This reduction policy, if you want to see it this way, is the separation between the idiocy of schizophrenia and paranoia consent to every word emanating from the speaker any purpose whatsoever that this has to separate, then, between absolute heterogeneity and homogeneity is also absolute. But we need to understand here is that these two poles, except for pathological blocking one of the two, there are remaining in all speaking subjects on the phenomenon of verbal communication. The social space is a permanent dialogue back and forth between these two poles. This explains, at the same time, the fact that all language is subject to two "views" political antagonists (the conservatory and progressivism), which try to solve dialectic of the divergence and convergence, in the sense of convergence, in the sense of divergence. On the one hand, we reduce the temporal heterogeneity, spatial and social speakers and scholars in the sense of uniformity, imposing a language in which only some are expressed: here are the inhabitants of Paris (there is no better example to Paris "as Villon said.) And this reduction is at the expense of all internal differences, whatever their origin may be, and so the Provence or Brittany, for example, are excluded as "dialect." This policy is conservative, if not reactionary (which is either right or left 'think Jules Ferry!), And as we join the variety of speakers and knowledge, we can say: "That's the French!". This policy, of course, can never reach perfect purity, as we have seen that in a language supposed to do unique ownership of the sign, and the divergence, is a pure cat street! We try, however, "stop" in the legal sense of the term almost a speaker and a "literature", which gave us yesterday, here, the French Academy dictionary, the grammar of good use of Grevisse and as, in my time, the famous "Lagarde et Michard, real institutions designed to give the illusion of a French internal homogeneity. Add to your understanding with Amazon.