ECOLI[S]² Scripta de Communicatione Posnaniensi Seria: Prace Naukowe Katedry Ekokomunikacji UAM Tom VIII STANISŁAW PUPPEL ECOLI[S]² Essays and notes on ecolinguistic synergy and synthesis Asystent Redaktora Serii ELWIRA WILCZYŃSKA   POZNAŃ 2017 © Katedra Ekokomunikacji UAM, Poznań 2017 ISBN 978-83-935257-7-5 DOI 10.7169/sdcp/2017.8 Wydanie I. Nakład 50 egz. Ark. wyd. 13,50. Ark. druk. 11,375 ZAKŁAD GRAFICZNY UAM POZNAŃ, UL. H. WIENIAWSKIEGO 1 The wired world as the global site for all the hybrid transcommunicators (source: http://simonchristy.com/uploaded_images/digital_competition-743888.jpg) The figure of Atlas serving here as a metaphor of the transcommunicator (source: https://www.broadinstitute.org/files/news/stories/full/2006-07_eigenstrat.jpg) MATRIX FOR THE HYBRID TRANSCOMMUNICATOR: GLOBAL, SOCIAL, CULTURAL, TRANSCONNECTED, KNOWLEDGEABLE, OUTSPOKEN, FLEXIBLE, MOBILE, EFFECTIVE, SUCCESSFUL, COMFORTABLE, CONCERNED, WIRED Table of contents Multiple (and necessary) mottos ................................................................................................ 9 An outline of the book ................................................................................................................. 13 Acknowledgment ......................................................................................................................... 15 CHAPTER ONE. An ecolinguistic profiling of a linguistic community .................................... 19 CHAPTER TWO. Natural language and its protection ............................................................... 25 CHAPTER THREE. Ecological monitoring and ecological profiling of natural languages ..... 27 CHAPTER FOUR. Linguonomics and linguolabourese ............................................................... 39 CHAPTER FIVE. ‘Ecoparole’ – a necessary extension of Ferdinand de Saussure’s classical concept of ‘la parole’ ............................................................................................................. 44 CHAPTER SIX. The agent-based approach to human communication .................................... 47 CHAPTER SEVEN. Natural language as a resource ..................................................................... 50 CHAPTER EIGHT. Overall effects in the use of language and non-language resources by the human communicating agents (HCAs) ........................................................................ 52 CHAPTER NINE. Gift economy and first language acquisition ................................................. 55 CHAPTER TEN. The ecolinguistic double mall: (a) maintaining all linguistic life (Mall-1) and (b) maintaining all living languages (Mall-2) ............................................................. 60 CHAPTER ELEVEN. The human communicating agent as a transcommunicator, or a global, social, cultural, transconnected, knowledgeable, outspoken, flexible, mobile, effective, successful, comfortable and wired participant of the universal communication space (UCS): a communication panopticon view of man ..................... 69 CHAPTER TWELVE. Performance-based management of language and non-language resources ................................................................................................................................. 74 CHAPTER THIRTEEN. Communicative (performative-expressive) culminations ................... 78 CHAPTER FOURTEEN. An assessment of natural language robustness (NLR) and its relationship to natural language sustainability (NLS): a fuzzy approach ...................... 80 CHAPTER FIFTEEN. The Natural Language Global Arena (NaLGA) as the language commons ................................................................................................................................. 91 CHAPTER SIXTEEN. The ecology of natural language contact .................................................. 93 CHAPTER SEVENTEEN. Natural language communicative capacity building and the linguistic safety net system ................................................................................................... 97 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN. Natural language as (inter/trans)acting ................................................ 101 8 Table of contents CHAPTER NINETEEN. The Tower of Babel and ecolinguistics .................................................. 104 CHAPTER TWENTY. What ‘kills’ a natural language? ................................................................ 106 CHAPTER TWENTY ONE. Grounding natural language ............................................................. 110 CHAPTER TWENTY TWO. The ecology of transcommunicator meetings ................................. 114 CHAPTER TWENTY THREE. Parameters of a successful natural language ............................... 116 CHAPTER TWENTY FOUR. Natural language sustainability and the public space ................. 121 CHAPTER TWENTY FIVE. Natural language as an element of cultural geography ................ 124 CHAPTER TWENTY SIX. The power of language ........................................................................ 127 CHAPTER TWENTY SEVEN. The technology of total immersion ............................................... 131 CHAPTER TWENTY EIGHT. Malling the world of human communication: the shopping mall as a total immersion communicative design in present-day sedentary and urbanized culture .................................................................................................................. 134 CHAPTER TWENTY NINE. On managing diversity ..................................................................... 143 CHAPTER THIRTY. Global culture as an integrated ecofield for the human communi- cating agent (HCA) transmovements .................................................................................. 147 CHAPTER THIRTY ONE. The meaning of ‘ecological thinking’ ................................................. 150 CHAPTER THIRTY TWO. An ecosemiotic approach to feasting as a uniquely human endeavour ............................................................................................................................... 157 CHAPTER THIRTY THREE. Travelling with natural languages: ‘ecotourism/geotourism’ as an advanced form of NL sustainability .......................................................................... 169 Epilogue ......................................................................................................................................... 173 A short list of poems and reflections concerning human ecological awareness ............... 175 Index of technical terms used in the book ............................................................................... 178 Multiple (and necessary) mottos 9 Multiple (and necessary) mottos Habent sua fata linguae “If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant, if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this re- mains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything” (Confucius, 551-479 B.C.) “Each language reflects a unique world-view and culture complex, mirroring the manner in which a speech community has resolved its problems in dealing with the world, and has formulated its thinking, its system of philosophy and understanding of the world around it. In this, each language is the means of expression of the intangible cultural heritage of people, and it remains a reflec- tion of this culture for some time even after the culture which underlies it de- cays and crumbles, often under the impact of an intrusive, powerful, usually metropolitan, different culture. However, with the death and disappearance of such a language, an irreplaceable unit in our knowledge and understanding of human thought and world-view is lost for ever” (Stephen A. Wurm, 1922-2001) “Language exists only in the mind of its users, and it only functions in relat- ing these users to one another, and to nature, their social and natural envi- ronment” (Einar Haugen, 1906-1994) “Languages were born and died, like living organisms. They had their life spans, they grew and changed like men and animals, they had their little ills which could be cured by appropriate remedies prescribed by good grammari- ans” (Einar Haugen) 10 Multiple (and necessary) mottos “Part of its (i.e. language – SP) ecology is therefore psychological: its interac- tions with other languages in the minds of bi- and multilingual speakers. Another part of its ecology in sociological: its interaction with the society in which it functions as a medium of communication” (Einar Haugen, 1906-1994) “As languages disappear, cultures die. The world becomes inherently a less in- teresting place, but we must also sacrifice raw knowledge and the intellectual achievements of millennia” (Kenneth Hale, 1934-2001) “(…) each language is like a soaring cathedral: a thing of beauty, the product of immense creative effort, filled with rich tapestries of knowledge” (Gareth Cook, 2000. “Vanishing tongues”) The world’s many cultures promote transcultural, transethnic, transnational, and translinguistic communication, that is, the one which is accomplished without the loss of distinctiveness and personal identity of the individual hu- man transcommunicators. “In a cultural perspective, the goal of rendering the worldwide communica- tions space compatible with the equitable participation of all peoples, language communities and individuals in the development process” (Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights) “The world faces new challenges in keeping its languages alive and meaning- ful. It is time for the peoples of the world to pool their resources and to build on the strengths of their linguistic and cultural diversity” (Language Vitality and Endangerment, UNESCO ad hoc expert group on endangered languages) Linking language, knowledge, and the environment, as well as protecting biocultural diversity, are the constituents of the true web of life. We all thrive on interacting with other people, with local communities and with society as a whole. It should be understood that communication is at the heart of every interaction. “Human communication is grounded in fundamentally cooperative, even shared, intentions” (Michael Tomasello) Multiple (and necessary) mottos 11 Linguistically-mediated communication strongly embeds biological, social and cultural aspects in everyday interpersonal/interinstitutional exchanges. As such, it is subject to constant validation (or clarification) by the communi- cating partners so that communicative alignments are properly shaped. “Ecolinguistics is an ‘umbrella term’ which covers a rich diversity of theoreti- cal approaches” (Bundsgaard and Steffensen) NATURE ABHORS THE GARDEN “Much as we might like to deny it, nature abhors the garden. The minute we stop maintaining our gardens, the ravages of wind, snow, ice, droughts, floods, weeds, pests and diseases transform them into something we never im- agined. Basically, there’s no such thing as a ‘natural’ garden, even one that consists entirely of native species…We cannot mimic nature in our gardens because nature is a process, not a product” (Peter Del Tredici, The Arnold Arboretum, Harvard University) AND DOES NATURE ABHOR NATURAL LANGUAGES? Is there anything like a completely isolated natural language, perfectly devoid of any influences generated by various other contacting natural languages, like a garden warded off from all the external influences of wild Nature? On the one hand, much as we would try to keep it in its isolated form, we can- not prevent any natural language from being constantly influenced, this way or another, by other contacting natural languages. But, on the other hand, we, as users of the still existing rich diversity of natu- ral languages, can at least go on trying to make every effort possible in order to keep the particular natural language alive as a flourishing and distinct sign of our national/ethnic identity and pride, for every single natural language in- advertently and most naturally reflects the continuous efforts of many past generations to preserve it, paradoxically, always in its garden-like, i.e. struc- tured shape. Therefore, any natural language is both a gift/product and a pro- cess occurring in