Language as a communication resource and its place in the representation of world practices: philosophical and linguistic approach

Vadim Mikhailovich Vysotki; Ekaterina Viktorovna Patalashko; Victoria Evgenievna Stepanenko; Tatiana Valerievna Makarova; Iuliia Andreevna Balabanova

doi:10.21744/lingcure.v5nS3.1621

Authors

Vadim Mikhailovich Vysotki
vysot@mail.ru
St Petersburg University, 7/9 Universitetskaya Emb., St Petersburg 199034, Russia
Ekaterina Viktorovna Patalashko St Petersburg University, 7/9 Universitetskaya Emb., St Petersburg 199034, Russia
Victoria Evgenievna Stepanenko St Petersburg University, 7/9 Universitetskaya Emb., St Petersburg 199034, Russia
Tatiana Valerievna Makarova Kuban State University, Stavropolskaya Street, 149, Krasnodar 350040, Russia
Iuliia Andreevna Balabanova Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), 76, Prospect Vernadskogo Moscow 119454 Russia

Keywords:

communication resource, language, philosophical and linguistic approach, world practices

Abstract

The paper considers language as a communication resource and its place in the representation of world practices is evaluated from the standpoint of a philosophical and linguistic approach. The authors note that discussions of language are necessarily based on ontological, sometimes contradictory ideas about languages or language use. These reports are not limited to categories that attempt to describe and analyze them. Moving forward, there are still opportunities for more interaction with language ontologies. Thinking in the ontological register is not an interpretation or description, but rather, much more importantly, it is the identification and display of hypotheses hidden in the world of language. Researchers insist on assigning ontological significance to various practices and regulations. This requires moving away from ideological analysis and the assumption that they represent multiple points of view that illuminate various partial aspects of an independently existing and ultimately determined phenomenon, and towards an approach that aims to purify reality - worlds - as created through practices. It can be stated that specific ways of perceiving a language are more complex and, therefore, more comprehensive descriptions of languages. It is inevitable that contradictory ideas about language can coexist.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Alberti, B., Fowles, S., Holbraad, M., Marshall, Y., & Witmore, C. (2011). “Worlds otherwise” archaeology, anthropology, and ontological difference. Current anthropology, 52(6), 896-912.

Appleby, R., & Pennycook, A. (2017). Swimming with sharks, ecological feminism and posthuman language politics. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 14(2-3), 239-261.

Belhassen, Y., & Caton, K. (2009). Advancing understandings: A linguistic approach to tourism epistemology. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(2), 335-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2009.01.006

Bernolet, S., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2009). Persistence of emphasis in language production: A cross-linguistic approach. Cognition, 112(2), 300-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.013

Blaser, M. (2013). Ontological conflicts and the stories of peoples in spite of Europe: Toward a conversation on political ontology. Current anthropology, 54(5), 547-568.

Blaser, M. (2014). Ontology and indigeneity: on the political ontology of heterogeneous assemblages. Cultural geographies, 21(1), 49-58.

Bolander, B., & Sultana, S. (2019). Ordinary English amongst Muslim communities in South and Central Asia. International Journal of Multilingualism, 16(2), 162-174.

Borris, D. ., & Zecho, C. . (2018). The linguistic politeness having seen on the current study issue. Linguistics and Culture Review, 2(1), 32-44. https://doi.org/10.37028/lingcure.v2n1.10

Candea, M., & Alcayna-Stevens, L. (2012). Internal others: ethnographies of naturalism. The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology, 30(2), 36-47.

Chaves, M., Macintyre, T., Verschoor, G., & Wals, A. E. (2017). Towards transgressive learning through ontological politics: Answering the “call of the mountain” in a Colombian network of sustainability. Sustainability, 9(1), 21.

Chernela, J. (2018). Language in an ontological register: Embodied speech in the Northwest Amazon of Colombia and Brazil. Language & Communication, 63, 23-32.

Chomsky, N. (2015). What kind of creatures are we?. Columbia University Press.

Chuu, S. J. (2011). Interactive group decision-making using a fuzzy linguistic approach for evaluating the flexibility in a supply chain. European Journal of Operational Research, 213(1), 279-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.03.022

Cowley, S. J. (2019). The return of languaging. Chinese Semiotic Studies, 15(4), 483-512.

Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2011). Separate and flexible bilingualism in complementary schools: Multiple language practices in interrelationship. Journal of pragmatics, 43(5), 1196-1208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.006

Cummins, J. (2014). Beyond language: Academic communication and student success. Linguistics and Education, 26, 145-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.01.006

Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource-based theories. Journal of management, 26(6), 1091-1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(00)00075-1

Fischli, A. E., Godfraind, T., & Purchase, I. F. H. (1998). Natural and anthropogenic environmental oestrogens: the scientific basis for risk assessment. Pure Appl. Chem, 70(9), 1863-1865.

Gede Budasi, I. & Wayan Suryasa, I. (2021). The cultural view of North Bali community towards Ngidih marriage reflected from its lexicons. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17(3), 1484–1497

Jacquemet, M. (2005). Transidiomatic practices: Language and power in the age of globalization. Language & communication, 25(3), 257-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2005.05.001

Jing, F. (2017). Investigating intentionality of linguistic landscapes from the multilingual commercial signs. International journal of linguistics, literature and culture, 3(5), 46-52.

Keohin, H. C. ., & Graw, N. J. . (2017). Linguistic and cognitive ability of children before five years old on their effort to communicate action. Linguistics and Culture Review, 1(1), 50-59. https://doi.org/10.37028/lingcure.v1n1.5

Louhiala-Salminen, L., & Kankaanranta, A. (2012). Language as an issue in international internal communication: English or local language? If English, what English?. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 262-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.021

Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch, D., & Welch, L. (1999). In the shadow: The impact of language on structure, power and communication in the multinational. International business review, 8(4), 421-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-5931(99)00015-3

Martínez, R. A. (2013). Reading the world in Spanglish: Hybrid language practices and ideological contestation in a sixth-grade English language arts classroom. Linguistics and Education, 24(3), 276-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2013.03.007

Yani, L., Artawa, K., Satyawati, N. M. S., & Udayana, I. N. (2018). Transitivity construction of verbal clause in Ciacia language. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture, 4(3), 15-23.

Zu, Z. (2021). The right contextual information determining the success of communication on translation. Applied Translation, 15(1), 39–43. Retrieved from https://appliedtranslation.nyc/index.php/journal/article/view/1423