Thinking like a linguist
Our tasks in this chapter will be to explain what it means to âthink like a linguistâ and to show how linguistsâ assumptions about language often differ from those of the layperson. One might assume, for example, that a linguist would be the first person to turn to when seeking advice on good speech or writing. In fact, few linguists would see it as part of their role to prescribe how language should be used, preferring instead to describe the facts of language as it is used. As we will see later in the chapter, linguists are quick to point out that the bases for our linguistic value judgements generally turn out to be arbitrary, spurious and inconsistent.
In literate societies, we are also used to equating language with its written form, and treating speech as somehow deviant. Linguists make precisely the opposite assumption, reminding us that we all learn our mother tongue at a very young age without the aid of books, and if we learn to read and write in that language at all, we do so only after we have mastered speech. As we will see in this chapter, language looks radically different when we start from a spoken language perspective. It will also become clear that some everyday assumptions we take for granted â for example, the difference between a language and a dialect, or the notion of âbeautifulâ or âprimitiveâ languages â become highly problematical once our linguistic prejudices are stripped away.
The science of language
It makes sense to start by asking what the term linguistics actually means. The following definition is taken from Collins English Dictionary:
âLinguistics, n. (functioning as sing.) The scientific study of languageâ
As a working definition, âscientific study of languageâ will probably do, but the word âscientificâ might appear problematic in this context, because language doesnât seem to belong to the realm of science in its conventional sense. One certainly doesnât imagine linguists in laboratories wearing white coats, and it isnât immediately obvious how one could undertake experiments on language, something that resides ultimately in the head of a native speaker.
It might help if we construe âscientificâ here to mean something like âobjectiveâ, but achieving âobjectivityâ in linguistics is far from a straightforward task, not least because speakersâ judgements about the same data can differ hugely, making reliable conclusions difficult to draw. For example, while most British English speakers would probably reject the sentence âI didnât do it though butâ, itâs perfectly acceptable in some British dialects. Likewise, many English speakers accept âinnit?â as a contraction of âisn't it?â but reject it (often vehemently) as a tag question in sentences like: âWeâre seeing him on Saturday, innit?â â now commonly used in some varieties of British English. Even for a question as apparently innocuous as âDo you speak language X?â, native speaker intuitions may be contradictory or difficult to interpret: responses may be influenced by informantsâ attitudes to the language in question (âDo I approve of X, or even think of it as a proper language? Would I want people to think I use it?â) or to their understanding of the question, which might range from: âDo I speak this language every day?â to âCan I understand it, even if I donât speak it?â, or even âCan I manage a few words if the need arises?â So linguists need to be especially careful when claiming âscientificâ objectivity for their findings.
To approach their subject matter objectively, linguists need first to shed a number of everyday assumptions, or âlanguage mythsâ: weâll be looking at some of these below. The good news is that learning to think like a linguist isnât difficult: in a real sense, itâs a bit like releasing your inner child, as weâll see in the next section. A further piece of good news is that, as a native speaker of any language, youâre already in possession of some âexpert knowledgeâ! But before you start, you need to grasp two fundamental principles that underpin everything linguists do and that go some way to explaining what âscientificâ means for the study of language:
⢠Principle 1: âThe spoken language comes first.â
⢠Principle 2: âLinguistics is descriptive, not prescriptive.â
Principle 1: The spoken language comes first
As we saw, thinking as a linguist does is like âreleasing your inner childâ. The following thought experiment will help get you started.
| | Spotlight: Try to forget you can read |
Imagine what your world would be like if the written word were completely alien to you, and letters on the page no more than meaningless squiggles. Since youâre already reading this book, youâre probably finding that quite difficult, but this is of course a world you once knew, albeit when you were rather younger, probably before you started school.
For most adults, the written word takes up a significant proportion of our lives, whether we be reading a novel or daily newspaper, consulting an instruction manual, updating our Facebook status, catching up with the latest Twitter feed or texting a friend. If youâre at university or college, the written word soon becomes a prime focus: you read for a degree, which may well involve writing notes at lectures, where you may be given handouts, and youâll be asked periodically to commit your thoughts to paper in the form of written essays. Writing is all around us, and modern life and the technological advances we take for granted would be impossible without it.
For linguists, however, writing takes second place to speech. Linguists are not uninterested in the written word: indeed, written material, particularly from earlier, pre-mass media eras, can offer important clues to language structure and linguistic change. Linguists working in the field of literary stylistics devote much of their time to the analysis of written texts. But generally linguists follow the principle of according primacy to speech, for a number of very good reasons:
1 All the worldâs existing and extinct natural languages have had native speakers, but only a minority of them have ever had a written form.
While languages such as English, Mandarin, Hindi or Russian all have a long written tradition, many others, particularly those with small numbers of speakers, do not. Many African languages (e.g. Ewe, Wawa, Lugbara), Australian aboriginal languages (e.g. Dyirbal, Warlbiri, Guugu Yimidhirr) and native American languages (e.g. Arawakan, Hopi, Miskito) are not generally used for writing. We know little of the Gaulish language, which was spoken in what is now France before Roman occupation, because Gauls had no written system, and much of what we do know about the language comes from attempts to transcribe it using Latin characters, which were not designed for Gaulish.
Speakers of minority languages in unsympathetic nation states have often been taught that writing is acceptable only in the dominant or âofficialâ language, making it harder for their supporters to develop an accepted written standard if and when those same states later adopt more tolerant attitudes.
Cockney, Brummie, Geordie and Glaswegian (see Case study on next page) have no written form and their speakers are dependent on the conventions of standard English for writing. Estimates put at around 6,000 the number of different languages spoken throughout the world, of which only a fraction have a written form: it would seem perverse â not to say âu...