The centrality of language in the cultural integration process

Language can undoubtedly be considered a "cultural universal" in the sense that it is an element of the culture of each company known: its universality, and its nature is radically different from that of any other type of communication that exists between animals, to suggest anthropologists that the very use of language is one of the key features that differentiate humans from other living beings. The linguist and American anthropologist Edward Sapir gave this definition of the nature of language: "language is a purely human and non-instinctive method of communicating ideas, emotions and desires through a system of voluntarily produced symbols." The derivation of individual dignity from the dignity of a community, of a group and its culture, it would seem inevitably reflect, at least conceptually, the contribution to the individual, to be part of that community, identity and individuality itself. Art.6 Cost. And "under the protection" of linguistic minorities Although in correlation with its broad interpretation to the regions and with the statements of the art.2 Const., The "Republic" art. 9 was sometimes considered expressive of a pluralism of cultural identities "Elevating a fundamental principle of" the protection of linguistic minorities, provided by art. 6 Const., Does not seem to have administered the constitutionalization of a pluralistic nation, a nation of nations. Not only because, often accentuated, in the theories of linguistic and cultural pluralism, the rule of connecting the protection of linguistic minorities with freedom of expression, could recur mentioned the issue of reducing the protection to exclusive freedom of linguistic expression, but because, in the course of the preparatory work of the Constituent Assembly, was expunged the word "ethnic" that, in the original proposal submitted to the Commission of 75, had accompanied the "linguistic minorities", with a choice that, although it is not specifically motivated seemed to have been determined by the need to "limit the protection to minority linguistic and cultural aspect", excluding any reference to nationality, considered more closely ricollegabile adjective "ethnic".