INTRODUCTION
Language is without doubt cultural in nature and determination. This is true whether one believes, with some, that language must be distinguished from culture, or, with others, that language is one major aspect of culture and hence is to be included in culture. Furthermore, it is true regardless of whether one considers linguistics primarily as a social science or as one of the humanistic studies. Controversies on such problems are mainly terminological; they do not obscure the important role which linguistics may play when applied to various social sciences.
For one thing, a language system may be regarded as a cultural marker. Hence as a guide in indicating the boundaries of a culture area or as an aid in tracing the spread of culture by migration and by cultural borrowing, linguistic facts are often far more reliable than other cultural markers, such as the tools used by a culture, or its style architecture. Tools and styles of architecture are much more readily borrowed than certain aspects of language.
Moreover, the members of a culture are usually aware, consciously or unconsciously, of language as a cultural marker. In the United States we are in the habit of identifying people with a southern accent as belonging to a particular subculture; likewise, individuals in the educated classes are likely to identify persons with substandard speech as belonging to inferior social classes. When dialectal differences become the basis for invidious comparisons their relevance in social interaction becomes painfully obvious.
Finally, it is overwhelmingly significant that every facet of a language system contributes to the way in which a community uses language in social control. Not only everyday conversation and address but also all the varieties of mass communication, such as propaganda and advertising, depend upon the precarious standards of a common language system.
Linguistics thus appears to have a bearing on all the social sciences, which are concerned with studying the behavior of groups or the behavior of individuals in relation to those groups. There is even a possibility that linguistics may play a part in the solution of certain social problems. If so a new kind of applied science language engineering as it has recently been termed-may come into being.
In this chapter we will consider the relations between linguistic science, on one hand, and anthropology, sociology, and social psychology on the other. We will also attempt to sketch the possible implications of linguistic studies for certain problems of social engineering, such as the resolution of problems caused by linguistic diversity throughout the world and the adjustment of social conditions in communities where the folk language is not accorded its proper status.
LINGUISTICS IN RELATION TO ANTHROPOLOGY
In anthropological literature, there are many expressions of confidence in the idea that there are intimate connections between linguistics and ethnology. Olmsted has sorted out some of these connections in his survey of what he recognizes as “ ethno linguistics”. He points out that ethno linguistics has been understood in several senses, as referring to the use, in ethnology, of findings in linguistics, the use, in linguistics, of findings from ethnology, the interchange between linguistics and ethnology of certain features of their respective methodologies, studies of problems clearly requiring data from both ethnology and linguistics, And an integrative approach in the social sciences made possible by the combined forces of ethnology and linguistics. It is wise to agree, as Olmsted seems to imply, that ethno linguistics embraces all these things.
The ethnologist, whose job is to describe the traits of a given culture, is under a routine obligation to list the language system or system prevalent in the culture. Usually the ethnologist is not technical linguist, but, depending upon the thoroughness with which he wishes to conduct his work, he may find it necessary to acquire at least some skill in speaking and understanding the language of the community whose culture he is studying. If the language has already, been described by a linguist the ethnologist is obviously benefited; if only in this trivial and operational sense, linguistic results can be applied in ethnology. Although ethnologists occasionally disparage the value of linguistic training, Sapir’s remarks on the subject are convincing:

Some day the attempt to master a primitive culture without the help of the language of its society will seem as amateurish as the labors of a historian who cannot handle the original documents of civilization which he is describing ( Mandelbaum, 1949, page 162)

