Readings
Chapter 1 Invitation to Linguistics
Table of Contents
Text 1. The Object of Study (Saussure)
Text 2. Language as Social Semiotic (Halliday)
Text 3. Knowledge of Language as a Focus of Inquiry(Chomsky)
Text 4. The Domain of Linguistics: An Overview(Geoff Nunberg and Tom Wasow)
Text 5. Why Major in Linguistics?(Monica Macaulay and Kristen Syrett)
Text 1
The Object of Study
1. On defining a language
What is it that linguistics sets out to analyse? What is the actual object of study in
its entirety? The question is a particularly difficult one. We shall see why later. First,
let us simply try to grasp the nature of the difficulty.
Other sciences are provided with objects of study given in advance, which are then
examined from different points of view. Nothing like that is the case in linguistics.
Suppose someone pronounces the French word nu ('naked'). At first sight, one might
think this would be an example of an independently given linguistic object. But more
careful consideration reveals a series of three or four quite different things, depending
on the viewpoint adopted. There is a sound, there is the expression of an idea, there is
a derivative of Latin nudum, and so on. The object is not given in advance of the
viewpoint: far from it. Rather, one might say that it is the viewpoint adopted which
creates the object. Furthermore, there is nothing to tell us in advance whether one of
these ways of looking at it is prior to or superior to any of the others.
Whichever viewpoint is adopted, moreover, linguistic phenomena always present
two complementary facets, each depending on the other. For example:
(1) The ear perceives articulated syllables as auditory impressions. But the sounds
in question would not exist without the vocal organs. There would be no n, for
instance, without these two complementary aspects to it. So one cannot equate the
language simply with what the ear hears. One cannot divorce what is heard from oral
articulation. Nor, on the other hand, can one specify the relevant movements of the
vocal organs without reference to the corresponding auditory impression.
(2) But even if we ignored this phonetic duality, would language then be
reducible to phonetic facts? No. Speech sounds are only the instrument of thought,
and have no independent existence. Here another complementarity emerges, and one
of great importance. A sound, itself a complex auditory-articulatory unit, in turn
combines with an idea to form another complex unit, both physiologically and
psychologically. Nor is this all.
(3) Language has an individual aspect and a social aspect. One is not conceivable
without the other. Furthermore:
(4) Language at any given time involves an established system and an evolution.
At any given time, it is an institution in the present and a product of the past. At first
sight, it looks very easy to distinguish between the system and its history, between
what it is and what it was. In reality, the connexion between the two is so close that it
is hard to separate them. Would matters be simplified if one considered the
ontogenesis of linguistic phenomena, beginning with a study of children's language,
for example? No. It is quite illusory to believe that where language is concerned the
problem of origins is any different from the problem of permanent conditions. There
is no way out of the circle.
So however we approach the question, no one object of linguistic study emerges of
its own accord. Whichever way we turn, the same dilemma confronts us. Either we
tackle each problem on one front only, and risk failing to take into account the
dualities mentioned above: or else we seem committed to trying to study language in
several ways simultaneously, in which case the object of study becomes a muddle of
disparate, unconnected things. By proceeding thus one opens the door to various
sciences ―psychology, anthropology, prescriptive grammar, philology, and so on ―
which are to be distinguished from linguistics. These sciences could lay claim to
language as falling in their domain; but their methods are not the ones that are needed.
One solution only, in our view, resolves all these difficulties. The linguist must take
the study of linguistic structure his primary concern, and relate all other
manifestations of language to it. Indeed, amid so many dualities, linguistic structure
seems to be the one thing that is independently definable and provides something our
minds can satisfactorily grasp.
What, then, is linguistic structure? It is not, in our opinion, simply the same thing as
language. Linguistic structure is only one part of language, even though it is an
essential part. The structure of a language is a social product of our language faculty.
At the same time, it is also a body of necessary conventions adopted by society to
enable members of society to use their language faculty. Language in its entirety has
many different and disparate aspects. It lies astride the boundaries separating various
domains. It is at the same time physical, physiological and psychological. It belongs
both to the individual and to society. No classification of human phenomena provides
any single place for it, because language as such has no discernible unity.
A language as a structured system, on the contrary, is both a self-contained whole
and a principle of classification. As soon as we give linguistic structure pride of place
among the facts of language, we introduce a natural order into an aggregate which
lends itself to no other classification.
It might be objected to this principle of classification that our use of language
depends on a faculty endowed by nature: whereas language systems are acquired and
conventional, and so ought to be subordinated to―instead of being given priority
over―our natural ability.
To this objection one might reply as follows.