Nature. Ad societatem cum translingua et transcultura. Lingua mea, amicus meus. 12 Multiple (and necessary) mottos A better knowledge of language should contribute to a better peaceful coexist- ence of the human kind. Communicamus, ergo sumus. Fig. 1. Hans Zatzka (1859-1945), Dancing fairies. This beautiful painting may be viewed as symbolizing the ecocratic harmony existing between/among all the natural living languages (for details concerning the said harmony, see the content of the book. Source: https://goo.gl /images/rNKfum) An outline of the book Ecolinguistics is celebrating its forty fifth anniversary in 2017 without any noisy and excessively triumphant bell tolling, having taken as its formal starting point the publication of Einar Haugen’s famous book The ecology of language (1972). However, between 1972 and now there has been enough time for the ‘ecology of language’ (here used interchangeably with ‘ecolin- guistics’) to grow and to become quite a robust and distinct subdiscipline of linguistics, very clearly defined in terms of its autonomous goals and overall perspectives concerning the place of language as an ‘organismal entity’ in Nature. In its classical shape, ecolinguistics is based on organismal biology, and, in particular, concerning the problems connected with placing any natural language in both natural language diversity and human communicator diversity it has followed the biological path. The subdiscipline of ecolinguis- tics is now ripe enough to be portrayed by means of a more or less complete ecocomposition of cultural-linguistic-communicative themes thus showing the many shades and subtleties of the ecological approach to language, most notably to natural language. In what follows, such a picture – as a supple- ment to similar attempts currently taking place in various academic centres all over the world – is ventured through assembling a mosaic composed of an array of problems discussed in a non-linear fashion in a number of sepa- rate more or less sizable chapters and notes followed by appropriate bibliog- raphies. They may, therefore, all be treated by the reader as separate larger or smaller essay-like ‘plateaus’. Thus, the reader is invited to move freely among the chapters. The picture which is sketched in the present book is based on the general assumption that ecolinguistics (or the ecological perspective on language) is a part of a more general pattern of ‘ecological thinking’ (or ‘ecolinguistic mindset’) and which has, by virtue of its width and depth, finally managed to assume a nontrivial position vis-a-vis other linguistic subdisciplines. In- deed, it is the conviction of the present author that ecolinguistics owes this non-supplementary position to having become an autonomous subdiscipline 14 An outline of the book which has managed to focus very strongly on the dyad of ‘natural language- environment’ relations. That is, it has managed to move away from the limit- ing tightness of the purely phonological-semantic-syntactic tanglements toward the positioning of natural language as a very central phenomenon in the midst of ‘life’ on Earth of which ‘the life of language’ in any ecolinguistic community appears to be a crucial (if not the most important) manifestation. In this way, it has managed to place major emphasis on the underlying, deepest and thus most primeval relationship between Man as a complex organismal (biological)-social-cultural entity and Nature as Man’s inevitable, exclusive/inclusive and most nourishing external environment which is at the same time an integral part of the human ecosystem. This ‘natural lan- guage-environment’ relationship – apart from forming the inevitable and necessary synergy which ecolinguistics has been demonstrating while dwell- ing on it so consistently as a part of both underlying deep and shallow ecol- ogy – is indeed pivotal for the ecolinguistic perspective which has been adopted here. One may also dare say at this point that ecolinguistics has become a cov- er (or ‘umbrella’) term for a diversity of approaches to language and com- munication, exercised vigorously in this very general nad rich natural lan- guage-environment perspective. In particular, ecolinguistics has done so by merging and focusing on the intra-linguistic, inter-linguistic, as well as extra-linguistic issues (inextricably connected with human society and human culture) showing, in general, correlations between natural language defined as a very powerful, resource- ful, ecological and basically three-domain phenomenon, namely, biological, social, and cultural, which have been collaborating synergistically to pro- duce the most complex expressive-performative-communicative potential on Earth, that is, the human-centred performative/expressive cultural-linguistic- communicative potential. Last but not least, ecolinguistics has also turned out to be very successful in focusing on the presence, production and ecological viability of such di- versified linguistic-communicative practices as demonstrated by all the in- dividual human (trans)communicators. They have been shown as being most deeply connected with the phenomenon of diversified and volatile linguistic resources which, as Darwin would say (On the origin of species, 1859: 9) ”are bound together by a web of complex relations”, and their both collective (i.e. social/cultural) and individual transcommunicator manage- ment and equally diversified transcommunicator use in countless acts of communicative exchanges. Acknowledgment The author gratefully acknowledges the graphic assistance of dr. Wojciech Puppel in the preparation of the book. 16 An outline of the book Major publications pertaining to the general issue of ecolinguistics AUSTIN, P.K. (ed.). 2009. One thousand languages: living, endangered, and lost. London: Thames and Hudson. (Also published by Berkeley, CA: University of California Press). BOUDREAU, A., L. DUBOIS, J. MAURAIS AND G. MCCONNELL. (eds.). 2002. L’écologie des langues. Paris: L’Harmattan. BUNDSGAARD, J. AND S. STEFFENSEN. 2000. “The dialectics of ecological mor- phology or the morphology of dialectics”. In Lindø, A.V. and J. Bunds- gaard. (eds.). Dialectical ecolinguistics. Odense: University of Odense: Research Group for Ecology, Language and Ideology. 8-35. CAPRA, F. 1996. The web of life: a new scientific understanding of living systems. New York: Anchor Doubleday Books. ELIASSON, S. AND E.H. JAHR. (eds.). 1997. Language and its ecology: essays in memory of Einar Haugen. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. FILL, A. AND P. MÜHLHÄUSLER. (eds.). 2001. The ecolinguistic reader: lan- guage, ecology, and environment. New York: Continuum. FISHMAN, J.A. 1997. In praise of the beloved language: a comparative view of positive ethnolinguistic consciousness. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. FISHMAN, J.A. (ed.). 2001. Can threatened languages be saved? Reversing language shift, revisited: a 21st century perspective. Clevedon, UK: Mul- tilingual Matters. GARNER, M. 2004. Language: an ecological view. New York: Peter Lang. GORTER, D. (ed.). 2009. Linguistic landscapes: a new approach to multilin- gualism. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. HALE, K. 1998. “On endangered languages and the importance of linguistic diversity”. In Grenoble, L.A. and L.J. Whaley. (eds.). Endangered lan- guages: language loss and community response. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press. 192-216. HALE, K. AND L. HINTON. (eds.). 2001. The green book of language revitali- zation in practice. San Diego: Academic Press. HAUGEN, E. 1966. Language conflict and language planning: the case of Modern Norwegian. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 18 Major publications pertaining to the general issue of ecolinguistics HAUGEN, E. 1971. ”The ecology of language”. The Linguistic Reporter. Sup- plement 25. 19-26. HAUGEN, E. 1972. The ecology of language. Stanford: Stanford University Press. HAUGEN, E. 1987. Blessings of Babel: bilingualism and language planning. Problems and pleasures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. LINDØ, A.V. AND J. BUNDSGAARD. (eds.). 2000. Dialectical ecolinguistics. Odense: University of Odense, Research Group for Ecology, Language and Ideology. MAR-MOLINERO, C. AND P. STEVENSON. (eds.). 2006. Language ideologies, policies and practices: language and the future of Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. MUFWENE, S. 2001. The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press. MUFWENE, S. 2008. Language evolution: contact, completion and change. London/New York: Continuum Press. MUFWENE, S. AND C.B. VIGOROUX. (eds.). 2008. Globalization and language vitality: perspectives from Africa. London/New York: Continuum Press. MÜHLHÄUSLER, P. 1996. Linguistic ecology: language change and linguistic imperialism in the Pacific region. London: Routledge. MÜHLHÄUSLER, P. 2003. Language of environment: environment of lan- guage: a course in ecolinguistics. London: Battlebridge. PHILLIPSON, R. 1992. Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. PUPPEL, S. AND E.H. JAHR. (eds.). 2011. Lingua mea, amicus meus: a book of readings on the ecology of language and communication. Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University, Department of Ecocommunication (Mate- rial recorded on CD). SKUTNABB-KANGAS, T. AND R. PHILLIPSON. 2010. ”The politics of language in globalization: maintenance, marginalization, or murder”. In Coupland, N. (ed.). Handbook on language and globalization. Oxford: Blackwell. 77-100. STEFFENSEN, S.V. AND J. NASH. (eds.). 2007. Language, ecology, and society: a dialectal approach. London: Continuum. VERBRUGGE, R.R. 1985. “Language and event perception: Steps toward a synthesis”. In Warren, W.H. and R.E. Shaw. (eds.). Persistence and change. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 157-194. WEINREICH, U. 1974. Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton. WIDDOWSON, H.G. 2000. Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CHAPTER ONE An ecolinguistic profiling of a linguistic community 1. INTRODUCTION Any natural language may be approached from the holistic-ecolinguistic perspective which involves the following four domains of analysis in what may be called ‘the four-domain tetragon of language and communication’ (hence ‘the LaC tetragon’): – structure and function (hence S and F) of any natural language (hence NL) – content of the message to be conveyed (C) – modality and medium (or media) in which the message is expressed (M/M) – degrees of robustness of a natural language (or ‘natural language ro- bustness’, NLR) – expression dynamism (ED) placed in the centre of the tetragon, that is, at the intersection of the four domains and as resulting from and repre- senting their interplay in any act of human communication by means of natural language. The above four domains of analysis are regarded as closely connected (i.e. as acting synergistically) and thus as co-determining the nature of any natural language. This fact may be represented by means of the following diagram (Fig. 2). By its very nature, the above tetragon entails the kind of an integrated linguistic-communicative design. It should be emphasized that an analysis which resorts to the above set of domains is necessarily holistic in nature since it allows one to approach any natural language in terms of the above mentioned four interlocked (thus synergistic) domains. In this way, the holistic approach is also ecolinguistic in nature for the simple reason that the quadripartite holism, postulated above, is at the same time required to en- 20 Fig. 2. The sure the s language The a degree of langage r portant fa lation wh rial rang factor is a robustnes book (see Thus, guage, as ral Langu ing the si (i.e. the s intergene process o a ‘mother both mat tion, and of the ess In mo appropria e LaC Tetragon sustainabilit e as commun approach do f the so-calle robustness’) actor as ‘lin hich uses a g ge/habitat w absolutely e ss’ together e chapter XIV , it is postu s opposed to uage Global ize of the po size of the p erational par of ‘first lang r tongue’) in ture and tho who use th sence here. ost cases, th ate to refer t n representing t ty