Harris discusses this extensively: Instead of parts of a fixed code, language is looked at as a resource to conduct action with, an idea that echoes the notions put forth by speech act theorists such as J.L.
[5] Pablé explores the integrationist views of language in terms of the naming practices related to castles in Bellinzona, Switzerland.
[2][6] By asking locals the directions to castles using non-standard names for the castles, Pablé elicited various forms by which the locals referred to them, highlighting the idea that references to the places were "highly context sensitive" and that the "meaning" is created on the spot,[6] and that "speakers always make sense of language in light of their own experience".
[2] According to integrationist principles, the separation of linguistic phenomena into distinct parts of study is a fundamental error in the conceptualization of language.
The latter being rightly susceptible to a written and spoken word bias yet this is not without current attempts to broaden and include a wider range of semiotic contingencies into analyses.
[9][10] While integrationism has been in existence for over three decades, advocating against the “language myth”[7] and indicating that linguistic sign alone cannot function as the basis of an independent, self-sufficient form of communication, but depends for effectiveness on its integration with non-verbal activities of many different kinds, some integrationists have recently directed this perspective to revisit another important concept in sociolinguistics – “social identity”.
On the other hand, however, stressing that identity cannot be examined exclusively from an individual's integrational practice (including both linguistic and non-linguistic practice), integrationists cast doubt on the way sociocultural approach analyzes identity by specifically questioning three of the latter's tenets: (i) data, (ii) phenomenological inductivism,[11] and (iii) indirect indexicality.
Sociolinguists concentrate on how people utilize linguistic structures and items, cultural norms, and macro identities that they are normatively assigned in conversation.
In conclusion, from an integrational view, “social identity” is rather a “meta-discursive label used by lay speakers to cope with their everyday first-order experience”[3] than a term or object of scientific study that is static and communicationally predetermined.
According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO),[13] literacy is defined as the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate, compute and use printed and written materials associated with varying contexts.
Therefore, educators believe by teaching words, or the symbolization of phonetic signs, students are equipped with the literacy to understand the written texts.
[14] The understanding of spoken language relies on the common knowledge shared by the participants who are involved in the conversation, and the cognition required is situated and highly interactional.
[14] Jenkins et al. go further by claiming that the form of reasoning plays a more important role than the content of learning in the era of technology-enhanced interaction.
[16] To put it another way, the content can be easily stored and retrieved by means of technologies, so the practice of reasoning centers on how to generate, evaluate, interpret, and deploy the electronic resources.