First, it has not been established that the function of language, as manifested in
speech, is entirely natural: that is to say, it is not clear that our vocal apparatus is
made for speaking as our legs for walking. Linguists are by no means in agreement on
this issue. Whitney, for instance, who regards languages as social institutions on
exactly the same footing as all other social institutions, holds it to be a matter of
chance or mere convenience that it is our vocal apparatus we use for linguistic
purposes. Man, in his view, might well have chosen to use gestures, thus substituting
visual images for sound patterns. Whitney's is doubtless too extreme a position. For
languages are not in all respects similar to other social institutions. Moreover,
Whitney goes too far when he says that the selection of the vocal apparatus for
language was accidental. For it was in some measure imposed upon us by Nature. But
the American linguist is right about the essential point: the language we use is a
convention, and it makes no difference what exactly the nature of the agreed sign is.
The question of the vocal apparatus is thus a secondary one as far as the problem of
language is concerned.
This idea gains support from the notion of language articulation. In Latin, the word
articulus means 'member, part, subdivision in a sequence of things'. As regards
language, articulation may refer to the division of the chain of speech into syllables,
or to the division of the chain of meanings into meaningful units. It is in this sense
that one speaks in German of gegliederte Sprache. On the basis of this second
interpretation, one may say that it is not spoken language which is natural to man, but
the faculty of constructing a language, i.e. a system of distinct signs corresponding to
distinct ideas.
Broca discovered that the faculty of speech is localised in the third frontal
convolution of the left hemisphere of the brain. This fact has been seized upon to
justify regarding language as a natural endowment. But the same localisation is
known to hold for everything connected with language, including writing. Thus what
seems to be indicated, when we take into consideration also the evidence from various
forms of aphasia due to lesions in the centres of localisation I is: (1) that the various
disorders which affect spoken language are interconnected in many ways with
disorders affecting written language, and (2) that in all cases of aphasia or agraphia
what is affected is not so much the ability to utter or inscribe this or that, but the
ability to produce in any given mode signs corresponding to normal language. All this
leads us to believe that, over and above the functioning of the various organs, there
exists a more general faculty governing signs, which may be regarded as the linguistic
faculty par excellence. So by a different route we are once again led to the same
conclusion.
Finally, in support of giving linguistic structure pride of place in our study of
language, there is this argument: that, whether natural or not, the faculty of
articulating words is put to use only by means of the linguistic instrument created and
provided by society. Therefore it is no absurdity to say that it is linguistic structure
which gives language what unity it has.
2. Linguistic structure: its place among the facts of language
In order to identify what role linguistic structure plays within the totality of
language, we must consider the individual act of speech and trace what takes place in
the speech circuit. This act requires at least two individuals: without this minimum the
circuit would not be complete. Suppose, then, we have two people, A and B, talking to
each other:
The starting point of the circuit is in the brain of one individual, for instance A,
where facts of consciousness which we shall call concepts are associated with
representations of linguistic signs or sound patterns by means of which they may be
expressed. Let us suppose that a given concept triggers in the brain a corresponding
sound pattern. This is an entirely psychological phenomenon, followed in turn by a
physiological process: the brain transmits to the organs of phonation an impulse
corresponding to the pattern. Then sound waves are sent from A's mouth to B's ear: a
purely physical process. Next, the circuit continues in B in the opposite order: from
ear to brain, the physiological transmission of the sound pattern; in the brain, the
psychological association of this pattern with the corresponding concept. If B speaks
in turn, this new act will pursue ―from his brain to A's ―exactly the same course as
the first, passing through the same successive phases, which we may represent as
follows:
This analysis makes no claim to be complete. One could go on to distinguish the
auditory sensation itself, the identification of that sensation with the latent sound
pattern, the patterns of muscular movement associated with phonation, and so on. We
have included only those elements considered essential; but our schematisation en-
ables us straight away to separate the parts which are physical (sound waves) from
those which are physiological (phonation and hearing) and those which are
psychological (the sound patterns of words and the concepts). It is particularly
important to note that the sound patterns of the words are not to be confused with
actual sounds. The word patterns are psychological, just as the concepts associated
with them are.
The circuit as here represented may be further divided:
(a) into an external part (sound vibrations passing from mouth to ear) and an
internal part (comprising all the rest);
(b) into a psychological and a non-psychological part, the latter comprising both
the physiological facts localised in the organs and the physical facts external to the
individual; and
(c) into an active part and a passive part, the former comprising everything which
goes from the association centre of one individual to the ear of the other, and the latter
comprising everything which goes from an individual's ear to his own association
centre.
Finally, in the psychological part localised in the brain, one may call everything
which is active 'executive' (c → s), and everything which is passive 'receptive' (s →
c).