of both lan nication acco oes not, how ed ‘robustne in terms of guomass’ (o given langua which it occ essential in c with a host V for more d lated that th o any other Arena’ (hen opulation w population w rent-offsprin guage acqu n the sense th ose who are at language he so-called to as the ‘na CHAPTER ONE the four domai nguage as a omplished b wever, allow ess’ of a giv f its externa or demograp age natively cupies). Ne co-defining t of other fa details) . he external natural lan nce NaLGA) which uses a who has lea ng language uisition’ and hat it is the e in various in the oral o ‘native spe ative commu ins of language a system (i.e by means of w one to det ven natural al strength b phy, that is, y as well as t edless to sa the concept actors discus strength of guage co-oc ), may be de a given natu arned it in th e transmissi d which is p sheer numb stages of fi order of com eakers’, who unicators’, d e analysis (see t . the verbal the verbal c termine pre language (o based on su the size of the size of th ay, the dem t of ‘natural ssed elsewh f a given na ccurring in t etermined by ral languag he natural p ion expresse presently u ber of comm irst languag mmunication om it would due to the fac text above) code) and code. ecisely the or ‘natural uch an im- the popu- he territo- mographic l language here in the atural lan- the ‘Natu- y examin- ge natively process of ed by the using it as municators, ge acquisi- n which is d be more ct that the An ecolinguistic profiling of a linguistic community 21 vocal-auditory modality which is required for speech as a result of the pri- mary use of the audio-vocal modality and the visual-tactile modality which is required for the non-verbal and graphic renditions of a language are not used separately, but instead they are most naturally used jointly in everyday communication. In addition, it has been shown time and again that spoken communication also very much depends on the supplementary and support- ing non-verbal forms of communication. In this sense, it appears more ap- propriate to refer to the human communicators as ‘hybrid communicators’, i.e. those who necessarily and naturally mix the two modalities in their daily communicative practices, additionally supported by the use of technological media. The notion of the native communicator coincides with the culturally more restricted notion of the ‘nation-state’, although the two terms may not be (and frequently are not) entirely equivalent with each other, for in most cases the ‘nation’ does not overlap completely with the notion of the ‘habi- tat’. Rather, the overlap is most naturally partial and the ‘nation’ which is composed of individuals bonded by a common heritage of a particular ethnic-national culture and language, usually happens to share the same geographical territory with another ethnic community or a set of communi- ties. Thus, the nation-state may be either linguistically homogenous (which is rather difficult to attest) or linguistically heterogenous (which is what happens in the overwhelming majority of cases of natural languages co-occurring in the open space of the NaLGA). Nevertheless, in both of these cases, it is essential from the ecological point of view to be able to assess the ‘robustness’ of a given natural language, that is, its overall degree of vitality and survivability (also referred to as ‘health/power/sustainability’) vis-à-vis other natural languages, such that predictions can be made concerning its ‘conduct’ among other natural lan- guages in the NaLGA, where they all co-occur and where their fates are held and determined due to natural inequalities existing among all the living languages. In order to satisfy that requirement, ecologically oriented lan- guage researchers should be able to monitor and thus profile natural languages by means of an established number of parameters postulated within the ‘monitoring and profiling procedure’ (abbreviated as MPP, see also point II below). The MPP may be defined as consisting of the following general require- ments: – data collection that refers to the ongoing changes in a given natural language, – data collection that refers to the ongoing changes in a given cultural milieu in which a given natural language is immersed, 22 CHAPTER ONE – organization of the data into manageable and easily accessible data- bases such that their researchers are able to effectively acquaint them- selves with these changes, identify them, review them and assess the latest trends which are taking place in the language under scrutiny as a result of ongoing cultural/languistic contacts, – implementation of the existing databases for the purposes of delivering the services of: (a) planning the particular steps to be taken in the pro- tection of a given natural language as well as (b) outlining the current language policy, – implementation of the existing databases in the development of a proper philosophy of first/second language material design through the provisioning of instruction as well as a proper construction of first/second/foreign language teaching materials, – provisioning of competent and satisfactory services to various individ- ual communicators from a whole range of cultural-ethnic, professional and linguistic backgrounds, – disseminating in as a wide as possible way any information pertaining to the ways of preservation of local cultures and languages (see also Chapter III and Chapter XXXIII). Below, some practical steps in the monitoring and profiling of natural languages and communication by means of language have been enumerat- ed. The MPP applied to language and non-language resources may include the following steps: I. Monitoring the spoken/oral natural language resources: 1. Listening to individual communicators and recording them. 2. Interviewing the individual communicators, recording the interviews and archiving them. 3. Participating in formal and informal conversations in order to obtain the necessary preliminary information on the current state of commu- nicative milieus. 4. Analyzing the spoken material in order to attain information on the regional and social dialects. 5. Analyzing the recorded material in order to establish the individual communicators’ spoken/oral behavior patterns and practices. 6. Monitoring the linguistic policies implemented in a given nation-state. II. Monitoring the written/graphic natural language resources: 1. Collecting and archiving all kinds of documents printed in a local cul- tural-ethnic-linguistic community. An ecolinguistic profiling of a linguistic community 23 2. Reviewing these documents from the language resource point of view of. 3. Making surveys. 4. Analyzing the written/graphic resources. III. Profiling a given natural language: 1. Identifying the problem of language status among other languages as a language awareness problem. 2. Asking the individual communicators to fill in questionnaires in order to check the various aspects of their language awareness by means of selected (sets of) indicators. 3. Determining whether a particular natural language belongs to either of the three categories: (a) substratal (i.e. it is dominated by (an)other language(s), (a) adstratal (i.e. demonstrating ecocratic equity vis-à-vis (an)other language(s) in the NaLGA, and (c) superstratal (i.e. demon- strating a dominant/hegemonic/imperial relationship with (an)other language(s) in the NaLGA. 4. Determining the conditions of language contact for different natural languages. These may include a number of contact-induced outcomes (i.e. changes), such as: code-switching, code alternation, passive famil- iarity with a given foreign (borrowed) form, deliberate decisions of the communicators to include the borrowed forms into their linguistic re- sources, the interplay of external and internal linguopressure in estab- lishing the L1 – L2 symbiosis under contact conditions, both for the particular communities and the individual communicators. Selected publications pertaining to the issue of language contact: BORETZKY, N. 1991. ”Contact-induced sound change”. Diachronica 8. 1-16. BRAUNMÜLLER, K. AND J. HOUSE. (eds.). 2009. Convergence and divergence in language con- tact situations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. FISIAK, J. (ed.). 1995. Linguistic change under contact conditions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. JAHR, E.H. (ed.). 1992. Language contact: theoretical and empirical studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. LABOV, W. 1994. Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell. MUFWENE, S. 1996. ”The founder principle in creole genesis”. Diachronica 13. 83-134. PUPPEL, S. 2013. “A communication manifesto (evolving)”. Scripta Neophilologica Pos- naniensia. Tom XIII. 91-99. PÜTZ, M. (ed.). 1997. Language choices: conditions, constraints, and consequences. Amster- dam: John Benjamins. SANKOFF, G. 2001. ”Linguistic outcomes of language contact”. In Trudgill, P. and N. Schilling- Estes. (eds.). Handbook of sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 638-668. THOMASON, S.G. 1997. Contact languages: a wider perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. THOMASON, S.G. 2001. Language contact: an introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 24 CHAPTER ONE THOMASON, S.G. AND T. KAUFMAN. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguis- tics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. WARDHAUGH, R. 1987. Languages in competition: dominance, diversity, and decline. Oxford: Blackwell. WEINREICH, U. 1968. Languages in contact: findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton. CHAPTER TWO Natural language and its protection 1. DEFINITION OF NATURAL LANGUAGE ‘Natural languages’ are those languages which have come to being and which have been established via complex evolutionary processes, are social- ly (i.e. intergenerationally) inheritable and are culturally transmitted and which thus constitute the uniquely human systems of communication. They are socially inheritable because at least two generations of human communi- cators are required for the process to ensue, the descending generations of parents and grandparents, and the ascending generation of children who together form a basic social unit within which the socio-cultural transmis- sion of a given natural language is possible. Natural languages are culturally transmitted because the above mentioned generations and the entire social milieu in which a particular human being is immersed get involved in a complex process of communicative interactions by means of a particular ethnic language and its resources. An altruistic attitude of the descending generations of parents and grandparents towards the ascending generation in terms of securing the ascending generation‘s ability to use a given natural language to its fullest, that is, successfully and comfortably in the communication process is a very strong element of the entire process of intergenerational natural language transmission. The phenomenon may be generally referred to as ‘language gifting’ which takes place in the critical period of the process of ‘first lan- guage acquisition’ (or ‘first language germination’). In addition, the ascend- ing generation usually participates in a rigid (i.e. disciplined and coercive) and clearly non-altruistic transmission of natural languages, usually by way of a compulsory participation in various educational schooling programs, whereby juvenile members of the society are formally instructed in a given ethnic (especially major and official) language by professionally trained 26 CHAPTER TWO teachers. The two forms of social transmission, altruistic and non-altruistic, are therefore regarded as fundamental components of natural language cul- tural-social transmission. 