LIN 1310 – Some basic concepts…
LIN 1310 - SOME BASIC CONCEPTS...
Some basic concepts underlying linguistic theory
Despite what is may say in the dictionary, a linguist is not necessarily someone who speaks lots
of languages. Professional linguists refer to someone who speaks lots of languages as a polyglot
or a multilingual.
The goal of modern linguistics is to adequately describe and understand human language.
The linguist’s approach to the study of human language is a descriptive one.
Linguists are descriptivists.
This contrasts with a prescriptive approach (see below).
Descriptive approach vs. prescriptive approach
Descriptive approach
Linguists try to make scientific statements about language supported by empirical data.
Linguists are not concerned with ideas of how people should speak. Rather, they are concerned
with how people actually do speak.
Linguists study a language as it is used by its speakers.
For linguists, there is no greater inherent value in one grammatical rule or particular form of
language over another.
Linguists do not try to rate languages as good or bad or simple or complex.
Linguists do not hold archaic forms dear. They recognize that languages constantly change.
Linguists describe the facts of language. They do not try to change them.
Linguists are concerned with adequately and accurately describing the unconscious knowledge
that speakers have of the rules of their language, which is what we consider to be a grammar of
a language.
Linguists are just trying to figure out how language works.
Prescriptive approach
Prescriptivists are concerned with influencing how people speak by imposing norms of so-called
grammatical correctness, based upon nonscientific principles.
Prescriptivists are more interested in what people should say than in what they actually do say.
Prescriptivists are concerned with preserving what they consider to be the integrity of a language
and protecting it from disintegrating.
Prescriptivists tend to hold archaic forms dear. They do not recognize that language is constantly
changing and that such changes are a normal and natural phenomenon.
1
LIN 1310 – Some basic concepts…
Prescriptivists make nonscientific judgments, based on folk beliefs, regarding the inherent value
of one particular form of language or grammatical rule over another. They may even consider a
language or dialect to be primitive.
Prescriptivists also make judgments across languages. For example, they might label one
language as musical, but condemn another as harsh or guttural. These judgments often have more
to do with attitudes toward the speakers of a language than with attributes of the language itself.
Some prescriptive rules
Assignment:
Be prepared to discuss Exercise 6 on page 11 of O&A.
Be prepared to discuss Exercises and 1 through 4 on pages 6 and 7 of the SG.
Also:
1. List some prescriptive rules of English that you know and try to recall where and when you
learned them.
2. List some rules of English that a descriptivist might identify. Try to recall where and when you
learned them. This will be harder than you think.
3. Be prepared to discuss your lists in class.
Supplementary:
Examine the letters to Dear Abby and to the editor of the Ottawa Citizen in the Prescriptivism
Package on Reserve. Identify as many examples of prescriptivism as you can. Can you find any
examples of a more descriptivist approach to language? Be prepared to contribute to our
discussion during class
Origins of prescriptive rules
2
LIN 1310 – Some basic concepts…
We will address the question of where prescriptive rules come from in two ways. First we will
look at some general factors that lay the basis for the creation and promulgation (spread) of
prescriptive rules. Then we will examine the specific origins of some of the rules we have
discussed in class.
General factors leading to the creation of prescriptive rules
Social factors
We tend to classify the people we encounter on the basis of external cues, including how they are
groomed and dressed. We also use language as another important social cue, although we tend to
be less conscious of this. Certain ways of dressing and talking are associated with particular
social and educational backgrounds. Generally, the speech of people who enjoy social or
economic power is considered more prestigious, desirable or ‘correct’ than that of less wealthy or
socially prominent people. Sociolinguists have termed this overt prestige.
People who are interested in upward mobility (that is, attaining greater social and economic
status) often try to emulate the speech and external trappings of the more socially prominent. In a
bilingual setting, this could include acquiring another language.
It’s not that the speech of the socially prominent is inherently better. Rather, people attach more
social prestige to it, and those who want to get ahead economically and socially will be especially
sensitive to such differences. The history of the ‘r’ sound in New York City and in certain British
dialects of English illustrates the arbitrariness of attaching social value to an aspect of language.
This example will be presented in detail in class.
Because the way people talk is one basis for making social distinctions, you might expect that
everyone from less advantaged social classes would rush to adopt the speech habits of the rich
and famous. This is not generally the case for the following reasons.
1. Covert prestige of working class dialects
Although upward mobility is one factor motivating people to adopt the speech habits of the more
socially advantaged, there are also a number of powerful factors motivating people to maintain
the speech habits associated with their own group of origin. It is very difficult for most people to
turn their backs on the group that nurtured them. If they deviate too much from the habits and
values of that group, they may no longer feel that they belong there, or anywhere, for that matter.