In addition, one must allow for a faculty of association and coordination which
comes into operation as soon as one goes beyond individual signs in isolation. It is
this faculty which plays the major role in the organisation of the language as a system.
But in order to understand this role, one must leave the individual act, which is
merely language in embryo, and proceed to consider the social phenomenon.
All the individuals linguistically linked in this manner will establish among
themselves a kind of mean; all of them will reproduce ―doubtless not exactly, but
approximately ― the same signs linked to the same concepts.
What is the origin of this social crystallisation? Which of the parts of the circuit is
involved? For it is very probable that not all of them are equally relevant.
The physical part of the circuit can be dismissed from consideration straight away.
When we hear a language we do not know being spoken, we hear the sounds but we
cannot enter into the social reality of what is happening, because of our failure to
comprehend.
The psychological part of the circuit is not involved in its entirety either. The
executive side of it plays no part, for execution is never carried out by the collectivity:
it is always individual, and the individual is always master of it. This is what we shall
designate by the term speech.
The individual's receptive and co-ordinating faculties build up a stock of imprints
which turn out to be for all practical purposes the same as the next person's. How
must we envisage this social product, so that the language itself can be seen to be
clearly distinct from the rest? If we could collect the totality of word patterns stored in
all those individuals, we should have the social bond which constitutes their language.
It is a fund accumulated by the members of the community through the practice of
speech, a grammatical system existing potentially in every brain, or more exactly in
the brains of a group of individuals; for the language is never complete in any single
individual, but exists perfectly only in the collectivity.
By distinguishing between the language itself and speech, we distinguish at the
same time: (1) what is social from what is individual, and (2) what is essential from
what is ancillary and more or less accidental.
The language itself is not a function of the speaker. It is the product passively
registered by the individual. It never requires premeditation, and reflexion enters into
it only for the activity of classifying to be discussed below.
Speech, on the contrary, is an individual act of the will and the intelligence, in
which one must distinguish: (1) the combinations through which the speaker uses the
code provided by the language in order to express his own thought, and (2) the
psycho-physical mechanism which enables him to externalise these combinations.
It should be noted that we have defined things, not words. Consequently the
distinctions established are not affected by the fact that certain ambiguous terms have
no exact equivalents in other languages. Thus in German the word Sprache covers
individual languages as well as language in general, while Rede answers more or less
to 'speech', but also has the special sense of 'discourse'. In Latin the word sermo
covers language in general and also speech, while lingua is the word for 'a language';
and so on. No word corresponds precisely to any one of the notions we have tried to
specify above. That is why all definitions based on words are vain. It is an error of
method to proceed from words in order to give definitions of things.
To summarise, then, a language as a structured system may be characterised as
follows:
1. Amid the disparate mass of facts involved in language, it stands out as a well
defined entity. It can be localised in that particular section of the speech circuit where
sound patterns are associated with concepts. It is the social part of language, external
to the individual, who by himself is powerless either to create it or to modify it. It
exists only in virtue of a kind of contract agreed between the members of a
community. On the other hand, the individual needs an apprenticeship in order to
acquaint himself with its workings: as a child, he assimilates it only gradually. It is
quite separate from speech: a man who loses the ability to speak none the less retains
his grasp of the language system, provided he understands the vocal signs he hears.
2. A language system, as distinct from speech, is an object that may be studied
independently. Dead languages are no longer spoken, but we can perfectly well
acquaint ourselves with their linguistic structure. A science which studies linguistic
structure is not only able to dispense with other elements of language, but is possible
only if those other elements are kept separate.
3.
While language in general is heterogeneous, a language system is
homogeneous in nature. It is a system of signs in which the one essential is the union
of sense and sound pattern, both parts of the sign being psychological.
4. Linguistic structure is no less real than speech, and no less amenable to study.
Linguistic signs, although essentially psychological, are not abstractions. The
associations, ratified by collective agreement, which go to make up the language are
realities localised in the brain. Moreover, linguistic signs are, so to speak, tangible:
writing can fix them in conventional images, whereas it would be impossible to
photograph acts of speech in all their details. The utterance of a word, however small,
involves an infinite number of muscular movements extremely difficult to examine
and to represent. In linguistic structure, on the contrary, there is only the sound pattern,
and this can be represented by one constant visual image. For if one leaves out of
account that multitude of movements required to actualise it in speech, each sound
pattern, as we shall see, is only the sum of a limited number of elements or speech
sounds, and these can in turn be represented by a corresponding number of symbols in
writing. Our ability to identify elements of linguistic structure in this way is what
makes it possible for dictionaries and grammars to give us a faithful representation of
a language. A language is a repository of sound patterns, and writing is their tangible
form.