2. NATURAL LANGUAGE PROTECTION Natural languages are subject to the natural and on-going processes of disintegration and degradation (degeneration) which may either be the re- sult of the biological processes, such as, for example, a sudden massive death of members of a given ethnic community, where no ascending genera- tion of children is given the opportunity of taking over the language, or be the result of various negative influences (or negative byproducts) of lan- guage contact. In the former case, which usually involves many small indig- enous languages spoken by small communities with predominantly older communicator-speakers, no direct and swift remedy can be found and the language is usually and inevitably on the course to its death. In the latter case, language contact may result in weakening one of the contacting languages and in strengthening the other, even to the point of abandoning one of the languages and instead switching entirely to another contacting language (see the phenomenon of ‘language shift’). In such cases, one may postulate recourse to be made to a rescue program consisting of a set of administrative and socially acceptable measures leading to the pro- tection of the contacting languages, especially with regard to the weaker ones. Usually, these measures, as a part of language planning and language policy procedures, involve an introduction of legal acts on varying levels of generality, thus ranging from most global documents to more regional to national and local levels (see e.g. Nahir, 1984/2003; Puppel, 2007, also cited in Chapter III below). Useful references: PUPPEL, S. (ed.). 2007. Ochrona języków naturalnych (The protection of natural languages). Poznań: Katedra Ekokomunikacji UAM/Zakład Graficzny UAM. PUPPEL, S. 2009. ”The protection of natural language diversity – fancy or duty?”. Scripta Neo- philologica Posnaniensia X. 97-109. PUPPEL, S. 2012. ”The human communication orders and the principle of natural language sustainability”. Electronic Journal Oikeios Logos 9. 1-14. PUPPEL, S. 2016. ”A foreign/semblant language – the case of a lean manufacturing of a didacti- cally modified native language”. In: Bielak, M., T. Popescu and M. Krawczak. (eds.). Bridges and not walls in the field of philology. Piła: Państwowa Wyższa Szkoła Zawodowa w Pile. 45-55. TAYLOR, A.R. (ed.). 1992. Language obsolescence, shift and death in several native American communities. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 93. CHAPTER THREE Ecological monitoring and ecological profiling of natural languages 1. INTRODUCTION Within the ecolinguistic approach to language, the monitoring and pro- filing activities undertaken within the MPP are regarded as being of utmost importance to the general tasks of identification and description of the cur- rent state of a given natural language. These activities are especially critical to the aforementioned tasks, as they are assumed to assist in: – assessing the ecological values of natural diversity (abbreviated as ‘AS’), – helping the individuals and institutions in managing the language re- sources (abbreviated as ‘H’), and – advising the individuals and institutions on the best and most efficient ways of protection of linguistic diversity (abbreviated as ‘AD’). The three activities are jointly referred to here as the ‘ASHAD monitor- ing-profiling complex’ within the MPP. One should emphasize at this point the fact that an important branch of ecology, namely monitoring ecology, is the most suitable domain, both the- oretical and practical, for the realization of the above activities (cf., for ex- ample, Goldsmith, 1991). In connection with the above, it should also be emphasized that the ASHAD monitoring-profiling complex constitutes the core of the monitoring and profiling activities directed towards the sustainability of any natural language. That is why the monitoring and profiling activities are, overall, regarded as essential for the ecolinguistic approach to natural languages. It is further assumed here that the range of the areas subject to the monitor- ing and profiling of natural languages, which are most sensitive to the prob- lem of natural language sustainability, should in particular include the fol- lowing ones: 28 CHAPTER THREE (1) monitoring the present-day globalizing (i.e. world population-wise and therefore use-wise heaviest languages (i.e. those natural lan- guages which are characterized by the biggest linguomass), such as English, Mandarin Chinese, Hindi, Spanish, French, German, Rus- sian) and their regional varieties, with the mandatory monitoring of the English language as a major globalizing natural language of today, (2) monitoring the language planning, language policy and language preservation activities which are effected in various nation-states and regions of the world, (3) monitoring the geopolitics of natural languages and their resources, (4) monitoring the forms of dissemination, supply, and maintenance of natural language resources applied in a given nation-state based lin- guistic community. 2. THE CONTENT OF THE ASHAD MONITORING-PROFILING COMPLEX The purpose of this section is to offer a mini guide whose purpose is that of acquainting the reader with a selected number of published resources as well as points of focus indicated in the areas which have been signaled in the above mentioned areas (points (1) – (4) and which are assumed to be respon- sible for a proper functioning of the ASHAD monitoring-profiling complex. 2a. MONITORING THE PRESENT-DAY GLOBALIZING LANGUAGES (GL): THE CASE OF ENGLISH AS A GLOBALIZING LANGUAGE (EGL): REGIONAL VARIETIES OF ENGLISH (RVE) AND WORLD ENGLISHES (WE) The term ‘a globalizing language’ is used here consistently to denote a status of a natural language which has gained a dominant (i.e. hegemonic) position vis-à-vis other natural languages in the NaLGA, however, without being the only language acquired and used world-wide. If that were the case, such a language would simply have to be referred to as ‘a global lan- guage/mono language’, that is, a language in which all first language acqui- sition and all linguistic activities of a given human individual would have to be accomplished. Since for the time being no such status can be assigned to any existing natural language, especially to the heaviest languages as those mentioned above, a division into ‘a globalizing language’ and ‘a global lan- guage’ is postulated as a more plausible one, with the latter category being vacant. Selected publications and projects pertaining to the issues of language glob- alization: Ecological monitoring and ecological profiling of natural languages 29 BAUER, L. 2002. ”Adjective boosters in the English of young New Zealanders”. Journal of English Linguistics 30.3. 244-257. BLOMMAERT, J. 2008. Grassroots literacy: writing, identity, and voice in Central Africa. Lon- don: Routledge. BLOMMAERT, J. 2010. The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BOLTON, K. 2005. ”Where WE stands: approaches, issues, and debates in world Englishes”. World Englishes 24. 69-83. BRUTT-GRIFFLER, J. 2002. World English: a study of its development. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. COUPLAND, N. (ed.). 2010. The handbook of language and globalization. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. CRYSTAL, D. 2002. Language death. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CRYSTAL, D. 2003. English as global language. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. FABRICIUS, A. 2002. ”Ongoing change in modern RP: evidence for the disappearing stigma of t- glottaling”. English World-Wide 23.1. 115-136. FAIRCLOUGH, N. 2006. Language and globalization. London: Routledge. GRADDOL, D. 2006. English next: why global English may mean the end of ‘English as a foreign language’. London: British Council. GRADDOL, D. 2007. ”Global English, global culture?”. In Goodman, S., D. Graddol and T. Lillis. (eds.). Re-designing English. London: Routledge. 243-279. HUDSON-ETTLE, D. 2002. ”Nominal that clauses in three regional varieties of English: a study of the relevance of text type, medium, and syntactic function”. Journal of English Linguis- tics 30.3. 258-273. KACHRU, B.B. 1986. The alchemy of English: the spread, functions and models of non-native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon. KEPHART, R.F. 2002. ”Broken English’: the Creole language of Carriacou”. English World- Wide 23.1. KOUEGA, J.P. 2002. ”Uses of English in Southern British Cameroons”. English World-Wide 23.1. 93-114. MAIR, C. 2002. ”Creolisms in an emerging standard: written English in Jamaica”. English World-Wide 23.1. 31-58. MCARTHUR, T. 1998. The English languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MELCHERS, G. AND P. SHAW. 2011. World Englishes. 2nd ed. London: Hodder Education. MÜHLHÄUSLER, P. 2002. ”Changing names for a changing landscape: the case of Norfolk Island”. English World-Wide 23.1. 59-92. PENNYCOOK, A. 1994. The cultural politics of English as an international language. London: Longman. PEYAWARY, A.S. 1999. The core vocabulary of international English: a corpus approach. Bergen: The Humanities Information Technologies Research Programme. HIT-senterets publikasjonsserie 2/99. POPLACK, S. (ed.). 2000. The English history of African American English. Oxford: Blackwell. PUPPEL, S. 2014. “Multis vocibus de lingua anglica: towards an outline of an emotional profile of English as a major globalizing natural language of today”. Scripta Neophilologica Posnaniensia XIV. 139-148. QUIRK, R. AND H.G. WIDDOWSON. (eds.). 1985. English in the world: teaching and learning of language and literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 30 CHAPTER THREE SCHNEIDER, E.W. 2007. Postcolonial English: varieties of English around the world. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. SCHNEIDER, E.W. 2010. English around the world: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SCHREIER, D. 2002. ”Terra incognita in the anglophone world: Tristan da Cuhna, South Atlantic Ocean”. English World-Wide 23.1. 1-30. WOLF, H.G. AND F. POLZENHAGEN. 2009. World Englishes: a cognitive sociolinguistic ap- proach. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 2b. LANGUAGE PLANNING, LANGUAGE POLICY AND LANGUAGE PRESERVATION (LPPP) It has been commonplace to say that any natural language develops nat- urally, as it were, that is, through descending from an older generation (i.e. the parents and grandparents as the primary caretakers) to a younger gener- ation (i.e. children and grandchildren) via a complex process of first lan- guage acquisition in which the first language is ‘donated’, as it were, to the child by the primary caretakers through countless many daily communicator interactions. Thus, it is first language acquisition and its availability to chil- dren which should be regarded as a primary and most distinct marker of the ‘naturalness’ of any natural language. However, it is also equally true to say that natural languages, especially those which have developed their written forms, are shaped and even manipulated more or less successfully by differ- ent individuals and different social groups (e.g. national, ethnic and profes- sional) to suit a plethora of interests of these individuals and groups. Much has been written on the question of the so-called ‘standard languages’ as opposed to non-standard regional/social varieties (i.e. the general problem of the relevance and survivability of dialects and sociolects). This division has been traditionally used as a basis for the validation of the claim that any natural language can be planned most demonstrably by the institution of the nation-state. In fact, this has been a universal practice which has encompassed all human individuals in such important matters of personal survivability as power, wealth, and prestige. Obviously, language has also been considered an important constituent of individual power, wealth, and prestige, all of which can be gained and maintained while an individual remains a member of a social structure of any kind. As Weinstein has amply stated (1983:3): If it is possible to show that language is the subject of policy decisions as well as a possession conferring advantages, a case can be made for the study of language as one of the variables pushing open or closed the door to power, wealth, and prestige within societies. Ecological monitoring and ecological profiling of natural languages 31 Subsequently, language planning and language policy should be con- stantly monitored and profiled. In this connection, it is only natural to as- sume that the presence of the ASHAD monitoring-profiling complex within the ecolinguistic approach to language should contribute significantly to the sustainability (maintenance) of any natural language in the NaLGA. Subse- quently, the importance of the above complex within the domain of ecolin- guistic studies should also become quite obvious. We may add at this point that securing the power, wealth, and prestige of the biggest possible number of the existing natural languages may also be at stake, as these parameters taken together, may be used efficiently as an equally important index of any ‘natural language sustainability’ (NLS). In turn, language policies and language preservation, including natural language diversity, are assumed to directly reflect language planning in the sense that they are dependent on a more or less coherent body of assump- tions which may be collectively referred to as ‘language planning’. As Tollefson has rightly stated (1991:2): Language is built into the economic and social structure of society so deeply that its fundamental importance seems only natural. For this reason, lan- guage policies are often seen as expressions of natural, common-sense assumptions about language in society. Selected publications, journals and projects pertaining to the issues of lan- guage robustness, language planning, language policy and language preser- vation: AKINDELE, F. AND WALE ADEGBITE. 