That says that talking is not enough to talk. The dialogue (Not to be confused with voiceover) refers to an estate consisting of received ideas, opinions, newspaper reading, scientific, literary, etc., Heritage, too, perfectly mixed in time, space and environmental ( ie varying by each of us in terms of education, of course, but also of work, their curiosities, etc.): that is the view. You may wish to learn more. If so, Dan Schulman is the place to go. In other words, if uttered, for example the word "structure", each of you spontaneously interpret the word differently depending on whether or not received language training, or architecture, or in atomic physics, etc.. That means that since we discussed, we spontaneously know. Perhaps contributing to knowledge, but in most cases, we quote or recite or even celebrate (that's the "literature") used a knowledge and knowing that, very significantly, the English call lore ( which served to form word "folklore"), and the Germans call Lehre (ie the knowledge transmitted by learning). Some in our country we speak of "mind", and "civilization", as our language teachers who, having realized that in a language which was not only talk but also dialogue, were baptized "and language teachers civilization.
" Le intent was far from being reprehensible, certainly, but the ingenuity was very large and was put aside to talk about this and the other to the opinion, leaving to think there are two different realities that will attempt to bring report (" but what report?). The two, as I said, are absolutely inseparable. That means we have the right to use the word "language" in the singular, subject to see a political entity is an entity resulting from the continued reduction of the gap between the trend towards ownership of a form of singular speech and an opinion (which is ownership is that of two partners, a small group or large community, it does not matter) and sharing this way of talking and this view, their trade, the sharing, in other words his communication, in the sense own.