This paper deals with the opposition between the “natural” and the “artificial” cultivation of the standard language. The author gives arguments in favour of the standpoint that adequate regulation of the standard language requires taking into consideration its character. He defends the thesis about authentic cultivation of this language, i.e. about the “genuin” linguistic activities causing adaptation changes in the language or acting against changes. This cultivation supports the autonomous character of the behavioural linguistic competence, and in this way also the tendency at asserting endogenous linguistic standards. It means the supporting of the development of linguistic activities within the spirit of their rationality and in the name of the expansion of the linguistic comfort in communication life. Such cultivation supports the optimization of the interaction of linguistic behaviour (behavioural linguistic competence) and linguistic activities (action-based linguistic competence), hence the optimal functioning of the intentional-emergent mechanism governing linguistic activities.
The author of the paper asks the question why Slovak speakers use grammatical forms such as “budeme sa sústrediť” or “vidíme sa (zajtra)” in spite of their standard command of the grammatical rules. The linguists refer to this by saying that the speakers are under the influence of negative factors and the author draws attention to three reasons: the power of tradition, logic and ideology. A grammatical behaviour like this can be regarded as a cue that we have to do with two modalities of the grammar. However, the linguists and people under the influence of the school start from the assumption that the grammar exists only in the rational modality and they are reacting to the grammatical behaviour in the linguistic practice according to their assumption. This text is meant to encourage readers to overcome this convention and to pay attention to the grammar in the practical modality too. The author suggests that we could begin our exploration of the grammar in this modality by thinking about the grammatical disposition of fluent speakers and this can be done by starting with the theory of background of J. R. Searle.
The author starts with an interpretation of the will in the works of A. Schopenhauer and attempts to deduce the basis of rationality of natural language from the principle of will. It develops the thesis that the basis of natural language rationality lies in the objective-subjective will of language practice, including acquisition, operative and reception practices. First he explains the objective and subjective will, then describes these practices in terms of their objective and subjective will and in the end draws attention to the fact that it is a complex linguistic practice. The author's second thesis is that the will is encoded in the coherence of language practices, which is represented by the relationship between the assimilation base and the reactions realized within language practices. He attributes decisive importance to reception practice, which implies that the existence of property of the sense field “natural language” is a comprehensible existence. This existence is an order of its own that functions as the basis of the rationality of natural language.
Traditionally, the Slovak language community pays great attention to language culture, which is well understood by those who know the history of Slovaks. However, the author argues that communication culture is more important in the present living conditions of Slovaks, so the current task of linguistics is its systematic investigation, from which conclusions can be drawn for cultivating communication in the Slovak environment. It lists eight factors that justify the need to focus on this topic, explains the evolutionary origin of human communication and its meaning to better understand this phenomenon, and describes the components of a communication culture. The term communication culture is defined from the semiotic position as an open complex of communication activities of members of the language community, which reproduce and produce communication formations, communication forms and expressive forms with interpretations. This definition also predicts the idea of cultivating language communication.
The author develops the thesis that inclusive communication is a means of promoting social inclusion as a process of forming a society characterized by freedom, solidarity, equal opportunities, rights and obligations. He focuses on the question of how language communication can contribute to the contextual neutralization of social and cognitive barriers that allow for active participation in public life. His answer is that this is possible by cultivating communication at the reference, relational, self-presentation and appeal levels, because this also cultivates individuals as social, epistemic and self-reflexive subjects. Cultivating the inclusive use of language is about improving the ability of individuals to use the communication potential of language to optimize the ethical, epistemic and self-reflexive realization of social inclusion. Factors that support inclusive communication self-realization are crucial. The author analyses these factors and sheds light on communication problems associated with social inclusion.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.