1992. The sociology and politics of English in Nigeria: an introduction. Ile-Ife: Debiyi-Iwa Publishers. ALEXANDER, N. 1989. Language policy and national unity in South Africa/Azania. Cape Town: Buchu Books. BAMGBOSE, A. 2000. Language and exclusion. Hamburg: LIT-Verlag. BASTARDAS-BOADA, A. 2000. ”Language planning and language ecology: towards a theoretical integration”. http://www.scribd.com/doc/3025205/Language-Planning-and-Language-Eco logy-Towards-a-Theoretical-integration. BOURDIEU, P. 1991. Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press. CHRISTIAN, D. 1988. ”Language planning: the view from linguistics”. In Newmeyer, F.J. (ed.). Language: the socio-cultural context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 193-211. CHUMBOW, B. 1990. ”The place of the mother tongue in the national policy on education”. In Emenanjo, N. (ed.). 61-72. COBARRUBIUS, J. AND J. FISHMAN. (eds.). 1983. Progress in language planning: international perspective. The Hague: Mouton. COOPER, R.L. 1989. Language planning and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CRAITH, M.N. (ed.). 2007. Language, power and identity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Current Issues in Language Planning. 32 CHAPTER THREE EDWARDS, J. 1996. ”Language, prestige, and stigma”. In Goebel, H., P.H. Nelde and Z. Stary. (eds.). Contact linguistics. New York: Walter de Gruyter. 703-708. EMENANJO, N. (ed.). 1990. Multilingualism, minority languages and language policy in Ni- geria. Agbor: Central Book Ltd. FERGUSON, G. 2006. Language planning and education. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. HUEBNER, T. AND K.A. DAVIS. (eds.). 1999. Sociopolitical perspectives on language policy and planning in the USA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. KAPLAN, B.R. AND R.B. BALDAUF. 1997. Language planning from practice to theory. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. KIRK, J.M. 2008. ”Does the UK have a language policy?”. Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies. 1.2. KIRK, J.M. AD D.P.Ó. BAOILL. (eds.). 2000. Language and politics: Northern Ireland, the Re- public of Ireland, and Scotland. Belfast: Queen’s University Belfast. LIDDICOAT, A.J. AND R.B. BALDAUF. (eds.). 2008. Language planning in local contexts. Cleve- don, UK: Multilingual Matters. LODGE, T. 1984. Black politics in South Africa since 1945. London: Longman. MESTHRIE, R. (ed.). 2002. Language in South Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. NAHIR, M. 1984/2003. ”Language planning goals: a classification”. Language Problems and Language Planning 8.3. 294-327. NAU, N. AND T. WICHERKIEWICZ. 2013. ”Dokumentacja i archiwizacja zagrożonych języków” (Documenting and archiving endangered languages). In: Puppel, S and T. Tomaszkiewicz. (eds.). Scripta manent – res novae. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM. 273-282. NIEDRIG, H. 2000. Sprache, Macht, Kultur. Multilinguale Erziehung in Post-Apartheid Südafrika. Münster: Waxmann. PHILLIPSON, R. 1992. Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. PUPPEL, S. (ed.). 2007. Ochrona języków naturalnych (The protection of natural languages). Poznań: Katedra Ekokomunikacji UAM/Zakład Graficzny UAM. PUPPEL, S. 2007. ”Tężyzna języków naturalnych” (Natural language robustness). In: Chałacińska-Wiertelak, H. and K. Kropaczewski. (eds.). Dyskurs wielokulturowy. Prace Humanistycznego Centrum Badań. Łódź: Drukarnia i Wydawnictwo PIKTOR. 7-15. PUPPEL, S. 2009. ”The protection of natural language diversity – fancy or duty?”. Scripta Neo- philologica Posnaniensia X. 97-109. PUPPEL, S. 2013. “An assessment of natural language robustness and how it relates to natural language sustainability: a fuzzy ecological approach to the lives of natural languages”. Studia Rossica Posnaniensia. Zeszyt XXXVIII. 223-229. RICENTO, T. (ed.). 2000. Ideology, politics and language policies: focus on English. Amster- dam: John Benjamins. RICENTO, T. (ed.). 2006. An introduction to language policy: theories and method. Oxford: Blackwell. RUBIN, J., B.H. JERNUDD. (eds.). 1971. Can language be planned? Hawaii: The University Press of Hawaii. RUBIN, J., B.H. JERNUDD, J. DAS GUPTA, J.A. FISHMAN AND C.A. FERGUSON. (eds.). 1977. Lan- guage planning processes. The Hague: Mouton. SHAPIRO, M. (ed.). Language and politics. Oxford: Blackwell. SKUTNABB-KANGAS, T. 2000. Linguistic genocide in education – or world wide diversity and human rights? Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. TAIWO BABALOLA, E. 2002. ”The development and preservation of Nigerian languages and cultures: the role of the local government”. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 37. 161-171. Ecological monitoring and ecological profiling of natural languages 33 TOLLEFSON, J. 1991. Planning language, planning inequality: language policy in the commu- nity. London: Longman. WEINSTEIN, B. 1983. The civic tongue: political consequences of language choices. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation. WILLIAMSON, K. 1990. ”Development of minority languages: publishing problems and pro- spects”. In Emenanjo, N. (ed.). 118-144. See III. WINNICK, D. 2010. ”Preserving and revitalizing endangered languages”. Anthropology News January. 21-22. 2c. THE GEOPOLITICS OF NATURAL LANGUAGE RESOURCES (GNLRe) Within geopolitical ontology which may be regarded as a part of the ‘NaLGA ontology’ (see above), language, and most of all, a selection of any particular natural language(s) which may happen to belong to the group of the heaviest languages (i.e. those with the biggest linguomass simply ex- pressed by the biggest number of native communicators) by international institutions as well as by individuals, whether coincidental or planned, to serve as the most international means of communication, matters the most for any institution and, in particular, for any human individual in relation to the world, as well as to his/her individual professional career. This pertains especially in the following general domains: personal education, economy and geopolitics, self expression, and social justice. Obviously, it also matters significantly in the ecologically most sensitive area, that is, in the area of the sustainability of linguistic diversity. That is why it appears pertinent to keep the ASHAD monitoring-profiling complex busy with respect to matters re- lating to GNLRe, especially with regard to the use of professional (therefore highly specialized) language resources whose presence matters so signifi- cantly in international spoken and graphic (i. both written and printed) communication. Selected publications, journals and projects pertaining to the issues of geo- linguistics: ADEKUNLE, M. 1990. ”Language in a multicultural content”. In Emenanjo, N. (ed.). 239-247. ANKERL, G. 2000. Global communication without universal civilization. Geneva: INU Press. CHAUDENSON, R. 2003. ”Geolinguistics, geopolitics, geostrategy: the case of French”. In Maurais, J. (ed.). Languages in a globalising world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. COHEN, S.B. 2009. Geopolitics: the geography of international relations. 2nd ed. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. CRYSTAL, D. 1997. English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dialectologia et Geolinguistica. DE BEAUGRANDE, R. 2005. ”Geopolitics, geolinguistics, and translatability”. Intercultural Communication Studies XIV.4. 5-18. EMENANJO, N. (ed.). 1990. Multilingualism, minority languages and language policy in Nigeria. Agbor: Central Book Ltd. 34 CHAPTER THREE FISHMAN, J.A. (ed.). 1999. Handbook of language and ethnic identity. Oxford: Oxford Univer- sity Press. FLINT, C. 2006. Introduction to geopolitics. London: Routledge. GLASSNER, M.I. 1993. Political geography. New York: Wiley and Sons. GUNNEMERCK, E. 1991. Countries, peoples and their languages: the geolinguistics handbook. Gothenburg: Geolingua. International Journal of Advanced Media and Communication. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. International Journal of Information Technology and Management. International Journal of Mobile Communications. International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations. International Journal of Energy Technology and Policy. International Journal of Global Energy Issues. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management. International Journal of Environment and Pollution. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues. International Journal of Sustainable Development. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. JENKINS, J. 2007. English as a lingua franca: attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Journal of Geolinguistics. LILLIS, T., A. HEWINGS, D. VLADIMIROU AND M.J. CURRY. 2010. ”The geolinguistics of English as an academic lingua franca: citation practices across English-medium national and English- medium international journals”. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 20.1. 111-135. MAGOCSI, P.R. 1993. Historical atlas of East Central Europe. Seattle: University of Washington Press. PAREDES, X.M. AND S. DA SILVA MENDES. 2002. ”The geography of languages: a strictly geopo- litical issue? The case of ‘international English’”. Chimera 17. 104-112. RAJAGOPALAN, K. 2008. ”The role of geopolitics in language planning and language politics in Brazil”. Current Issues in Language Planning 9.2. 179-192. TARDY, C. 2004. ”The role of English in scientific communication: lingua franca or Tyranno- saurus Rex?”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3.3 307-323. VIERECK, W. 2003. Atlas linguarum Europae. Vol I. Rome: Instituto Poligrafico. WALLERSTEIN, I. 1991. Geopolitics and geoculture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ZHU HUA AND LI WEI. 2014. ”Geopolitics and the changing hierarchies of the Chinese lan- guage: implications for policy and practice of Chinese language teaching in Britain”. The Modern Language Journal 98.1. 326-339. 