The social function of language
When distinguishing earlier between langue and parole we saw that language can be studied as a stable structural system or in terms of its relation to social features. Subsequently we have been preoccupied with aspects of the system of language. In this chapter we shall examine more closely the importance of being aware of the varied social functions of language in determining the content of language learning. We can do this in three ways: first, by looking at the indi-vidual in the speech community and asking for what social purposes he uses language and how social norms influence his choice of lingu-istic forms, secondly, by looking at how the individual chooses langu-age to express his intention and achieve effects; thirdly, by looking at societies in which more than one language is used to see how the varied relationships between languages, as well as the status of each one, channels decisions about the objectives and methods of language teaching.
Social norms
Few of us are aware of the range and variety of our uses of language during even one typical day. Language will occur almost wherever we come into contact with other people and will be different accord¬ing to the nature of the contact. Language also assails us even in situations in which no other people are present or when other people are present but are not producing language for our consumption. Even people whose jobs may not appear to demand extensive use of language are placed in numerous situations which will require characteristic pieces of language. The linguist can study the relations between language forms and social context to understand how the individual's choice of language enables him to perform his social functions. Let us look at some of the important social influences on language use.
Dialect
The first set of influences produce dialect features. These are theproduct of the individual's geographical and class origin. Educational xperience is also significant, but this is partly dependent on class anyway. If two speakers differ in grammar pronunciation and vocabulary,
we will conclude that they speak different dialects. Variation in pronunciation, but not in grammar and vocabulary, would be considered difference of accent. There is no clear quantitative linguistic measure to indicate where difference of dialect becomes difference of language. The issue is political and social, not linguistic.Everybody speaks a dialect, which is not seen, as it is traditionally, as some kind of deviation from the norm of standard English. Nor would a linguist feel that there was any linguistic justification for saying that one dialect or accent is better than another. It is a socialjudgment that leads people to say that one English dialect is the correct one.
Dialect is not an important type of language variation for teaching. Although the potential teacher and the advanced learner might be made sensitive to the fact that there is dialect variation in the target language just as there is in their mother-tongue, we rightly settle for the teaching of a single dialect to most learners. All language teaching, however, at least implies an assumption about the best dialect to teach.
If asked to justify the teaching of the metropolitan standard that is normally adopted as the model for foreign language teaching, we would presumably say that it is the form of language most acceptable to the native speaker and therefore the form that will enable the non-native speaker to be accepted by the host community. This seems a powerful justification. But, if this is valid, it cannot also be valid to teach the standard form to learners whose contact is likely to be speakers of a non-standard variety. Should not Americans learn Mexican rather than Castilian Spanish and Canadian rather than metropolitan French? Should not French-speaking Swiss learn a Swiss variety of German? Can we expect that before long Indonesians will be learning Australian rather than British English? If these varieties were to be accepted as the target languages it would be because they were the forms of the language with which the learners were most likely to be in contact. A different situation arises when the language being learned will be used where there is no native speaker present. It is being acquired not primarily to different synonyms, antonyms and hyponyms that a word has may well be the only way that the full meaningfulness of a word can be brought out. Extensive reading in a Foreign language without directed study of vocabulary may often foil to reveal to the learner all that he could learn about the vocabulary. No doubt even close word study of the sort that I am suggesting will not necessarily turn into an active command of words and their semantic features. However, it is to be expected that lexical items will only slowly become meaningful to a learner in the same way that they are meaningful to a native speaker. Just as one can have text-based study for the acquisition of syntax, so one can make use of texts to show the whole
network of relations that a word may have. The justification is not that the pupil will retain all the details of the network, merely that he will take in enough for the word to have become slightly more meaningful than it was before.
Probably the clearest conclusion that can be drawn from the study of meaning is that given the complexity of relations involved, the acquisition of meaning is neither a simple process nor one that is ever complete. It is naive to believe that any pupil at an early stage of language learning 'has learnt' the meaning of a word. So vast is the network of intralinguistic and extralinguistic relations involved that the acquisition of meaning can only be a gradual process of progres-sive discrimination following on the rather crude initial assumptions of equivalence between first and second language lexical items. To achieve this is impossible without massive exposure to the language, and this in turn can probably be achieved only through extensive reading in the foreign language. Through reading the learner is led to recognize the non-equivalence of L1 and L2 items. He is exposed to the lexical items embedded in natural linguistic contexts, and as a result they begin slowly to have the same meaningfulness for him that they have for the native speaker. His exposure to language written by native speakers, especially language written in a variety of styles for a variety of purposes, will also develop his sensitivity to the collocations that native speakers prefer. Without contact on a large scale his judgment of lexical appropriateness will remain unsure and unsound.
There is one important implication to this emphasis on the necessity of extensive exposure through reading. Much discussion of foreign language learning has been bedevilled by the over-simple conviction, first, that a form will not become a part of the pupil's productive repertoire unless he is given ample opportunity to practise it when it first occurs, and secondly, that the only valid aim of foreign language.
teaching is to set up this repertoire. This has led to a very widely accepted methodology in which every item, grammatical or lexical, at its first occurrence in a teaching sequence is made the object of practice material. It is held that a lesson should not contain new items unless the learner is going to be given the opportunity of practising those items. The content of a unit is therefore bound to be restricted to what it is feasible to practise in the time available. If one was to insist on maintaining this approach, extensive reading would scarcely be possible, since many items will be met which are not immediately practised and which do not become part of the learner's active vocabulary.
In fact neither of these points need be seen as a serious drawback. First, learners do sometimes remember and subsequently use an item which they did not repeat at the time they first heard it; and secondly, it is a wholly undesirable restriction on the learner to require that he should be unable to understand any more than he is able to produce. This would put him at a considerable disadvantage in comparison with the native speaker who has a far larger * passive' than 'active' vocabulary. It would be unnatural, therefore, to limit the foreign learner to a purely 'active' vocabulary. It is perfectly proper that we should use texts in which some of the lexical content is intended for comprehension only. It is no argument against extensive reading to say that the learner may misunderstand or even fail to place any meaning at all on some of the lexical items. It is in any case an experience for which he needs to be prepared, since he will meet it as soon as he is exposed to the language outside the teaching situation.