(from Chapter III The Object of Study in Saussure, F. de (1983). Course in General
Linguistics. Gerald Duckworth& Co. Ltd)
Text 2
Language as Social Semiotic
1 Introductory
Sociolinguistics sometimes appears to be a search for answers which have no questions. Let
us therefore enumerate at this point some of the questions that do seem to need answering.
1 How do people decode the highly condensed utterances of everyday speech, and how
do they use the social system for doing so?
2 How do people reveal the ideational and interpersonal environment within which what
they are saying is to be interpreted? In other words, how do they construct the social contexts
in which meaning takes place?
3 How do people relate the social context to the linguistic system? In other words, how
do they deploy their meaning potential in actual semantic exchanges?
4 How and why do people of different social class or other subcultural groups develop
different dialectal varieties and different orientations towards meaning?
5 How far are children of different social groups exposed to different verbal patterns of
primary socialization, and how does this determine their reactions to secondary socialization
especially in school?
6 How and why do children learn the functional-semantic system of the adult language?
7 How do children, through the ordinary everyday linguistic interaction of family and
peer group, come to learn the basic patterns of the culture: the social structure, the systems of
knowledge and of values, and the diverse elements of the social semiotic?
2 Elements of a sociosemiotic theory of language
There are certain general concepts which seem to be essential ingredients in a sociosemiotic
theory of language. These are the text, the situation, the text variety or register, the code (in
Bernstein's sense), the linguistic system (including the semantic system), and the social
structure.
2.1
Text
Let us begin with the concept of text, the instances of linguistic interaction in which people
actually engage: whatever is said, or written, in an operational context, as distinct from a
citational context like that of words listed in a dictionary.
For some purposes it may suffice to conceive of a text as a kind of ‘supersentence’, a
linguistic unit that is in principle greater in size than a sentence but of the same kind. It has
long been clear, however, that discourse has its own structure that is not constituted out of
sentences in combination; and in a sociolinguistic perspective it is more useful to think of
text as encoded in sentences, not as composed of them, (Hence what Cicourel (1969) refers
to as omissions by the speaker are not so much omissions as encodings, which the hearer can
decode because he shares the principles of realization that provide the key to the code.) In
other words, a text is a semantic unit; it is the basic unit of the semantic process.
At the same time, text represents choice. A text is ‘what is meant’, selected from the total
set of options that constitute what can be meant. In other words, text can be defined as
actualized meaning potential.
The meaning potential, which is the paradigmatic range of semantic choice that is present
in the system, and to which the members of a culture have access in their language, can be
characterized in two ways, corresponding to Malinowski’s distinction between the ‘context of
situation’ and the ‘context of culture’(1923, 1935). Interpreted in the context of culture, it is
the entire semantic system of the language. This is a fiction, something we cannot hope to
describe. Interpreted in the context of situation, it is the particular semantic system, or set of
subsystems, which is associated with a particular type of situation or social context. This too
is a fiction; but it is something that may be more easily describable (cf. 2.5 below). In
sociolinguistic terms the meaning potential can be represented as the range of options that is
characteristic of a specific situation type.
2.2 Situation
The situation is the environment in which the text comes to life. This is a well-established
concept in linguistics, going back at least to Wegener (1885). It played a key part in
Malinowski’s ethnography of language, under the name of ‘context of situation ’;
Malinowski’s notions were further developed and made explicit by Firth (1957, 182), who
maintained that the context of situation was not to be interpreted in concrete terms as a sort
of audiovisual record of the surrounding ‘props’ but was, rather, an abstract representation of
the environment in terms of certain general categories having relevance to the text. The
context of situation may be totally remote from what is going on roundabout during the act
of speaking or of writing.
It will be necessary to represent the situation in still more abstract terms if it is to have a
place in a general sociolinguistic theory; and to conceive of it not as situation but as situation
type, in the sense of what Bernstein refers to as a ‘social context’. This is, essentially, a
semiotic structure. It is a constellation of meanings deriving from the semiotic system that
constitutes the culture.
If it is true that a hearer, given the right information, can make sensible guesses about what
the speaker is going to mean—and this seems a necessary assumption, seeing that
communication does take place — then this ‘right information’ is what we mean by the social
context. It consists of those general properties of the situation which collectively function as
the determinants of text, in that they specify the semantic configurations that the speaker will
typically fashion in contexts of the given type.