2d. FORMS OF DISSEMINATION AND MAINTENANCE (DAM) OF NATURAL LAN- GUAGE RESOURCES USED IN A GIVEN LINGUISTIC COMMUNITY Any natural language may be disseminated (or, as one may also say, it may ‘flow’) in society in a number of ways. They are strictly related to the communication orders in which modern humans are immersed and which Ecological monitoring and ecological profiling of natural languages 35 are, therefore, used in their daily communicative practice. The three orders comprise the following: – the oral (audio-vocal, spoken/oral) order of communication – the graphic (visual-tactile, written/printed) order of communication, and – the hybrid (spoken-graphic-electronic/multimedia/digital) order of communication. The fact that the orders are used, also with what intensity they are used, and in what volume in a given linguistic-communicative milieu, has a direct bearing on the problem of natural language sustainability and natural lan- guage robustness. Thus, if it so happens that the three are used jointly, which is usually the case with most natural languages which have succeed- ed in developing written grammars, such languages tend to show a relative- ly greater degree of robustness (cf. Puppel, 2007; Puppel, 2011; Puppel, 2013, chapter XIV below). On the other hand, languages which do not happen to have codified and written grammars may demonstrate a much weaker de- gree of robustness (cf. Lewis, 2009), as opposed to the languages with writ- ten grammars and rich written legacy. This fact may thus affect their stand- ing more efficiently in the NaLGA vis-à-vis other more robust languages. That is why the functioning of the afore mentioned orders in the DAM complex with respect to the particular natural languages, especially with respect to the weaker ones, should also be of primary concern to the experts working within the ASHAD monitoring-profiling complex. Finally, it is es- sential to recognize the crucial presence of natural language resources in the DAM complex in considering and prognosticating the fates of the particular natural languages. The following types of dissemination of natural language resources are recognized as most basic, and therefore most relevant, to the problem of natural language sustainability: a) dissemination of natural language resources in the oral order of com- munication: – the presence of social stratification – the presence and size of urban areas: – the presence and size of rural areas – the presence of professional stratification – the presence and number of regional dialects – contact (and its intensity) with members of other cultural-ethnic- linguistic communities. b) dissemination of natural language resources in the graphic order of communication: – the presence of national literature 36 CHAPTER THREE – the presence of daily national press – the presence of daily regional press – the presence of daily urban press – the presence of weekly national press – the presence of weekly regional press – the presence of weekly urban press – the presence of national monthly journals – the presence of regional monthly journals – the presence of urban/local monthly journals – the presence of widespread popular science publications – the presence of specialist publications – the availability of books which include: – translations from other languages which include: – literature (belles lettres) – popular science publications – specialist publications. c) dissemination of natural language resources in the hybrid order of communication: – the presence of the formal schooling system – the presence of national, regional, and local TV programs – the presence of cinemas – the presence of concert halls – the presence of theatres – the presence of conference halls – the presence of places of worship – the presence of other places of public gathering (e.g. sports arenas, parks, bus and train depots, shopping centres, etc.). In the light of what has been stated above, it appears legitimate to ask the following simple question: What is language/HCA monitoring? Possible answers include the following: 1. language monitoring is a regular observation and recording of lan- guage use and communication taking place in a particular natural lan- guage. 2. it is a process of routinely gathering information on all aspects of lan- guage use and communication practices in that language. 3. it is an activity which enables a person to characterize a natural lan- guage in terms of: – its vitality, its power, its standing among all the natural languages, – its relationship with other languages in a contact situation. 4. it is an activity which enables a person to characterize all the human communicating agents (HCA) in terms of: Ecological monitoring and ecological profiling of natural languages 37 – the overall ‘robustness’ versus ‘meagerness’ of their language and non-language resources as evidenced by the publically attested use of these resources, – their preferred styles of communication and language awareness, – their readiness to adapt to constantly changing environmental (i.e. external) conditions. 3. CONCLUSIONS We owe to Terentianus Maurus, a Latin grammarian, the famous phrase: Habent sua fata libelli (expressed in his De litteris, de syllabis et metris). Those of us who are concerned with the fates of natural languages may easily re- phrase the dictum by stating the following: Habent sua fata linguae. However, we may at this point also add that it is us, the native communicators, and our planning/policy/preservation activities, including the natural language monitoring and natural language profiling activities described above, which may directly influence the fates of all the ethnic/national languages, and thus prevent the worst fate of all languages, that is, the fate of annihilation. That is why, both in the case of printed artefacts (e.g. books) and various natural languages as the basic tools of human cultural interactivity and communication practices, our efforts to sustain these languages and the scale of our efforts may be (and definitely are) of utmost importance. The present section of the synthesis has been undertaken with the intent of showing that all over the world, both the particular human individuals, large groups of individuals and institutions are (have been and should be) directly involved in various preservation tasks coupled with a growing con- viction that we should all care about the common and most precious herit- age of the presently existing linguistic diversity. Or else, as envisaged by Friedman (2005), the world may indeed fall into the abyss of hopeless and regrettable ‘linguistic flatness’, or absolute domination of English, in the (untamable?) processes of globalization and standardization dictated by the overwhelming presence of English as a major globalizing language of today’s civilization. Useful references pertaining to the entire chapter: FRIEDMAN, T.L. 2005. The world is flat: a brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. GOLDSMITH, F.B. (ed.). 1991. Monitoring for conservation and ecology. London: Chapman and Hall. 38 CHAPTER THREE LEWIS, M.P. (Ed.). 2009. Ethnologue: languages of the world. 16th ed. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics International. PUPPEL, S. 2011. ”The Universal natural language preservation mechanism: an ecological approach”. In Puppel, S. (ed.). Transkomunikacja. W stronę sprofilowania przestrzeni publicznej jako wielopłaszczyznowej przestrzeni komunikacyjnej. Scripta de Commu- nicatione Posnaniensi. Seria: Prace Naukowe Katedry Ekokomunikacji UAM. Poznań: Zakład Graficzny UAM. 91-99. CHAPTER FOUR Linguonomics and linguolabourese ‘Linguonomics’ is a collective and general term which is proposed here in order to be used in applied linguistics to capture the phenomenon of relat- ing to the ways in which every ‘human communicating agent’ (hence HCA) manages his/her linguistic and non-linguistic resources in various acts of communication via the synergy of the phenomena of performativity, expres- sivity, and communicability. The term is composed of the Latin word ‘lingua’ (meaning ‘language’) and the Greek work ‘nomos’ (meaning ‘possession’, and coming from the verb ‘nemein’, meaning ‘to distribute, to give what is due, to feed, to manage the household’). The term is thus proposed to be used in the sense of referring to the activity of ‘language and non-language resource management’ precisely via the three phenomena mentioned above. This central and generic activity is the care of every individual HCA, both as an activity performed solely by an individual HCAs and by groups of HCAs. In the latter case, one may refer to the use of language and non-language resources in a larger context of the social-cultural network. Therefore, the term ‘linguonomics’ is the one which may conveniently define the most general framework for sustainable language and non- language resource management in a linguistically sustainable community. The term most naturally allies with the term ‘economics’ which is also present in language resource use. In this respect, the pair ‘linguonomics-eco- nomics’ is the proper framework for analyzing all human linguistic-commu- nicative practices (i.e. communicative performances) and their diversified statuses. It is at this point that one may bring to the fore the problem of ‘natural language management’ (NLM) in a more specific and elaborated way. In fact, it would not be entirely without justification to rely on a set of princi- ples of natural language management which should most naturally be based on general principles of management which constitute a part of linguonomics. Such general principles were proposed by Henri Fayol (1841-1925), a French 40 CHAPTER FOUR mining engineer, who worked out his famous 14 principles of management (see also selected references below). In the present analysis, these principles are regarded as elements of ‘linguolabourese’ as properly contained within linguonomics (see Puppel, 2016). According to Fayol, the following general principles of management are in order: 1. Division of work 2. Authority and responsibility 3. Discipline 4. Unity of command 5. Unity of direction 6. Subordination of individual interest to general interest 7. Renumeration to employees (compensation of personnel) 8. Centralization and decentralization 9. Scalar chain (line of authority) 10. Order 11. Equity 12. Stability of (tenure of) personnel 13. Initiative 14. Esprit de corps. It is assumed that each of the general principles may be easily employed with reference to linguistic-communicative behavior of the individual com- municators. Below, an attempt to define the linguistic-communicative appli- cations of Fayol’s principles has been undertaken. Division of work: in most standard terms, the notion refers to the com- municator’s awareness concerning the presence of specialized registers with regard to the linguistic resources (see also the chapter ‘Natural language as a resource’ presented below). Authority and responsibility: the notion refers to the fact that every communicator has the power to activate whatever fragment of his/her lin- guistic resources is momentarily required in order to sustain ongoing com- munication. On the other hand, responsibility as a corollary to authority refers to the communicator’s awareness concerning the social responsibility s/he automatically takes in developing and preserving the quality of the linguistic resources as well as activating the respective segments of the re- sources. Discipline: the notion refers to the fundamental requirement for securing a smooth administration of ongoing communication. One may easily imag- ine that without discipline, a particular communicative act may suffer from randomness and chaos and may thus be a grave source of misunderstanding between/among the communicators. Linguonomics and linguolabourese 41 Unity of command: the notion refers to the fact that the communicator is a sole ‘owner’ and author of the communiques s/he is manufacturing and sending to the public space to be further processed. It is most naturally con- tingent upon the principle of discipline outlined above. Unity of direction: this principle refers to the communicator’s linguistic- communicative activities which are undertaken in alignment with the cur- rent environmental pressures (the so-called ‘context’) exerted on the com- municator. In other words, the communicative behavior of a given commu- nicator is not out of phase with the dictates of the more or less direct environment but, instead, is in phase with it. Subordination of individual interest to general interest: this principle is central to the phenomenon of communication understood as ‘interactivity’ and it basically emphasizes the fact that if communication takes place, or is commissioned to take place, in a larger social context (e.g. a group, institu- tion), it is subordinated to the prevailing interest(s) of that context. In this case, one may talk of the so-called ‘visible’ or ‘invisible hand’ of the context. The principle is connected with the previous principle. Renumeration to employees (compensation of personnel): this principle applies to every communicator in the sense that any act of communica- tion should be staged within the general scheme of immediate/distant satis- faction to the communicator. With this principle in operation, every com- municator necessarily gets involved in some kind of a profit-sharing communicative activity rather than in a non-profit one. In other words, the communicative activity is more or less purposeful and communicator- centred. Centralization: the principle basically refers to the question of how much the communicator agrees on ‘being in charge’ of his/her communicative activities while performing a particular act of communication. We may easily imagine that not all participants of a particular communicative act would be willing to participate in it with equal strength and involvement as well as with equal communicative load in terms of the number of turns and volume of the linguistic resources used. This natural lack of proportion may lead to noticeable variations concerning the centralization of the communi- cators’ individual contributions in the particular act of communication. Scalar chain (line of authority): this principle applies in the context of the ‘superior – inferior’ rank among the communicators involved in the com- munication process. The principle is, generally, in line with the pragmatic principles proposed earlier, among others, by Paul Grice (see Grice, P. 1975. ”Logic and conversation”. In Cole, P. and J. Morgan. (eds.). Syntax and se- mantics. New York: Academic Press. 