamaPress,

1964)was

fittingly

dedicated to the master.

5. I

have

triedto dothis

elsewhere;

few reasonably

comprehensive

and concise

reviews

of the

fieldexist;

although

m a n yexcellent

volumesof readings,

introductions,

textbooks and

similar

publicationsare

available.

Seem y

'Soziologie der

Sprache'

Vol.

13 ofRen Knig

(ed.),Handbuch der

empirischenSozialforschung,

pp.

1-116,

Stuttgart,Enke,

1979,

which

contains an

extensive bibliography. (A

briefer

and

n o w

outdated

contributionto the

firstedition

oftheHandbuch (1969)was

published in an English version

asThe Sociology of

Language,

Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill,

1975.)

6. ForthatI

m a y

againreferto

the

book

mentionedin the

preceding

footnote.

7 .

Insteadof providing an

inadequatelybrief bibliography

I m a yrefer

to the

documentationin the following

two

essays:

Thomas

Luckmann,

'Elements

of a Social

Theory

of

Communication',Life-World

andSocialRealities,

London,

Heinemann, 1983(originallyin

Lexikon derGermanistischen

Linguistik,

Tbingen,

Niemeyer, 1973);and

Thomas

Luckmann, 'PersonalIdentityas

an

Evolutionary andHistorical

Problem',

Life-World

.. . ,

op.

cit.,

pp.

95-109

(originally

in M . v.Cranachetal. (eds.).

Human

Ethology:

Claimsand

Limitsof aNewDiscipline,

Cambridge, Cambridge

University Press,1980).

8. See E . W . Count,Dos

Biogramm,Anthropologische

Studien,

Frankfurtam Main,

S.Fischer

Verlag,1970. See

alsohis ' O n the

Phylogenesis

of

Speech',Current

Anthropology,

Vol. 15,

N o .

1, 1974,

pp.14-16.

9. Cooley'slooking-glasseffect

SeeCharles H . Cooley, Human

Natureand theSocialOrder,

N e wYork,

Schocken,

1967(first

published

N e w

York, 1902).

Credit for the discovery of the

workingsof

this

principlein the

genesis ofselfand

communicationmust

of course

go

to

George H . M e a d .

See

especiallyMind,

Self

and

Society,

Chicago, Chicago

University Press,1967(first

published1934).

Compare

also

m y

'The

Constitutionof

Languagein theWorldof

Everyday

Life', in Lester

E . Embree (ed.),Life-World

and Consciousness: Essays

for

Aron Gurwitsch,Evanston,

111.,

Northwestern

University Press,

1972;and

'Elements

of a Social

Theory

of

Communication',

in

Luckmann,

Life-World

.

. . ,

op.

cit.,pp.

61-91.

10. But of course not in thefull

detail

provided byareviewof

research. For

that

see

Luckmann, 'Soziologie der

Sprache',

op.cit.,pp.23-39.

11. For a discussion of

pertinent

studies,see

m y

'Soziologie der

Sprache',op.cit.,pp. 35etseq.

12 . Researchinto

this

set of

phenomena

isof

relatively

recentorigin

and the

main

contributions

stemfrom

the

ethnography

of

communication

andrelatedfields.See,for an

early

collection,

John

Gumperz

andDell

H y m e s

(eds.),

'The

Ethnographyof

Communication', American

Anthropologist,

N o .

66,1964;

see

also

Richard

B a u m an

and

Joel

Sherzer (eds.),

Explorations

on the

Ethnography

of

Speaking,

London,

Cambridge

University

Press, 1974,andLuckmann,

'Soziologie der

Sprache',

op.

cit.,

pp.

54et seq.

13.

Forareviewof

relevant

studies,seeLuckmann,

'Soziologie der

Sprache',

op.

cit.,

pp.

41

et seq.


20/195

Language in

society

19

Bibliography

A A R S L E F F ,

H .

The

Studyof

Language inEngland,

1760-1860.

Princeton,

N ew

Jersey,

Princeton

University

Press,1967.

B A L L Y , C .Linguistique

gnrale

etlinguistiquefranaise.2nd ed.,

Bern, 1944.

(1st

ed. 1932.)

B A U M A N ,

R.;SHERZER,J.

(eds.).Explorationson the

EthnographyofSpeaking.

London,

CambridgeUniversity

Press,1974.

B O P P , F.ber dasConjugations-

systemder Sanskritsprachein

Vergleichung

mit

jenen

der

griechischen, persischen und

germanischen Sprache.

Frankfurt, 1816.

(Revised

Englishtranslation.

Analytical

Comparison oftheSanskrit,

Greek,

Latin

and

Teutonic

Languages, 1820.)

C O M T E , A.

Cours

de

philosophiepositive. Paris,

MaisonRouen,

then Bachelier,

1830-42.

6 vols.

C O O L E Y ,

C. H.HumanNature

and

SocialOrder.

