Linguistic behaviour

Language choice is a core value of language policy that consists of three elements: management, or direct eff orts to manipulate a language situation: practice, a sum of sound, word and grammatical choices that an individual speaker makes; and ideology, a set of beliefs about appropriate language practice (Spolsky 2004). Motives are related to the last component. As stated by researchers, language usage within a family can be determined by even one of these factors. Th is article presents the results of an analysis of quantitative and qualitative data collected during my fi eldwork in Mari El (Russia). Comparative analysis of the survey data confi rmed the process of weakening of intergenerational language transmission among rural Maris and the fact that the linguistic behavior of family members varies by generation. Usage of Russian or Mari within a family is mainly the result of diff erent values attached to each language and their social roles among certain sectors of society. 3.1. Research instrument 3.2. Sample and participants 4. Linguistic image of rural Mari families 5. Factors aff ecting the languages used within Mari families 6. Code-switching within families 7. Conclusions References Appendix: Questionnaire

Когнітивна метафора, виступаючи в ролі інструмента усвідомлення, моделювання та оцінки політичних процесів, активно використовується політичними діячами і, безпосередньо, президентом США Бараком Обамою задля впливу на асоціативне мислення реципієнта та актуалізації тактики вербальної образи.Когнитивная метафора, выступая в роли инструмента для понимания, моделирования и оценки политических процессов, активно используется политическими деятелями и, непосредственно, президентом США Бараком Обамой с целью влияния на ассоциативное мышление реципиентов и актуализации тактики вербального оскорбления.Cognitive metaphor as an instrument of understanding, modelling and estimating of any political event is widely used by politicians and by Barack Obama in particular, to influence a recipient’s associative thinking. Tactic of insult is aimed at destroying a politician’s image and it plays a crucial role in forming public attitude to that person

The present paper discusses the language contact in Algeria and how languages are used on a daily basis. One hundred and twenty Algerian participants of different age groups were the subjects of this study. In order to achieve the aim of this study, a mixed method was applied through a questionnaire to present the findings statistically, a group discussion that was analysed qualitatively to observe the linguistic behaviour, and a semi-structured interview to explore the attitudes of Algerians toward multilingualism was conducted. The findings showed a high degree of native language use (Algerian Arabic and Berber) in addition to frequent use of French and other languages, like English, and a low use of Modern Standard Arabic in different fields and in daily language use. Furthermore, Algerians perceive themselves as multilinguals due to their daily interaction and code-switching between more than two languages.

Many psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, and other researchers into language and gender have shown a keener interest in the differences between men and women in the ways they communicate and interact than in the similarities between them, focusing on aspects such as style of language and speech. By highlighting some of the important aspects of cross-gender communication and language variation, the main objective of this paper is to suggest areas for more in-depth research in the future that could produce findings that may be useful for effective English language teaching. The paper is based on a review of relevant research in the area under consideration with the aim of providing a suitable theoretical framework for future research.

Language choice is a core value of language policy that consists of three elements: management, or direct efforts to manipulate a language situation: practice, a sum of sound, word and grammatical choices that an individual speaker makes; and ideology, a set of beliefs about appropriate language practice (Spolsky 2004). Motives are related to the last component. As stated by researchers, language usage within a family can be determined by even one of these factors. This article presents the results of an analysis of quantitative and qualitative data collected during my fieldwork in Mari El (Russia). Comparative analysis of the survey data confirmed the process of weakening of intergenerational language transmission among rural Maris and the fact that the linguistic behavior of family members varies by generation. Usage of Russian or Mari within a family is mainly the result of different values attached to each language and their social roles among certain sectors of society.

Not only are women physically and emotionally different from men, but they also display a different linguistic behavior. These differences seem to be natural; however, they are significant in terms of applied linguistics in general and sociolinguistics in particular. The fact that how men and women behave and express themselves in different same-sex or different-sex situations such as at home, office, university, and so on is of great significance to sociolinguists. In order to figure out the differences of linguistic behaviors between men and women, a study in Islamic Azad University of Zanjan was conducted. 10 students were asked to take part in a conversation about 'the quality of the food served in University canteen". Three groups were formed: only-male group, only-female group, and mixed group containing both sexes. They were told that the conversations were going to be tape-recorded. The conversations were recorded and transcribed. Some results were in line with the theories in vogue in sociolinguistics and some were quite opposite. Significant differences among the women and men styles of speech were observed. First, the frequency of occurrence of fillers among both men and women was erratic in different situations (in both same-sex and different-sex situations). Second, turn-takings were observed more among men. Third, the gendered-speech was based on social norms and clichés, and we could communicate efficiently with the opposite sex only when we are aware of each other's styles of speech.

Language choice is the core value of language policy that consists of three elements: management, or direct efforts for manipulation of language situation: practice, a sum of  sound, word and grammatical choices that an individual speaker makes; and ideology, a set  of beliefs about appropriate language practice (Spolsky 2004). Motives are related to the last component. As stated by researcher, language usage within a family can be determined even by one of these factors.
This article presents the results of an analysis of quantitative and qualitative data collected during my fieldwork in Mari El (Russia). Comparative analysis of the survey data confirmed the process of weakening of intergenerational language transmission among rural Maris; and that linguistic behavior of family members varies according to the generations. Usage of Russian or Mari within family mainly results from different values attached to each language, and their social roles among certain sectors of society.

Semiotics (sometimes spelled “semeiotic”) is the name first given by John Locke, and later reprised by Charles S. Peirce, for the “doctrine of signs,” or the study of how some things can stand for other things to still other things. This deliberate inquiry can be contrasted with “folk semiotic” accounts, which assume that there is some intrinsic feature about, say, the human voice or a painted board that makes them capable of signifying. Such a naive assumption does not withstand serious scrutiny. From a philosophical standpoint, what makes something a sign is an involvement in a specific sort of triadic relation. This relation is found in human/nonhuman and deliberate/nondeliberate signs alike. Semiosis, the action of signs, is what permits communication, but it is wider than communication. For example, if while in an adjacent room I smell that the turkey in the oven is ready, my pet dog can smell it too, and the turkey is not trying to “tell” us anything. But if the cook in the kitchen tells me it is ready, I receive that message, while my dog hears the sounds but is none the wiser (in contemporary semiotic parlance, my dog and I couple our Umwelten via indices, but the symbols at hand generate interpretants only in my anthroposemiosis). In spite of the fact that it has a long and distinguished history (especially during the medieval period), general inquiry into signs became an organized research program only in the mid-20th century. Today, in addition to philosophers, semiotics attracts a wide range of scholars, such as ethologists, cognitive scientists, linguists, art historians, logicians, media theorists, literary critics, computer programmers, biologists, sociologists, and so on. From a methodological standpoint, then, parochialism is not an option. The scholarly literature can nevertheless be fruitfully divided into theoretical and applied strands. Not surprisingly, most philosophers drawn to semiotic questions work in the former strand. Semiotics is not to be confused with “semiology,” a (now largely defunct) project that originated in the lectures of the linguist Ferdinand de Saussure and which was active in the 1960s, mainly in France. Semiotics, by contrast, is a vibrant tradition that continues to flourish worldwide. Although some persist in employing the term “semiotics” when discussing narrow studies that focus exclusively on cultural codes, such terminological misuse masks the fact that a study of signs is broader than a study of language. A sustained philosophy of signs, then, promises (as Locke initially surmised) to yield truly novel insights.