Language community definition. terminology 2022-12-24
Language community definition Rating:
A language community is a group of people who share a common language and culture. It can refer to a specific geographic region where a particular language is spoken, or it can refer to a group of people who speak the same language but are dispersed across different regions.
Language communities can be thought of as hubs of cultural and linguistic exchange. They provide a sense of belonging and identity for their members, and they play a crucial role in the transmission and evolution of language and culture.
Within a language community, there may be various dialects and variations of the language spoken, depending on the region or group of people. These dialects can reflect the unique cultural and historical experiences of the community and serve as a source of pride and identity.
However, language communities can also face challenges and discrimination. For example, in some countries, speakers of minority languages may be marginalized or discriminated against because of their language. In other cases, language communities may be threatened by language shift, which is the process by which a language is replaced by another, often due to the influence of a more dominant language or culture.
Despite these challenges, language communities are important for preserving linguistic and cultural diversity and for promoting understanding and communication between different groups. They can also serve as a source of inspiration and innovation, as the exchange of ideas and experiences within a language community can lead to new perspectives and ideas.
In conclusion, a language community is a group of people who share a common language and culture and play a vital role in the transmission and evolution of language and culture. They can face challenges and discrimination, but they also serve as a source of pride, identity, and innovation.
What Is Community Language Learning?
The best argument that the ontology of language is analogous to the ontology of mathematical objects is that some linguists are concerned merely with extensional adequacy. Unfortunately, the language criterion for independence does not always hold. We could have a scientific theory about the local language used by so-and-so and so-and-so in such-and-such particular interaction, but that wouldn't be an interesting or useful subject for science. A linguistic community, also known as a speech community, is the title given to a homogenous group of people bound together by a common language or similar linguistic habits. Davidson 1986 attacks the existence of language from a somewhat different angle. If the difference between the two was merely one of perspective, they would, in the end, be after the same answers, but this is manifestly not the case. So Devitt argues that the psychological ontology of language not only fails the third criterion, but also falls short of the second, since it's not the primary object of study even for linguists who say that it is.
Criteria for a Conception of Language Debates over the proper subject matter of linguistics and correct ontology of language tend to come back to the same small set of issues, and by identifying these we can pick out the key criteria for a valid conception of language. Consequently, somebody is interested in language qua abstract object. And if linguistic entities are intentional inexistents, then they are found purely in the realm of the mental, which might tell against the social ontology of language in favor of a psychological one. What Is The Role Of The Teacher In Community Language Learning? While Mozambicans use Portuguese as the language of government and education, they are increasingly turning to English, too, as they develop deeper political and economic links with other nations. Emotional well-being is as strong as intellectual ability.
The Structure and Function of Explanations. We'll begin with the most-discussed type of linguistic ontology, treating language as a component of individual minds. Theories of nationalism, democracy, regional assertiveness, and civil war have relied on vague and unspecified notions of linguistic heterogeneity, based upon estimates of the "mother tongues" of a population. Moreover, even if Davidson's puzzle gives some prima facie reason to be skeptical that languages exist, we can safely ignore that skepticism, just as we safely ignore philosophical skepticism in the sciences generally. It must, for example, reject all the ungrammatical sentences of the language, and identify all the analytic sentences of the language as unconditionally true. It isn't always the case that objects of scientific study need to be able to be outlined in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions, or even be clearly defined. That is not to say, however, that the method of discourse processing treats messages as solely governed by psychological processes, because a considerable amount of attention is also paid to contextual factors.
The Journal of Philosophy, 110 12 , 645—662. Moreover, isolationism and insistence on incommensurability are antithetical to the important research project of understanding the connections between the three different types of object called 'language. Is semantics a branch of mathematics, or is it as on the Chomskian view of all of linguistics a branch of psychology? The argument hinges on the potential for linguistic innovation. To establish that the idealizations leading to E-language are problematic, Chomsky appeals to the unity of the sciences as a desideratum. This is desirable, he thinks, because the further we travel up the ladder of sciences, the closer we get to understanding the real mechanisms behind phenomena. Even if for some reason we did decide to approach the subject by looking at the blacksmith rather than the horseshoes themselves, we wouldn't think that her mental representations were the real horseshoes, and the shaped metal bars only objects of peripheral interest. Portuguese, Greek, and German is spoken by smaller communities from Europe.
The Definition and Characteristics of a Language Community
Empirical problems on getting standards of "knowing" a language and theoretical ones concerning whether the ability to communicate is sufficient for an indicator of cultural homogeneity beset these measures. Note the clear disanalogy with the horseshoe example: the varieties of data used by the psychologically-oriented linguist really are held together by the common thread of having a connection to the mechanisms of linguistic cognition. Since then, there have been many attempts, none completely successful, to solve Galton's problem. Dialogue systems research attempts to recognize plans and intentions in speech transcripts and to respond to them constructively and naturally. The most compelling reason to give up on one of the three facets of language would be to show that it either doesn't actually exist or that it is unsuitable for scientific study, and several philosophers of linguistics have tried to make just such a case. It was ultimately the social connection to artificial intelligence, particularly to knowledge representation, that brought CL out of its ideological shell with respect to presuppositions about language and meaning.
The reverse is true for the other. There are many approaches to the study of discourse, and the term has had a checkered history in terms of how it is defined and used in academic disciplines. The change was intended to encourage research across regions and on transnational processes, but it also reflected the growing hostility of the social science disciplines to area specialists and the enterprise of interdisciplinary area studies. For example, teenagers speak in slang that only other teenagers seem to comprehend; immediate and extended families sometimes share linguistic patterns that possibly spring out of running, private jokes; groups of friends understand each other better than outsiders. Read more Navigate Down Area and International Studies: Sociology P.
The Construction of Social Reality. A particular scientist could come up with an idiosyncratic ontology which satisfies 1 and perhaps 2. My claim stands, however, as longer as either a a significant number of linguists are not fictionalists about languages, or b the objects that 'English,' 'Southern Paiute,' and so on are convenient shorthand for are sometimes social objects. Instead, relation ql T t, x describes temporal location and it is used to formalize, e. A person falls into the category Agentive Physical Object APO which is different from the category of social entities, called Social Object SOB , where we find things like organizations, companies, and their institutional artefacts such as constitutions and cheques. When we look at what linguists actually study, the common thread seems to be the external symbols used for communication. Note the distinction between finishing a book an achievement and reading a book an accomplishment.
In Philosophical Papers Vol. . The implicit assumption is that scholars do research in their own areas to contribute to collective sociological knowledge, and area-specific research or knowledge has no independent significance. This principle is restricted to the context of the scientific study of language. If they did, all vague predicates would pick out entities inaccessible to scientific study. Classical formal semanticists, who take the first disjunct in these choices, follow David Lewis in distinguishing semantics from knowledge of semantics, making semantic competence interestingly different from syntactic competence. This is because linguists who favor this third option for the ontology of language often argue for it on the grounds that we need an ontology for mathematical objects, and we can use that same ontology for language.