However, such information relates not only ‘downward’ to the text but also ‘upward’, to
the linguistic system and to the social system. The ‘situation’ is a theoretical socio linguistic
construct; it is for this reason that we interpret a particular situation type, or social context, as
a semiotic structure. The semiotic structure of a situation type can be represented as a
complex of three dimensions: the ongoing social activity, the role relationships involved, and
the symbolic or rhetorical channel. We refer to these respectively as ‘field’, ‘tenor’ and
‘mode’ (following Halliday et al. 1964, as modified by Spencer and Gregory 1964; and cf.
Gregory 1967). The field is the social action in which the text is embedded; it includes the
subject-matter, as one special manifestation. The tenor is the set of role relationships among
the relevant participants; it includes levels of formality as one particular instance. The mode
is the channel or wavelength selected, which is essentially the function that is assigned to
language in the total structure of the situation; it includes the medium (spoken or written),
which is explained as a functional variable.
Field, tenor and mode are not kinds of language use, nor are they simply components of
the speech setting. They are a conceptual framework for representing the social context as
the semiotic environment in which people exchange meanings. Given an adequate
specification of the semiotic properties of the context in terms of field, tenor and mode we
should be able to make sensible predictions about the semantic properties of texts associated
with it. To do this, however, requires an intermediary level-some concept of text variety, or
register
2.3 Register
The term ‘register’ was first used in this sense, that of text variety, by Reid (1956); the
concept was taken up and developed by Jean Ure (Ure and Ellis 1972), and interpreted
within Hill's (1958) ‘institutional linguistic’ framework by Halliday et al. (1964). The
register is the semantic variety of which a text may be regarded as an instance.
Like other related concepts, such as ‘speech variant’ and ‘(sociolinguistic) code’ (Ferguson
1971, chs. 1 and 2; Gumperz 1971, part I), register was originally conceived of in
lexicogrammatical terms. Halliday et al. (1964) drew a primary distinction between two
types of language variety: dialect, which they defined as variety according to the user, and
register, which they defined as variety according to the use. The dialect is what a person
speaks, determined by who he is; the register is what a person is speaking, deter-mined by
what he is doing at the time. This general distinction can be accepted, but, instead of
characterizing a register largely by its lexicogrammatical properties, we shall suggest, as
with text, a more abstract definition in semantic terms.
A register can be defined as the configuration of semantic resources that the member of a
culture typically associates with a situation type. It is the meaning potential that is accessible
in a given social context. Both the situation and the register associated with it can be
described to varying degrees of specificity; but the existence of registers is a fact of everyday
experience—speakers have no difficulty in recognizing the semantic options and
combinations of options that are ‘at risk’ under particular environmental conditions. Since
these options are realized in the form of grammar and vocabulary, the register is recognizable
as a particular selection of words and structures. But it is defined in terms of meanings; it is
not an aggregate of conventional forms of expression superposed on some underlying
content by ‘social factors’ of one kind or another. It is the selection of meanings that
constitutes the variety to which a text belongs.
2.4 Code
‘Code’ is used here in Bernstein’s sense; it is the principle of semiotic organization
governing the choice of meanings by a speaker and their interpretation by a hearer. The code
controls the semantic styles of the culture.
Codes are not varieties of language, as dialects and registers are. The codes are, so to
speak, ‘above’ the linguistic system; they are types of social semiotic, or symbolic orders of
meaning generated by the social system (cf. Hasan 1973). The code is actualized in language
through the register, since it determines the semantic orientation of speakers in particular
social contexts; Bernstein's own use of ‘variant’ (as in ‘elaborated variant’) refers to those
characteristics of a register which derive from the form of the code. When the semantic
systems of the language are activated by the situational determinants of text—the field, tenor
and mode—this process is regulated by the codes.
Hence the codes transmit, or control the transmission of, the underlying patterns of a
culture or subculture, acting through the socializing agencies of family, peer group and
school. As a child comes to attend to and interpret meanings, in the context of situation and
in the context of culture, at the same time he takes over the code. The culture is transmitted
to him with the code acting as a filter, defining and making accessible the semiotic principles
of his own subculture, so that as he learns the culture he also learns the grid, or subcultural
angle on the social system. The child’s linguistic experience reveals the culture to him
through the code, and so transmits the code as part of the culture.
2.5
The linguistic system
Within the linguistic system, it is the semantic system that is of primary concern in a socio
linguistic context. Let us assume a model of language with a semantic, a lexicogrammatical
and a phonological stratum; this is the basic pattern underlying the (often superficially more
complex) interpretations of language in the work of Trubetzkoy, Hjelmslev, Firth, Jakobson,
Martinet, Pottier, Pike, Lamb, Lakoff and McCawley (among many others). We can then
adopt the general conception of the organization of each stratum, and of the realization
between strata, that is embodied in Lamb's stratification theory (Lamb 1971; 1974).