NewYork,

Schocken, 1967.(Firstpublished

N e w York, 1902.)

C O U N T , E.W .Das Biogramm.

Frankfurt amMain, S.Fischer,

1970.

(Anthropologische

Studien.)

. OnthePhylogenesisof

Speech.

Current Anthropology,

Vol. 15, No.1, 1974,

pp. 14-16.

C R A N A C H , M. V.et al. (eds.).

Human Ethology:

Claims

and

Limitsofa NewDiscipline.

Cambridge,

Cambridge

University Press,

1980.

D O R O S Z E W S K I , W .

Quelques

remarquessur les

rapports

dela

sociologieetde

la

linguistique:

Durkheim

et

F. deSaussure.

In:

P .

Janet

and G.

D u m a n s

(eds.),

Psychologiedu language.Paris,

1933.

D U R K H E I M ,

E .Education

et

sociologie.Paris,1966.

(First

published

1922.)

DURKHEIM,

E.; M A U S S , M.De

quelques

formes

primitivesde

classification.

Contribution

l'tudedereprsentations

collectives.Anne

sociologique,

V o l . 6,1901/2.

E M B R E E ,

L. E .

Life-World and

Consciousness: Essaysfor Aron

Gurwitsch.

Evanston,111.,

Northwestern

UniversityPress,

1972.

G U M P E R Z ,J.;H Y M E S ,D.

(eds).TheEthnographyof

Communication.

American

Anthropologist, No. 66, 1964.

H U M B O L D T , W .

v.:

ber

das

vergleichende

Sprachstudium

in

Beziehung

auf die

verschiedenenEpochen

der

Sprachentwicklung.

In:

Abhandlungen derhistorisch

philologischenKlasseder

kniglich preufiischenAkademie

der Wissenschaften aus den

Jahren1820-21.

Berlin,

1822.

.

ber die Verschiedenheit

des menschlichen

Sprachbaues

und ihren Einfluauf die

geistige

Entwicklungdes

Menschengeschlechts.

Berlin,

1836.

.

ber den

Nationalcharakterder Sprachen

(fragment).Zeitschriftfr

Vlkerpsychologie

und

Sprachwissenschaft, Vol. 13,

1882.

J A C O B S O N , R.

MainTrends

in

theScience ofLanguage.

London.George

Allen

Unwin,

1973.

J A N E T , P.; D U M A N S , G.(eds.).

Psychologiedu

langage.

Paris,

1933.

L U C K M A N N ,

T.The

Constitution

of

Language

in the

Worldof

Everyday

Life.

In:

L . E . Embree (ed.),

Life-

World andConsciousness:

EssaysforAron Gurwitsch.

Evanston,111.,Northwestern

UniversityPress,1972.

.

Elements

of a

Social

Theoryof Communication.Life-

World and Social

Realities,

p p .

61-91. London,

Heinemann,

1983.

.

Life-WorldandSocial

Realities.London, Heinemann,

1983.

.PersonalIdentity as an

EvolutionaryandHistorical

Problem.

InM .v.

Cranach

et

al..

Human Ethology:

Claims

and

Limits

ofa NewDiscipline.

Cambridge, Cambridge

University

Press,

1980.

.

Soziologie

der

Sprache.

In: R . Knig (ed.), Handbuch

der

empirischen

Sozialforschung.

2nd ed, pp.

1-116.Stuttgart,

Enke, 1979.(English versionof

thefirstedition: TheSociology

of Language,

Indianapolis,

Bobbs-Merrill, 1975.)

M E A D , G. H .Mind, Selfand

Society.

Chicago, Chicago

UniversityPress,1967.(First

published

1934.)

M E I L L E T , A. C o m m e n t

les

mots

changentde sens. Anne

sociologique, Vol. 10, 1905/6.

.

Introductionl'tude

comparativedes langues indo

europennes.

Paris,Edouard

Champion,

1907.

(1st

ed.

as

Les

dialectes

Indo-Europens, Paris,

1903.)

.

Linguistiquehistorique

et

linguistiquegnrale.8thed.,

V o l . 1.

Paris,1948.

1st

ed.

1921.)


21/195

20 Thomas huckmann

P E D E R S E N ,

H .TheDiscoveryof

Language:

Linguistic

Science in

the 19th Century.Bloomington,

Indiana, IndianaUniversity

Press,

1962.

S A U S S U R E , F. de: Cours de

linguistique

gnrale. 5th ed

Paris,

1955. (1st ed. 1916.)

W U N D T , W . Vlkerpsychologie:

Eine

Untersuchungder

Entwicklungsgeschichtevon

Sprache,

Mythos undSitte.

Leipzig,Engelmann, 1904.


