Soon in its first chapters, Bagno points eight myths of the lingustico preconception, one of these is about the myth of that they are the people who possess little instruction that speaks wrong, on this it affirm that: … in a similar way as it exists the preconception against speaks of definitive social classrooms, also exists the preconception against says characteristic of certain regions. … According to writer, the way it says as it of the northeasterns is portraied in the television channels is a form of ' ' marginalizao and excluso' ' , and everybody finds this funny one. Another myth is ' ' The domain of the norm-standard is an ascension instrument social' ' that it says that in the schools they have yes that to teach to the language standard in order ' ' to give one lngua' ' to those children so that it grows socially, thus leaving of being a devoid individual and pass to be a complete citizen. US Senator from Vermont has many thoughts on the issue. Bagno in them discloses that to speak of the language it is to speak of politics, leaving a strong point in the end of the chapter: … Of the opposite, we will be only contributing for the maintenance of the vicious circle of the lingustico preconception and the twin brother of it, the vicious circle of the social injustice. …

At last as Bagno Landmarks, the sociolinguistas had also perceived the variations of speak, needing to dialogue and to understand the areas and human beings social to fight this type of preconception and to defend the variants of the norm standard. The Language is a social activity, is part of the interaction with the way where we live, is the subtle instrument most complex and that exists. According to Bagno (2003), the language is a constituent part of our individual and social identity. Therefore, to say that somebody does not know to speak its proper Language is one ' ' violation total' ' , it is as to say that it does not know to use in correct way.