Three critical perspectives on the ontology of ‘language’

Abstract

This chapter considers three (“non-segregational”) holistic approaches to language and highlights their commonalities and differences: southern linguistic theory, integrationism, and ontogenesis. The point of departure is the “multiple language ontologies” argument put forth by Pennycook and Makoni (2019), according to which acknowledging the diversity of linguistic epistemologies is not sufficient for a radically new linguistics: they suggest that “language” (mass) may have different ontologies in different cultural settings. Building on an integrational semiological thesis (Harris, 1996), I will argue that the thesis about “language” having multiple natures also suggests that communication has multiple natures. While integrationists, adopting a folklinguistic approach, agree with both theses, they also argue that human communication can be approached as a universal phenomenon: integrationism, being “lay-oriented”, offers such a non-ethnocentric approach without denying radical differences between cultures and between conceptualizations of language and communication. The third approach to language, i.e., ontogenesis (Berger, 2005), will be introduced toward the end of the chapter as arguably the most radical non-segregationist approach. A comparison with integrationism and southern theory suggests theoretical shortcomings that have hitherto remained unnoticed.