22/195

if-;;A;'a3 HK

:

Social

progress

a n d

sociolinguistics

Yunus

D .Desheriev

O f all theacquisitionsof h u m a n beings and of

h u m a n

society, the earliest, the most im

portant

and the

most

indispensable

were

w o r k , language and consciousness,

which

developed in a process of

continual

inter

action.Theywill

retain

thissignificancefor as

long as humanity exists.

M a r x

stated that

'Language

is as ancient as consciousness;

language is . . .active consciousness, . . .

like

consciousness, languagearisesonly from

the pressing need for

communication

with

other

people' [1, p. 29].

According

to Engels the

tw o

main

factors

which

stimulated the formation

and development

of the

h u m a n brain werefirstly

w o r k and then, in con

junction with w o r k , ar

ticulated speech [2,

p . 490] . It should

also

be

emphasized

that

language

and

consciousness are a

product of

society.

A

fundamental

proposition

of M a r x and Engels,

which states

that

con

sciousness

' w a s

fromthe very

outset

a product

of

society

and

will

remain so for as long as

people exist' [1, p. 29], applies

equally

to

language. The study of the

socialnature

of

language

and of the way in

which

the dis

tinguishing

features

of a

society

manifest

themselves in language is very

complex.

Althoughits

social role

is

paramount,

language

is

nevertheless

a very complex

p h e n o m e n o n ;

Professor

Y u n u s

Desherievich

D e s h

eriev is head of the Section of

Social

Linguistics

at the

Institute

of

Linguistics

of the A c a d e m y of Sci

ences

of the U S S R ,

M o s c o w , chair

m a n

of the

Scientific

Council on the

relationship between

the develop

ment ofnational languages and the

development

ofsocialistnations,and

author of m o r e than 250workson

general

linguistics,

social

linguistics

and

the

Caucasus.

theinteractions

between

its

social

andbiologi

cal elements and its

uninterrupted

organic

links

with the

emergence

and

development

of

h u m a n

thought and

social

consciousness de

serve close attention.

Language

must

there

fore be studied from all angles, taking as

points of

departure

the

various

branches of

knowledge. This

w o r k

dealsprincipallywith

the

social

aspectof language.

It is well k n o w n thatthe developmentof

societyencouragesinten

sive differentiation

in

every branch of

knowl

edge, and the birth of

n e w disciplines at the

junctures of

other

sci

ences

is afeature of our

age .

This is as

true

for

the science of

linguistics

as for any

other.

Just as

biophysics

arose

from the

juncture of biology and

physics and

physical

chemistry from the junc

ture

of physics and

chemistry, social linguis

tics arose at the juncture of sociology and

linguistics.

In any attempt to determine the

role

of

social factors in the operation, development

and

interactionof languages atvarious

histori

cal periods, it is

essential

to

rememberthat

w e

are

dealing

with a very

complex

process in

which all the

varied facets

of the social,

economic,political,culturalandscientificlife

of

societyinterweave and

interact. W e

are not


23/195

22

YunusD. Desheriev

goingto try tounravel

this

intricate w e bthat

has evolved with thehistorical

development

of

society,but simply,ata very

general

theoreti

callevel,todefine

s o m e

of themost important

ways inwhich social factors have influenced

the

operation,

development and

interaction

of

languages.

T h eproblemism a d e evenmore complex

by

the

fact that

the componentsof language

andtheirfunctions, which are determined by

varioussocial

factorsassociatedwith thelogic

of

social

development, spontaneous change

and

the conscious influence ofsociety, them

selves

combine and interact in new w a y s ,

concealing, inthe process, the primary cause

of

other

phenomena

and

their

modification

or

transformation in the course of time;inother

words,

thechain reactionoflinguistic evol

ution

often obliterates

alltraceof its initial

cause. Thesocial factors

that

play suchan

important role in the development of a

language

can, of

course,

be

extremely

varied

in

nature and

includetheemergence

of

agriculturein s o m e tribes andof

cattle-

farming in

others;

the emergenceof thestate,

of

primary and secondary schools, and

of

institutesofhigher education; thedevelop

ment ofvarious branches of the economy

and

industry; literacy, which is the

fruit

of

the mental activityof

mankind;

the

emerg

ence anddevelopmentofscience,

various

aspects

of

culture

andthe

arts;

theappear

ance

of

periodical

publications, the

cinema

andtelevision.

T h e social

approach

to thefactsof

language,

like

the

structural

approach,

is

not

n e w

in thehistoryoflinguistics.Thesocial

approach has atradition behind it, asevi

denced

byworksof M a rx and Engels suchas

The

German Ideology (1845-46) [1], Anti-

Diihring (1876-78) andTheOriginof the

Family, PrivateProperty and theState (1884)

[3].

Greatattentionhasbeendevoted to both

these aspects

bywriters on philosophy and

traditional linguistics(cf.

R . O .

Shor)

[67].

Great

progress

was

thus

m a d e

in the

nine

teenthcentury

in the

investigation

of language

as asocial

Documents

Interaction Through Language