41-58) and Geoffrey Leech (see Leech, G. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman Group Ltd). 42 CHAPTER FOUR Order: this principle applies to language-resource and non-language- resource use which is based on a proper organization and proper selection (i.e. retrieval) of these resources. They are, next, assembled into a message and are subsequently executed in an act of communication. A proper com- municative order is the one which rests upon a balance between the re- quirements of the context and the size and quality of language- and non- language resources activated by a particular communicator. Equity: this principle emphasizes the vital importance of treating the NLs involved in dyadic communication as well as the HCAs as equal. In this respect, equity may also be equaled with Grice’s and Leech’s conversational and politeness maxims (see references above) applied more narrowly to the communicators’ behaviours. Equity does, however, have a broader ecolin- guistic meaning in the sense that it also focuses on the equal treatment of all the NLs occurring in the NaLGA). Stability of (tenure of) personnel: this principle basically focuses on the fact that in any concrete act of communication the number of participants should be more or less stable if the communication process, based on a more or less smooth exchange of information between/among the participants, is to succeed. If, however, the number of participants changes rapidly, the communication process may be disrupted and severely handicapped in terms of its overall communicative efficiency. Initiative: this principle smoothly dovetails with the previous principles. It emphasizes the fact that in any act of communication the initiative to commence it always requires the presence of a communicator and his/her willingness to do so. Esprit de corps: this principle is confined to the phenomenon of group/team communication and basically controls the team spirit among its members. It may also be applicable and become effective when a group of communicators decides to conform to the desire of integrating online their communicative activities around a common topic (or a set of topics). Selected references pertaining to the problem of general management: ARMSTRONG, M. 2006. A handbook of management techniques: a comprehensive guide to achieving managerial excellence and improved decision making. 3rd ed. London: Kogan Page. ARMSTRONG, M. 2005/2009. Armstrong’s handbook of management and leadership: a guide to managing for results. London: Kogan Page. COLLEY, J.L., J.L. DOYLE, R.D. HARDIE, G.W. LOGAN AND W. STETTINIUS. 2012. Principles of general management: the art and science of getting results across organizational boundaries. Yale: Yale University Press. FAYOL, H. 1916. Administration industrielle et general. (English edition: 1949. General and industrial management. London: Pitman). Linguonomics and linguolabourese 43 MCCONNELL, C.R., S.L. BRUE AND S.M. FLYNN. 2011. Economics: principles, problems, and policies. 19th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. PUPPEL, S. 2004. ”An outline of a domain-resource-agent-access-management (DRAAM) model of human communication: towards an ecology of human communication”. Electronic Journal Oikeios Logos 1. 1-26. PUPPEL, S. 2016a. ”Linguistic resource management in the process of ‘linguolabourese’”. In Kurpaska, M., T. Wicherkiewicz and M. Kunert. (eds). Thesaurus gentium & linguarum. A festschrift to honour Professor Alfred F. Majewicz. Poznań: Jeżeli P To Q. 311-316. PUPPEL, S. 2016b. ”The politics of performativity in transcommunication and its communica- tive/expressive fitness: towards a general outline”. Scripta Neophilologica Posnaniensia XVI. 99-108. THOMAS, N. (ed.). 2004. The John Adair handbook of management and leadership. London: Thorogood. CHAPTER FIVE ‘Ecoparole’ – a necessary extension of Ferdinand de Saussure’s classical concept of ‘la parole’ By bestowing upon us the Cours de linguistique générale, Ferdinand de Saussure has left an outstanding legacy in modern linguistics, sometimes referred to as ‘the Saussurean legacy’, the legacy which has most generally enriched linguistics with a distinction between two classical concepts, ‘la langue’, and ‘la parole’. This distinction, among others, has turned out to be of utmost importance for the development of modern linguistics in its nu- merous dimensions and venues. Despite the time which has elapsed since the moment of publication of de Saussure’s Geneva lectures by Bally, Sechehaye and Riedlinger (1916), the distinction had also appeared unim- peachable. More precisely, with the nascent of the sociolinguistic and prag- malinguistic guises, the immediate and very fruitful successors of the con- cepts, that is, with the development of modern linguists’ interests in both group (i.e. social) and individual uses of language for the purpose of com- munication, coupled with Chomsky’s introduction of and heavy reliance on the dualism of ‘competence – performance’ (that is, in the psycholinguis- tic/biolinguistic perspectives), it has become obvious that de Saussure’s original idea of ‘la parole’, indicating the individual uses of language as a code occurring under various and changing physical contingencies, has always been and will remain a prolific area of linguistic study. However, an inspection of the content of de Saussure’s original and straightforward (and also very elegant at that) concept of ‘la parole’, as it has been analyzed and reviewed in various linguistic contributions published to date (for more recent ones, see Conville and Duck, 1994; Kronenfeld, 1996; Ellis, 1999; Littlejohn, 2002), seems to indicate that a certain gap exists in its structure and that, subsequently, an extension of the concept’s content seems in order. In the present considerations, we may, as a starting point, consider ‘Ecoparole’ – a necessary extension of Ferdinand de Saussure’s classical concept of ‘la parole’ 45 Ellis’ assumption that in order to communicate, a human communicator (in the present section as well as through the entire work, reference is made to the ‘human communicating agent’, hence HCA) produces a goal-oriented message while necessarily orchestrating the following available resources and constraints: linguistic (with language meant as a narrow communicative resource), conversational (or dialogic/discursive), psychological-physiological, and social-cultural. A closer look at these resources and constraints prompts a major division into the following comprehensive categories as characterizing the HCAs along the language-communication (traditionally ‘langue-parole’) dimension: (a) language and non-language resources, and (b) various environmental constraints (both communicator-internal and communicator-external). The language resources comprise the language code proper, while the non- language resources comprise all non-verbal means, such as paralanguage, gestures, facial expressions and the so-called ‘body language’ potential. In turn, environmental constraints may be divided into ‘external con- straints’ (also referred to as exo-environmental pressures, comprising social class markers, situational markers, chance factors and other exo- environmental pressures), and ‘internal constraints’ (also referred to as en- do-environmetal pressures, which comprise psychological factors such as: communicative intents, cognitive and memory limitations, and physiological factors, such as: speech production mechanism limitations (also referred to as ‘spm limitations’), auditory perception limitations, and tactile-visual limi- tations). The table below illustrates the above typology. In this extended framework, de Saussure’s ‘la parole’, more properly de- fined here as ‘ecoparole’, is now better suited to handle the use of language and non-language resources under a variety of ever changing (endo- and exo-) environmental constraints. Table 1 Language Resources Non-language Resources Environmental constraints External constraints (exo-environmental pressures) Internal constraints (endo-environmental pressures) psychological Physiological 1. the language code proper 1. paralanguage 2. gestures and ‘body language’ 3. facial expres- sions 1. social class markers 2. situational markers 3. other exo-environ- mental pressures (e.g. the pressures of various institu- tions) 1. communicative intents 2. cognitive and emotional 1. speech production mechanism limita- tions 2. auditors’ perception limitations 3. tactile-visual limita- tions 46 CHAPTER FIVE Useful references: Adler, R. 1999. Looking out looking in. New York: Harcourt Brace. Atkinson, P., B. Davies and S. Delamont. (eds.). 1995. Discourse and reproduction: essays in honor of Basil Bernstein. Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press. Bernstein, B. 1971. Class, codes, and control. Vol. 1: Theoretical studies toward a sociology of education. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Conville, R.L. and S. Duck. (eds.). 1994. Uses of ‘structure’ in communication studies. West- port, CT: Praeger Publishers. de Saussure, F. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Edited by C. Bally and A. Sechehaye in collaboration with A. Riedlinger. (Translated by W. Baskin as Course in general linguis- tics. 1966. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company). Ellis, D.G. 1999. From language to communication. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ- ates. Kronenfeld, D.B. 1996. Plastic glasses and church fathers: semantic extensions from ethno- science tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Littlejohn, S. 2002. Theories of human communication. Albuquerque: Wadsworth. Narula, U. 2006. Handbook of communication: models, perspectives, strategies. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributers. Puppel, S. 1992. The dynamics of speech production. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Puppel, J. 2014. Obecność i rola gestów rytualnych w przestrzeni publicznej (The presence and role of ritual gestures in the public space). Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM. CHAPTER SIX The agent-based approach to human communication The Human Communicating Agents (hence HCA) may be viewed in a principled way, that is, as constrained by a number of principles which are interwoven in the determination of the nature of communication taking place between/among them. The following two categories of principles may be distinguished in this regard: 1. HCA identity principles, and 2. HCA interaction principles. Among the identity principles, one should distinguish the following: 1a. The principle of longevity: all (or the statistically predominant pop- ulation of) HCAs are assumed to have a long life which follows a clear pattern of three biological phases: growth, steady-state (plateau), and decline. 