Also, there are a lot of positive values associated with working class dialects. These values,
termed covert prestige, may include toughness, manliness, friendliness, kindness, and, of course,
a sense of belonging to a cohesive group.
The maintenance of lower and working class dialects is not the only evidence for their covert
prestige. It has been noted that many features of working class dialects are used by middle and
upper middle class speakers. These features are used more frequently by males, especially in very
informal speech situations where ‘macho’ values are foremost. For example, working class
features such as the use of ‘ain’t’ and ‘-in’ instead of ‘-ing’ might occur more often among a
group of friends gathered at a sports bar to watch an important game than among that same group
in a discussion group in a Philosophy course.
2. The flight of the elite
3
LIN 1310 – Some basic concepts…
Using a fashion analogy, we note that every year there are changes in fashion trends. These
changes are introduced by designers of exclusive clothing only affordable to the wealthiest
members of society. They are eventually copied by mass-producers at much more modest prices,
making it possible for the less wealthy to follow the style trends. However, no matter how
motivated to keep in style, few of us can afford to replace our entire wardrobes every year. It
seems that just as we are catching up with the style, the elite class changes it. This tendency of
the elite to stay at least one step ahead of the masses has been termed the flight of the elite.
The flight of the elite has also been noted by sociolinguists. Just as a prestigious feature of
language starts trickling down through the various social classes, perhaps over several
generations, the elite may change direction. The feature could then lose its social status for them.
It is very difficult for the rest of society to keep in step with these changes. The history of ‘rlessness’ and ‘r-fullness’ in New York City is a case in point. William Labov, a very well-known
sociolinguist, discusses these issues in his book Sociolinguistic Patterns.
(Note also that, just as with language, some fashion features have covert prestige and are adopted
by the elite from lower social classes. Studded leather outfits and torn, raggedy jeans are good
examples.)
Written versus spoken language as another source of prescriptive beliefs
Written language tends to be more resistant to change (that is, more conservative) than spoken
language. Therefore, written language supports prescriptivists who don’t want language to
change. After all, they reason, if it’s written it must be right.
Prescriptivists will often cite written forms in support of their pronouncements, because they
view written language as the basis for spoken language. For example, some persistent archaisms
in written English include very few contractions, the subjunctive in sentences such ‘If I were
king, I would declare a holiday’, the object form of the pronoun ‘who’ as in ‘Whom shall I say is
calling?’ and ‘To whom was it addressed?.
Spoken language is the basis for written language, even if the tangibility of written language and
the fleeting or transient nature of spoken language suggest the opposite. We know that spoken
language is primary for the following reasons:
1. Children learn to speak first, without formal instruction. Yet they have to be taught to
read and write.
2. Very few children fail at speaking, but many more fail at reading and writing.
3. Many languages have never been written, but are still full-fledged languages with
grammars.
4. Oral culture pre-dates the written tradition.
Spoken language is normally the object of descriptive linguistics
In historical investigations, where speech samples are unavailable, written language can provide
a valuable source of data. It can even reflect earlier forms of pronunciation. For example, the
4
LIN 1310 – Some basic concepts…
spelling of ‘though’ indicates the earlier presence of a word-final consonant, still found in some
dialects of English.
Specific origins of some prescriptive rules of English
Prescriptive rules were generally promoted by socially powerful or prominent individuals.
They even invented some rules for English based on older languages which they considered to be
better or more pure or more complete.
For example, 17th and 18th century scholars thought that Latin grammar was superior to English
grammar. This view was strengthened by that fact that, at the time, Latin was generally only
written, not spoken, making it appear that Latin was not subject to social variation. Also, Latin
was only available to educated members of the elite classes.
These scholars believed that English was deficient where its rules differed from those of Latin.
Hence the origin of ‘Never end a sentence with a preposition ‘and ‘Don’t split infinitives’, neither
of which is possible in Latin, given its grammatical structure and the fact that it has single word
infinitives. The fact that English grammar had historically permitted split infinitives and
prepositions at the end of sentences did not deter these staunch prescriptivists.
Sir Winston Churchill made fun of the preposition rule as follows:
“This is the sort of English up with which I will not put.”
Trends among upper class speakers of the period also influenced these ‘defenders of the
language’. In 1762, Bishop Lowth wrote that double negatives were “illogical”. Although they
were part of Old English and Middle English as well as many other languages, double negatives
were going out of fashion among upper class speakers in the 18th century. Their simplifying of
negatives was actually a form of reduction, much like the contractions ‘can’t, aren’t, I’ll’, which
might actually have caused Bishop Lowth to condemn it had it originated among the lower
classes.
Split infinitives, preposition-final sentences and multiple negatives continue to exist, attesting to
their historical legitimacy as part of the grammar of English.
However, the made-up rules condemning them also survive as part of the normative rules still
taught to English-speaking students world-wide.