The semantic system is Lamb’s ‘semological stratum’; it is conceived of here, however, in
functional rather than in cognitive terms. The conceptual framework was already referred to
in chapter 3, with the terms ‘ideational’, ‘interpersonal’, and ‘textual’. These are to be
interpreted not as functions in the sense of ‘uses of language’, but as functional components
of the semantic system — ‘metafunctions’ as we have called them. (Since in respect both of
the stratal and of the functional organization of the linguistic system we are adopting a ternary
interpretation rather than a binary one, we should perhaps explicitly disavow any particular
adherence to the magic number three. In fact the functional interpretation could just as readily
be stated in terms of four components, since the ideational comprises two distinct subparts, the
experiential and the logical; see Halliday 1973; 1976; also chapter 7 below.)
What are these functional components of the semantic system? They are the modes of
meaning that are present in every use of language in every social context. A text is a product
of all three; it is a polyphonic composition in which different semantic melodies are
interwoven, to be realized as integrated lexicogramrnatical structures. Each functional
component contributes a band of structure to the whole.
The ideational function represents the speaker’s meaning potential as an observer. It is the
content function of language, language as ‘about some-thing’. This is the component through
which the language encodes the cultural experience, and the speaker encodes his own
individual experience as a member of the culture. It expresses the phenomena of the
environment: the things—creatures, objects, actions, events, qualities, states and relations
—of the world and of our own consciousness, including the phenomenon of language itself;
and also the ‘metaphenomena’, the things that are already encoded as facts and as reports. All
these are part of the ideational meaning of language.
The interpersonal component represents the speaker’s meaning potential as an intruder. It
is the participatory function of language, language as doing something. This is the
component through which the speaker intrudes himself into the context of situation, both
expressing his own attitudes and judgements and seeking to influence the attitudes and
behaviour of others. It expresses the role relationships associated with the situation,
including those that are defined by language itself, relationships of questioner-respondent,
informer-doubter and the like. These constitute the interpersonal meaning of language.
The textual component represents the speaker’s text-forming potential; it is that which makes
language relevant. This is the component which provides the texture; that which makes the
difference between language that is suspended in vacuo and language that is operational in a
context of situation. It expresses the relation of the language to its environment, including
both the verbal environment—what has been said or written before —and the nonverbal,
situational environment. Hence the textual component has an enabling function with respect
to the other two; it is only in combination with textual meanings that ideational and
interpersonal meanings are actualized.
These components are reflected in the lexicogramrnatical system in the form of discrete
networks of options. In the clause, for example, the ideational function is represented by
transitivity, the interpersonal by mood and modality, and the textual by a set of systems that
have been referred to collectively as ‘theme’. Each of these three sets of options is
characterized by strong internal but weak external constraints: for example, any choice made
in transitivity has a significant effect on other choices within the transitivity systems, but has
very little effect on choices within the mood or theme systems. Hence the functional
organization of meaning in language is built in to the core of the linguistic system, as the
most general organizing principle of the lexicogrammatical stratum.
2.6 Social structure
Of the numerous ways in which the social structure is implicated in a sociolinguistic theory,
there are three which stand out. In the first place, it defines and gives significance to the
various types of social context in which meanings are exchanged. The different social groups
and communication networks that determine what we have called the ‘tenor’ —the status and
role relationships in the situation —are obviously products of the social structure; but so also
in a more general sense are the types of social activity that constitute the ‘field’. Even the
‘mode’, the rhetorical channel with its associated strategies, though more immediately
reflected in linguistic patterns, has its origin in the social structure; it is the social structure that
generates the semiotic tensions and the rhetorical styles and genres that express them (Barthes
1970).
Secondly, through its embodiment in the types of role relationship within the family, the
social structure determines the various familial patterns of communication; it regulates the
meanings and meaning styles that are associated with given social contexts, including those
contexts that are critical in the processes of cultural transmission. In this way, the social
structure determines, through the intermediary of language, the forms taken by the
socialization of the child (See Bernstein 1971; 1975.)
Thirdly, and most problematically, the social structure enters in through the effects of social
hierarchy, in the form of caste or class. This is obviously the background to social dialects,
which are both a direct manifestation of social hierarchy and also a symbolic expression of it,
maintaining and reinforcing it in a variety of ways: for example, the association of dialect
with register —the fact that certain registers conventionally call for certain dialectal modes
—expresses the relation between social classes and the division of labour. In a more pervasive
fashion, the social structure is present in the forms of semiotic interaction, and becomes
apparent through incongruities and disturbances in the semantic system. Linguistics seems
now to have largely abandoned its fear of impurity and come to grips with what is called
‘fuzziness’ in language; but this has been a logical rather than a sociological concept, a
departure from an ideal regularity rather than an organic property of sociosemiotic systems.