1b. The needs principle: all HCAs are capable of defining and imple- menting personal communicative needs, such as: (a) the need to convey intentionality to other communicators, (b) the need to get involved in multi-modal social interactions, (c) the need to detect and use clues from context and communicator personality to involve a plethora of emotions in any communica- tion act, (d) the need to manage (i.e. control) one’s own emotions in social in- teractions so that emotions are elicited in other HCAs and are used by the particular communicators in order to influence each other, (e) the need to employ emotions in the so-called ‘machiavellian manner’ (i. e. through the so-called ‘honest’ versus ‘fake’ emotional displays). 1c. The principle of autonomy: all HCAs are highly autonomous (i.e. independent) such that every individual agent is generally capable of demonstrating the possibility to decide: 48 CHAPTER SIX (a) how to achieve a communicative goal, (b) which goals are to be preferred, (c) how to choose among alternative goals, (d) how to choose among alternative courses of action leading to the implementation of a particular communicative goal. 1d. The principle of rationality: all HCAs are capable of rationalizing their current state as an end product of the application of selected re- sources and are capable of changing their preferences accordingly. In other words, all HCAs are capable not only of considering (i.e. re- viewing and assessing) the current costs connected with achieving a given goal, but are also capable of reviewing and assessing the costs connected with choosing an alternative goal or a set of goals (see the principle of autonomy defined above). In turn, among the interaction principles, one should distinguish the fol- lowing: 2a. The principle of the environment: apart from being biological enti- ties, all HCAs are environment-focused entities in that they are both sustained in the environment (in the sense of being under its pres- sure) and are aware of: a) being constitutive elements of the entire biotic and abiotic envi- ronment of the Earth, where they function by way of interacting with all the other biotic and abiotic elements, b) being elements of the uniquely human social-cultural milieu as part of the biotic milieu, where they function by way of interacting with (all) the other members of that milieu. 2b. The resource principle: all HCAs have at their disposal language and non-language communicative resources which they have devel- oped in their individual lives, to which they have direct access, and which they can activate according to their individual and context- determined needs. 2c. The network principle: all HCAs enter different-sized social-cultu- ral-linguistic-communicative networks, ranging from the smallest to the biggest. 2d. The tradeoff principle: all HCAs, irrespective of the social-cultural distance (or the degree of intimacy of their interactions), are capable of performing communicative interactions by way of two types of communicative tradeoffs: a) intentional (i.e. socially commissioned and planned) tradeoffs, b) non-intentional (i. e. random and unplanned) tradeoffs. 2e. The principle of being socially adept (social adeptness): all mature and properly socialized HCAs are regarded as socially intelligent The agent-based approach to human communication 49 agents and are thus assumed to be generally capable of purposefully and consciously harmonizing their goals and actions with other HCAs in the public space (both open and closed). The principle may also involve the harmonization of communicative activities of any HCA within a particular speech act. 2f. The principle of intimacy (the principle of social distance): all ma- ture and properly socialized HCAs are regarded as socially intelli- gent agents and are thus assumed to be capable of performing basi- cally two kinds of interactions: a) peer level agent interactions b) non-peer level agent interactions, where the term ‘peer’ indicates the fuzzy criteria of ‘sameness’ and ‘equali- ty’, and which may be additionally defined against the following parame- ters: age, social and economic status, education, profession, and interests. Thus, one may also refer to all the HCAs as peers with respect to age, peers with respect to social/economic status, peers with respect to profession, etc. On the other hand, non-peers may be defined along the fuzzy and opposing criteria of ‘non-sameness’ and ‘non-equality’ with respect to the afore men- tioned parameters. Useful references: Hall, E. 1966/1982. The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday/Random House. Karakayali, N. 2009. “Social distance and affective orientations”. Sociological Forum 23.3. 538-562. Matthews, J.L. and T. Matlock. 2011. “Understanding the link between spatial distance and social distance”. Social Psychology 42. 185-192. O’Sullivan, T., J. Hartley, D. Saunders, M. Montgomery and J. Fiske. 1994. Key concepts in communication and cultural studies. London: Routledge. Puppel, S. 2006. ”Phonological development: a brief survey”. In Zybert, J.(ed.). Issues in for- eign language learning and teaching. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu War- szawskiego. 185-193. Puppel, S. 2013. ”A communication manifesto (evolving)”. Scripta Neophilologica Pos- naniensia XIII. 91-99. Yamakawa, Y., R. Kanai, M. Matsumura, and E. Naito. 2009. ”Social distance evaluation in human parietal cortex”. PLoS ONE 4.2. e4360. CHAPTER SEVEN Natural language as a resource Natural language may be considered within a more economical orienta- tion which focuses on economical performances of every transcommunicator, that is, as a structurally complex and self-organizing ‘resource’ (a source or supply which is both developmental and available and which is possibly renewable). Therefore, if it is properly managed by the individual trans- communicators, the language resource may remain either unchanged or may grow and change (even to the point of noticeable loss) in any communi- cator’s competence, and may successfully serve the various communicative purposes. Subsequently, natural language resource management as a part of hu- man resource management potential appears fundamental in natural lan- guage sustainability. Some of the major behaviours concerning language and non-language resource management (see Chapter IV which discusses the notions of ‘linguonomics’ and ‘linguolabourese’) include the following (they are organized here as a set of ten postulates): 1. Consider carefully the external environment in which a given natural language is to be used. 2. Be aware of and apply the planning and organizing process in indi- vidual language use. 3. Incorporate ethics and social responsibility in individual language use. 4. Build your personal commitment in individual language use. 5. Be effective in language resource planning and language use (see the ‘Oskar Syndrome’ discussed below). 6. Be successful in language resource planning and language use (see the ‘Gulliver Syndrome’ discussed below). 7. Be comfortable in language resource planning and language use (see the ‘Petronius Syndrome’ discussed below). 8. Appreciate the importance of individual communicator language and non-language resource management. Natural language as a resource 51 9. Constantly monitor the size and quality of your language resources and your language and non-language performance. 10. Gain the overall skills of exercising full control over your language and non-language resources as a transnational/trans-ethnic and trans-cultural communicator: that is, strive towards full cultural- linguistic-communicative competence. Useful references: MANKIW, N.G. 2012. Principles of macroeconomics. 8th ed. Duffield, UK: Worth Publishing. MILLER, G.T. AND S. SPOOLMAN. 2011. Living in the environment: principles, connections, and solutions. 17th ed. Belmont, CA: Brooks-Cole. RICKLEFS, R. AND R. RELYEA. 2013. 7th ed. New York: W.H. Freeman. STAMPS, D. 1997. ”The self-organizing system”. Training 34. 30-36. CHAPTER EIGHT Overall effects in the use of language and non-language resources by the human communicating agents (HCAs) Three types of effects in the use of language and non-language resources by the particular HCAs have been distinguished. They are briefly charac- terized below. 1. The basic (core) effect in the use of language and non-language resources: ↓ effectiveness (i.e. a certain degree of inertia in interpersonal communication consisting in reacting to the interlocutor’s message) Description: the sender of the message is not very much aware of the quality of his/her and the receiver’s language and non-language resources and communicates spontaneously, while basically remaining within the lower and medium language resources. This is the Oskar Syndrome. 2. The trans-resource effect in the use of language and non-language resources: ↓ successfulness (the HCA demonstrates the highest degree of adaptation and flexibility as to the use of the linguistic and non-linguistic resources in interpersonal communication) Description: the sender of the message is aware of his/her and the re- ceiver’s quality of language and non-language resources, both lower, medi- um, and higher, and activates them in a proper mix, that is, according to a current communicative context. Overall effects in the use of language and non-language resources 53 This is the Gulliver Syndrome. 3. The steady wealth effect in the use of language and non-language resources: ↓ comfortability (the HCA demonstrates the highest degree of awareness for aesthetics in the use of the language and non-language resources in interpersonal communication) Description: the sender of message is very strongly aware of his/her and the receiver’s language and communication resources, their volume, above all of their quality, and thus concentrates solely on the activation of only the higher (and possibly the highest) language resources to satisfy his/her in- ternal drive towards achieving exclusively his/her own higher/highest aes- thetic standards, usually irrespective of the direct context of the message. This is the Petronius Syndrome. 4. The presence of the affective resource in human communication Apart from the use of linguistic and non-linguistic resources, determined by the size and quality of the resources owned by the particular HCAs (see also Chapter XI below), one should also remember about the constant pres- ence of affect in every communication act. In fact, we should say that every mature HCA has at his/her disposal a well developed personalized emo- tional profile and that all human communication practices are immersed in emotions. That is, they are affect-imbued and affect-induced. We can also say that the emotions which pervade human communication in fact very strongly serve the maintenance of language as a major communicative re- source, as well as they are decisive in maintaining a particular NL. This task is accomplished by the individual communicators through their use of lan- guage and non-language means while expressing a rich plethora of emo- tional states and intentions that the HCAs are willingly as well as tacitly and unavoidingly ‘loading’ into their messages. Thus, apart from the purely informative, instructive, educating and guiding functions of any communicative acts, they may also be structured and saturated with affective content in such a way that they may have the following affective communicator outcomes: alienating, appeasing, cajoling, causing disgust, causing delight and satisfaction, chastising, confusing, con- soling, dissuading, entertaining and causing laughter (humourizing), flatter- ing, humiliating, impressing, inflaming, influencing, insulting, irritating, patronizing, persuading, smoothing, stigmatizing, sympathizing. Indeed, as 54 CHAPTER EIGHT can be seen, affects provide an inescapable and rich resource which has a direct bearing on the preservation of language and non-language resources. That is why it is so essential that the particular HCA has a more or less con- scious hold on the ‘affective resource’ as part of the linguistic- communi