The relevance of linguistic to ethnology goes far beyond the mere operational necessities mentioned in the last paragraph. In both the structural and the lexical and semantic aspects of language system, there exist correlations with traits of the culture either as it exists at any given moments or as it has existed at some previous time. Linguistic expressions of kinship and social status system readily afford examples of such correlations, and the use of kinship nomenclature as a possible clue to the establishment of linguistic families has been illustrated in a brief note by Kroeber(1941). As to the general relations between linguistics and ethnology, Kroeber concludes:
On the whole, it is evident that of the two disciplines ethnology is the one which is dependent on linguistics. But the relations are complex and now and then it is the linguist who can profit by what the anthropologist can tender him (1941).
Greenberg (1948) has pointed out that the complete description of the semantic components of a language system is possible only by reference to cultural facts. Thus, careful compilation of a lexicon is then a field in which the linguist and ethnologist can fruitfully collaborate. Greenberg also make the telling observation that the semantic analysis of a language should be of interest to the ethnologist because it presents him with a practical exhaustive classification of the objects in the cultural universe of the speakers. Of course may raise a question whether the semantic structure of a language (that is the particular way in which potential meanings are associated with particular linguistics forms) does in fact yield information as to the “ cultural universe of the speakers.“ Perhaps there are nonlinguistic aspects of this cultural universe, and perhaps it isn’t truly universal, but instead varies somewhat from speaker to speaker. In any case Greenberg’s hypothesis deserves attention it seems to emphasize again the notion of labeling which Dollard and Miller have made much of in their discussion of psychological mechanisms in personality and psychotherapy.
Greenberg summarizes his rather theoretical paper as follows:

The foregoing analysis ... suggests that linguistics and extra linguistic segments of culture are intimately connected in a number of ways the ethnologist may... view each specimen of the informants’ speech as an instance of verbal behavior revealing both cultural and personal aspects... altogether there is a rewarding field which awaits the linguistically oriented ethnologist and a mature science of culture is unlikely to emerge without the linguistic approach to culture having played a significant role. (1948, page 147)
An anthropologist who has found much profit in linguistic studies Clyde Kluckhohn. In his book on the Navaho Indians, written in collaboration with Dorothea Leighton, he not only recommends that administrators, teachers, and missionaries who have to do with the Navahos should “learn something about the salient features of the linguistic structure” but also affirms that “ anyone who wants to understand the Navahos at all must know something about there language and the way in which it molds thought, interest and attitudes” (Kluckhohn and Leighton 1946 page 184).Later in speaking of failures of communication between the Navahos and the whites, he writes, “Even a few days of intelligent study will show that the lack of equivalence in Navaho and English is merely the outward expression of in ward differences between to people in premises, in basic categories, in training in fundamental sensitivities, and in general view of the world” (page 215) It will be obvious at once, even from these quotations and much more from an examination of Kluckhohn’s chapter on “ The tongue of the people,” that the relations between linguistics and ethnology don’t manifest themselves necessarily only in trivial details like the manner in which members of the culture greet each other in the morning, but also with respect to the way in which a language system may reflect the world - view of a culture. Thus, what Kluckhohn is talking about is equivalent to no less than the “ Weltanschauung” problem, which has been delineated earlier in this report.
Ethno linguistic investigations of the kind suggested by the more or less programmatic statements cited here have thus far not been undertaken in any thoroughgoing way. This is perhaps because such investigations would probably require extremely detailed and comprehensive linguistic analyses. For example the ethno linguistic study of American speech would require penetrating analyses of dialectal variations, intonation patterns, and special features such as slang.
The well-known investigation of language of gardening, among the Trobriand Islanders by the anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski (1935) was severely vitiated by a lack of expertise in linguistics and by the adoption of a number of questionable premises. Malinowski gained a reputation for the view that it is impossible to study the language of a community without knowing its culture -indeed, that if one desires to specify the meaning of an utterance one must refer to the total situational and cultural context of that utterance. From this it would appear that while ethnological data would be crucial in linguistics, the reverse would not be true. Malinowski was, in fact, strongly opposed to traditional linguistics with its alleged emphasis on the study of texts; he rejected the Saussurean distinction between language and speech, and asserted that all study of speech necessarily leads immediately to sociological investigation (Malinowski, 1937). Nevertheless, in the work which he himself called his best effort, it is amply clear that at all points concerned with relations between ethnological observations and the kinds of data which would be studied by a descriptive linguist; if Malinowski had been a trained descriptive linguist, the linguistic facts would no doubt have had more compelling implications.