The ‘fuzziness’ of language is in part an expression of the dynamics and the tensions of the
social system. It is not only the text (what people mean) but also the semantic system (what
they can mean) that embodies the ambiguity, antagonism, imperfection, inequality and
change that characterize the social system and social structure. This is not often
systematically explored in linguistics, though it is familiar enough to students of
communication and of general semantics, and to the public at large. It could probably be
fruitfully approached through an extension of Bernstein's theory of codes (cf. Douglas 1972).
The social structure is not just an ornamental background to linguistic interaction, as it has
tended to become in sociolinguistic discussions. It is an essential element in the evolution of
semantic systems and semantic processes.
(from Chapter II 6 Language as Social Semiotic in Halliday, M.A.K (1978). Language as
Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Edward Arnold.)
Text 3
Knowledge of Language as a Focus of Inquiry
The study of language has a long and rich history, extending over thousands of years. This
study has frequently been understood as an inquiry into the nature of mind and thought on the
assumption that "languages are the best mirror of the human mind" (Leibniz). A common
conception was that "with respect to its substance grammar is one and the same in all
languages, though it does vary accidentally" (Roger Bacon). The invariant "substance" was
often taken to be the mind and its acts; particular languages use various mechanisms—some
rooted in human reason, others arbitrary and adventitious—for the expression of thought,
which is a constant across languages. One leading eighteenth century rational grammarian
defined "general grammar" as a deductive science concerned with "the immutable and general
principles of spoken or written language" and their consequences; it is "prior to all languages,"
because its principles "are the same as those that direct human reason in its intellectual
operations" (Beauzee). Thus, "the science of language does not differ at all from the science of
thought." "Particular grammar" is not a true "science" in the sense of this rationalist tradition
because it is not based solely on universal necessary laws; it is an "art" or technique that shows
how given languages realize the general principles of human reason. As John Stuart Mill later
expressed the same leading idea, "The principles and rules of grammar are the means by which
the forms of language are made to correspond with the universal forms of thought….The
structure of every sentence is a lesson in logic." Others, particularly during the Romantic
period, argued that the nature and content of thought are determined in part by the devices
made available for its expression in particular languages. These devices may include
contributions of individual genius that affect the "character" of a language, enriching its
means of expression and the thoughts expressed without affecting its "form," its sound
system and rules of word and sentence formation (Humboldt).
With regard to the acquisition of knowledge, it was widely held that the mind is not "so
much to be filled therewith from without, like a vessel, as to be kindled and awaked" (Ralph
Cudworth); "The growth of knowledge... [rather resembles]... the growth of Fruit; however
external causes may in some degree cooperate, it is the internal vigour, and virtue of the tree,
that must ripen the juices to their just maturity" (James Harris). Applied to language, this
essentially Platonistic conception would suggest that knowledge of a particular language
grows and matures along a course that is in part intrinsically determined, with modifications
reflecting observed usage, rather in the manner of the visual system or other bodily "organs"
that develop along a course determined by genetic instructions under the triggering and
shaping effects of environmental factors.
With the exception of the relativism of the Romantics, such ideas were generally regarded
with much disapproval in the mainstream of linguistic research by the late nineteenth century
and on through the 1950s. In part, this attitude developed under the impact of a rather
narrowly construed empiricism and later behaviorist and operationalist doctrine. In part, it
resulted from the quite real and impressive successes of historical and descriptive studies
conducted within a narrower compass, specifically, the discovery of "sound laws" that
provided much understanding of the history of languages and their relationships. In part, it
was a natural consequence of the investigation of a much richer variety of languages than
were known to earlier scholars, languages that appeared to violate many of the allegedly a
priori conceptions of the earlier rationalist tradition. After a century of general neglect or
obloquy, ideas resembling those of the earlier tradition re-emerged (initially, with virtually
no awareness of historical antecedents) in the mid-1950s, with the development of what came
to be called "generative grammar"—again, reviving a long-lapsed and largely forgotten
tradition.
The generative grammar of a particular language (where "generative" means nothing more
than "explicit") is a theory that is concerned with the form and meaning of expressions of this
language. One can imagine many different kinds of approach to such questions, many points
of view that might be adopted in dealing with them. Generative grammar limits itself to
certain elements of this larger picture. Its standpoint is that of individual psychology. It is
concerned with those aspects of form and meaning that are determined by the "language
faculty", which is understood to be a particular component of the human mind. The nature of
this faculty is the subject matter of a general theory of linguistic structure that aims to
discover the framework of principles and elements common to attainable human languages;
this theory is now often called "universal grammar" (UG), adapting a traditional term to a
new context of inquiry. UG may be regarded as a characterization of the genetically
determined language faculty. One may think of this faculty as a "language acquisition
device," an innate component of the human mind that yields a particular language through
interaction with presented experience, a device that converts experience into a system of
knowledge attained: knowledge of one or another language.