In summary
Descriptivists reject the folk beliefs of the linguistically naive, which are often based on social
and cultural prejudice.
As linguists we recognize that all languages are equally complex and that measurable differences
between them, such as overall number of words, are often based on technological aspects of the
culture and on the physical environment. For example, the Masai herds people have many more
words for cows than speakers of English, while we have more scientific terms.
As linguists, we recognize that language change over time is a normal process. See examples of
how English has changed on page 8 of O&A and also in Chapter 7 of O&A.
5
LIN 1310 – Some basic concepts…
Importance of the norm or standard language
The standard is generally the most widely accepted and broadly understood form of a language
In some cases, a standard is officially sanctioned by a government.
It often becomes the responsibility of the schools to familiarize speakers of non-standard dialects
with the standard. This should be accomplished without devaluing the native dialects of the
learners.
Linguists recognize the need for a normative or standard form of a language for the following
purposes: broadcasting and print media, teaching a language to non-natives as a second or
foreign language, and as a basis for pedagogical grammars,
Synchrony versus diachrony
The study of the history of a language or the study of the process of language change is known as
diachronic or historical linguistics.
A diachronic approach often involves the comparison of a language at two or more points in
time.
It also involves comparing several languages to determine if they are related and when they might
have split off from a single parent language. For example, the Romance family of languages can
all be traced to Latin (French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Provençal, etc.).
Historical linguists look for general principles that govern language change. They test those
principles by hypothetically reconstructing back to earlier forms and comparing them to related
modern forms.
Sociolinguists use the study of societal and individual language variation to observe changes that
are taking place in the present.
Most linguists today focus on language as it is spoken at one point in time, either in the present
or, less commonly, at some other time. This is known as synchronic linguistics or a synchronic
approach.
Unfortunately, we will not have time to learn about historical linguistics in this course. If you are
interested in pursuing this area, you might read Chapter 7 of O&A.
Before learning the rudiments of carrying out a synchronic description, it is necessary to go over
some basic terminology of modern linguistic theory.
6
LIN 1310 – Some basic concepts…
Grammar
By describing a language in a systemic way, a linguist aims to arrive at an accurate account of its
grammar.
A grammar includes the phonetics and phonology (the structure of the sound system), the
morphology (the structure of words), the syntax (the structure of sentences) and the semantics
(the structure of meaning).
Remember, linguistic description is based on empirical data (that is, what people really say).
Native speakers of a language who provide empirical data for linguistic analysis are called
consultants or informants. These are not to be confused with the police variety.
By limiting themselves to describing what people really say, linguists may run into problems,
because sometimes people make mistakes when they know better. In other words, they violate
grammatical rules that they unconsciously acquired as children.
These mistakes include slips of the tongue (‘getting your mords wixed’), stuttering, false starts
(after painting yourself into a syntactic corner) or substituting a word you didn’t mean to say
(referred to by some psychologists as a Freudian slip).
Note that these errors do not violate the kinds of rules which only a prescriptivist would care
about, such as saying ‘who’ instead of ‘whom’, or splitting an infinitive. Speakers who
systematically ‘violate’ these prescriptive rules are simply giving us evidence that they do not
have these rules in their native grammars.
The errors we are concerned with here are not systematic and when we make them we usually
know it. They are like short-circuits between what we theoretically know how to do and our
actual performance.
As linguists, we don’t want to include or try to include such unsystematic and irrelevant or
extraneous elements in our descriptive grammar.
Therefore, we make a distinction between what people know and how they use or perform this
knowledge.
We refer to people’s unconsciously-acquired knowledge of the grammar as their linguistic
competence and to their actual speech as their linguistic performance.
Given the nature of human language, linguistic competence is very powerful knowledge.
Linguistic competence allows an individual to produce and understand a theoretically infinite
number of error-free grammatical utterances. (An utterance is whatever is spoken in a
language.)
7
LIN 1310 – Some basic concepts…
Linguistic competence allows an individual to say and understand things that have never been
heard before.
Thus, linguistic competence theoretically permits infinite creativity.
No other system of animal language has this property of creativity.
The only limits on competence are those imposed by performance.
Because people are not perfect machines, their performance does not always accurately reflect
their competence. They can get tired, make mistakes, lose their train of thought, etc. And of
course no one lives forever.
This poses a problem for linguists. The object of linguistic description is competence. However,
we must access it empirically through performance, which is sometimes flawed and therefore not
always an accurate representation of the competence that underlies it.
Some linguists get around this problem by using their own intuition about the grammar as
empirical evidence.
Obviously, they can only do this for languages they speak natively. They reason: “I speak this
language, I know it as well as anyone, so anything I can think up to say is as good as what anyone
would say. And, I don’t have to worry about sifting through performance errors.”
Using intuition can lead to problems, as linguists sometimes think up some rather weird
sentences to test a particular theory of grammar. (Examples will be provided in class.)
