Page 121 - Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Language

the interaction model (see Sect. 1.3), and to the notion of consensual domains as prerequisite for the process of communication in the autopoesis model (see Sect. 1.4).
Many linguists involved in a sociological descrip- tion of language choose this option. Approaching language from the corpus of messages, and not from a hypothetical, abstract system, one is struck by the heterogeneity of the data. Not only is communication a multi-dimensional semiotic, where verbal and writ- ten language play a subordinate role (as inphenomena of the 'double bind' type), but communicators may use different signification systems simultaneously,or even systematicallybreak such systems'unconscious normative rules. This heterogeneity in communicative activity could be interpreted as a process of sig- nification whose variation is an index of the con- flicts between different, incompatible signification schemes.
An example of how such a linguistic heterogeneity and flexibility in verbal communication can be lega- lized as the norm of a national written language is furnished by the two standards of written Norwegian. These standards represent two languages, in fact two competing conceptions of what constitutes 'Norweg- ian.' Since these conceptions are socio-culturally determined, the languages could be called written sociolects. In each language, a great number of morphemic and lexemic variants are admitted. For instance, the following are all possible determiners of the singular substantive bok 'book': bok-en, bok-a, bok-i 'the book.' On the lexical level, variation is allowed, where other written languages normally would have only one lexeme. For instance, two vari- ants for the lexeme 'language' are possible: sprog, sprak. Morphological variants such as these have different social, political, stylistic, regional, etc. mean- ings dependent on context and genre; these different meanings are familiar to every relatively language- competent Norwegian. For a descriptive, synchronic grammar of written Norwegian which pretends to be exhaustive, it is thus necessary to allow for situational rules, sociological parameters, and the like. It is not in principle possible to reduce the morphemes -en, -a, -i to a single abstract archimorpheme, or the lexemes sprog, sprak to one and only one invariant ideal. In fact, the history of written Norwegian in the twentieth century is characterized by a willingnesson the part of the language planners to accept a great many variants, because of these variants' different meanings in different contexts and situations. Inter- estingly enough, this sociologically determined multi- dimensionality seems to be one of the crucial factors that explains why Norwegians generally are much bet- ter at understanding their closely related neighbors, the Swedes and the Danes (who use written codes of the more uni-functional type), than the other way round.
2.2.3 Communication and Language as Complementary Phenomena
The third alternative to the abstract objectivist view of language and communication is to claim that the elements in the opposition are complementary to each other. Language is both a signification system and communication (understood as a set of messages); this relation cannot be understood as an either-or. Therefore, language phenomena are conceived of as a process (i.e., communication of messages) and a product (i.e., a signification system), both at the same time. Which aspect one focuses upon is determined by one's theoretical model and one's more or less explicit interests in the study of verbal messages.
As a signification system, language is viewed as an open system or semiosis. The system is not finite, but as a social reality, it is open for modificationsof different kinds, such as restructuring and creativity during communication. The signification system thus has the form of a variation grammar, a system of multifunctional potentialities, allowing for orderly variation and flexible regularities. These regularities can be described not in the form of abstract 'rules,' 'principles,' and the like, but as social norms or even potential 'resources,' i.e., arbitrary conventions grounded in communication. More specifically, gram- mar is conceived of as a network of relations: a sys- temic network, not a system of rules.
From the communication angle, language can be viewed as some socially controllable elaboration and/or modification of an earlier established reality, i.e., an already internalized system. But com- munication-as-language can also be conceived of as the creation of such a system. One consequence of this language conception is seen in our understanding of the language acquisition process. In this process, the child is not interpreted as a passive agent, but as an active and meaning-seeking organism trying to adapt itself during either the dialogue, interaction, or self- regulation process, towards an environment and other communicators in the environment.
Furthermore, this conception neutralizes one of the classical oppositions in the abstract, objectivist con- ception of language, namely that between diachronic and synchronic. A s a communication process, language seeks a stability that can never be achieved. Diachronicity is an inherent quality of language; the synchronic is merely a fixation of this diachronic qual- ity, necessitated uniquely by the conscious ration- alization of a supposed mutual intelligibility, by the need for an abstract, objectivist description of language, or by the language planner's urge for codi- fication; for all of these, translating process to product is an essential demand.
3. Linguistics and Communication
The phenomena of communication have often been thought of as peripheral in linguistic research. This
Communication
99