THE LANGUAGE PERSPECTIVE AS ACTION IN THE TEXT THE RESURRECTION OF ROME

Authors

  • Evangelina Brito Faria

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22478/ufpb.2446-7006.44v25n3.55626

Abstract

For Interational Linguistics, language is a place of communicative interaction, through the production of meaning between interlocutors, in a given communication situation, constituted by a historical and ideological context. Language users interact as subjects, who occupy social places and speak and hear from these places. For this conception, “Verbal interaction is the fundamental reality of language”. For Bakhtin, communication exists only in the reciprocity of dialogue and is much more than the simple transmission of messages, it is, above all, the constitution of subjects. Constitution of subjects is one of the main actions of language. To consider language as an action is to assume that social practice, which we call language, is inseparable from its ethical, social, economic and cultural consequences. From this perspective, this communication aims to observe, in the text The Resurrection of Rome, by Lubich (1949), the consequences of his saying for life in society. Chiara Lubich (1920-2008) is one of the most representative figures in the intercultural and interreligious dialogue of the 20th century. Founder of the Focolare Movement, she used multiple means of communication to spread her thoughts, leaving a large archive of publications, still partially unpublished. Theoretically, we mainly seek support in Bakhtin (2014) and Austin's pragmatics (1990). Methodologically, we will make a bibliographic path. It is hoped to consolidate the vision of language as an action and to show its importance in building more solid relationships, anchored in a discourse, which finds support in the actions carried out in society.

 

Keywords: Language, Action, Lubich.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Published

2020-12-18

How to Cite

Faria, E. B. (2020). THE LANGUAGE PERSPECTIVE AS ACTION IN THE TEXT THE RESURRECTION OF ROME. Acta Semiotica Et Lingvistica, 25(3), 106–119. https://doi.org/10.22478/ufpb.2446-7006.44v25n3.55626