Intuition cannot provide data where the object is a sociolinguistic analysis or a study of first
language acquisition.
Many linguists prefer to rely on informants for their data. But using informants has its own
pitfalls. In traditional cultures with a previously unheard of language, linguists may inadvertently
select someone with a speech impediment, such as a lisp. This could seriously alter the quality of
their data.
Metalinguistic awareness or metalinguistic knowledge
It is important to distinguish competence from metalinguistic knowledge of a grammar.
Competence is an individual’s knowledge of the grammar of a language which has been
unconsciously acquired in childhood. (Think about it. If grammatical knowledge was all
conscious, we wouldn’t need linguists. The sub- or unconscious nature of competence compels
us to access it through performance.)
Metalinguistic awareness is knowledge about one’s own unconscious competence.
8
LIN 1310 – Some basic concepts…
Linguists probably possess more metalinguistic knowledge than the average person. Nonetheless,
linguistically naive native speakers also have some metalinguistic knowledge. For example, they
may know about words and sentences and about subjects and objects of sentences.
Children show increasing metalinguistic awareness as they mature.
However, one does not need to have metalinguistic knowledge to have competence.
Grammaticality judgments
Competence also allows people to judge what is grammatical in a language and what is not. This
is an important concept, and it must be distinguished from a prescriptive notion of
grammaticality, such as ‘Never end a sentence with a preposition.’.
True judgments of grammaticality are based on our linguistic competence, and we can judge
sentences to be ungrammatical on this basis.
Speakers can also correctly restate sentences that they have judged to be ungrammatical without
being able to consciously state the grammatical rule that has been violated. In other words,
grammaticality judgments are independent of metalinguistic knowledge.
Speakers can only make accurate grammaticality judgments for utterances from their native
dialect(s).
The ‘Mary ate a cookie’ examples from page 9 of O&A help to illustrate the difference between
competence and metalinguistic knowledge (awareness).
For example:
Judge the grammaticality of the following sentences, provide corrections where applicable and,
where possible, state the grammatical rule(s) violated.
Cat chasing dog up tree the is the the
He wash the dishes last night.
I have three record.
He ain’t got no money.
ASSIGNMENT:
Be prepared to discuss Exercises 2 and 3 on pages 3 and 4 of the SG.
Be prepared to discuss Exercises 1 and 5 on pages 10 and 11 of O&A.
9
LIN 1310 – Some basic concepts…
Language universals
Linguists believe that all languages are based on common principles of organization that are
prewired in the human brain to emerge as a biologically programmed behaviour, given adequate
exposure.
The principles of organization that underlie the structure of all languages are called language
universals.
The sum total of all language universals makes up Universal Grammar or UG.
Grammatically, all languages have structures from among those permitted by UG.
UG permits languages to rely on a variety of devices to express the relationships between the
words in a sentence. Some, like English, may depend more on word order. Others, like Latin,
may depend more on inflection. Still others, like Japanese, depend more on particles.
Languages differ in the formal categories they include. For example, Old English could express
singular, plural, and dual in its pronoun system (see page 312 of F&R on Reserve). Other
languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive ‘we’, where the former includes the
current listener and the latter does not.
Linguists’ belief in the existence of language universals is based on the following:
1. Given naturalistic exposure, any human child can acquire any human language in a
relatively short time without any formal instruction.
2. First language acquisition is a remarkably similar process for all languages in which
acquisition has been researched.
3. Children acquire their first language at an age when their cognitive skills would not
appear to support such acquisition.
4. Given the finite capacity of the brain, and in the light of points 1, 2, and 3, it is unlikely
that languages could be organized without some limitations on their structural make-up. It
is more likely that the human brain is pre-wired to recognize any of the possible language
structures that UG permits.
The goal of linguistic theory is to improve our knowledge of language universals, ultimately
identifying all of the properties of UG.
To achieve this goal, linguists must describe languages systematically.
If there are universals, we should be able to use the same descriptive tools to describe all
languages.
10
LIN 1310 – Some basic concepts…
Also, by using the same descriptive tools to describe all languages we can compare across
languages to identify the universals. We describe each language accurately on its own terms, but
within a single descriptive and theoretical framework. Some basic tenets of this theory are:
All languages are rule governed. That is, all languages have a grammar.
A grammar cannot simply be a list of all possible words and sentences because all sentences have
not yet been uttered.
A grammar is a system capable of infinite output but within an organism that has finite storage
capacity.
All grammars consist of basic information: the sounds, the morphemes and the rules
(phonological, morphological, syntactic and semantic) for combining them.
We are going to spend the rest of this semester learning about the basic elements of grammar and
what the rules of a grammar might look like in the areas of morphology and syntax. We will also
learn some techniques for linguistic analysis.
11