The study of generative grammar represented a significant shift of focus in the approach to
problems of language. Put in the simplest terms, to be elaborated below, the shift of focus
was from behavior or the products of behavior to states of the mind/brain that enter into
behavior. If one chooses to focus attention on this latter topic, the central concern becomes
knowledge of language: its nature, origins, and use.
The three basic questions that arise, then, are these:
(i)
What constitutes knowledge of language?
(1)
(ii)
How is knowledge of language acquired?
(iii)
How is knowledge of language put to use?
The answer to the first question is given by a particular generative grammar, a theory
concerned with the state of the mind/brain of the person who knows a particular language.
The answer to the second is given by a specification of UG along with an account of the
ways in which its principles interact with experience to yield a particular language; UG is a
theory of the "initial state" of the language faculty, prior to any linguistic experience. The
answer to the third question would be a theory of how the knowledge of language attained
enters into the expression of thought and the understanding of presented specimens of
language, and derivatively, into communication and other special uses of language.
So far, this is nothing more than the outline of a research program that takes up classical
questions that had been put aside for many years. As just described, it should not be particularly controversial, since it merely expresses an interest in certain problems and offers a
preliminary analysis of how they might be confronted, although as is often the case, the
initial formulation of a problem may prove to be far-reaching in its implications, and
ultimately controversial as it is developed.
Some elements of this picture may appear to be more controversial than they really are.
Consider, for example, the idea that there is a language faculty, a component of the mind/
brain that yields knowledge of language given presented experience. It is not at issue that
humans attain knowledge of English, Japanese, and so forth, while rocks, birds, or apes do
not under the same (or indeed any) conditions. There is, then, some property of the
mind/brain that differentiates humans from rocks, birds, or apes. Is this a distinct "language
faculty" with specific structure and properties, or, as some believe, is it the case that humans
acquire language merely by applying generalized learning mechanisms of some sort, perhaps
with greater efficiency or scope than other organisms? These are not topics for speculation or
a priori reasoning but for empirical inquiry, and it is clear enough how to proceed: namely,
by facing the questions of (1). We try to determine what is the system of knowledge that has
been attained and what properties must be attributed to the initial state of the mind/brain to
account for its attainment. Insofar as these properties are language-specific, either
individually or in the way they are organized and composed, there is a distinct language
faculty.
Generative grammar is sometimes referred to as a theory, advocated by this or that person.
In fact, it is not a theory any more than chemistry is a theory. Generative grammar is a topic,
which one may or may not choose to study. Of course, one can adopt a point of view from
which chemistry disappears as a discipline (perhaps it is all done by angels with mirrors). In
this sense, a decision to study chemistry does stake out a position on matters of fact.
Similarly, one may argue that the topic of generative grammar does not exist, although it is
hard to see how to make this position minimally plausible. Within the study of generative
grammar there have been many changes and differences of opinion, often reversion to ideas
that had been abandoned and were later reconstructed in a different light. Evidently, this is a
healthy phenomenon indicating that the discipline is alive, although it is sometimes, oddly,
regarded as a serious deficiency, a sign that something is wrong with the basic approach. I
will review some of these changes as we proceed.
In the mid-1950s, certain proposals were advanced as to the form that answers to the
questions of (1) might take, and a research program was inaugurated to investigate the
adequacy of these proposals and to sharpen and apply them. This program was one of the
strands that led to the development of the cognitive sciences in the contemporary sense,
sharing with other approaches the belief that certain aspects of the mind/brain can be usefully
construed on the model of computational systems of rules that form and modify
representations, and that are put to use in interpretation and action. From its origins (or with a
longer perspective, one might say "its reincarnation") about 30 years ago, the study of
generative grammar was undertaken with an eye to gaining some insight into the nature and
origins of systems of knowledge, belief, and understanding more broadly, in the hope that
these general questions could be illuminated by a detailed investigation of the special case of
human language.
……
Traditional and structuralist grammar did not deal with the questions of (1), the former
because of its implicit reliance on the unanalyzed intelligence of the reader, the latter because
of its narrowness of scope. The concerns of traditional and generative grammar are, in a
certain sense, complementary: a good traditional or pedagogical grammar provides a full list
of exceptions (irregular verbs, etc.), paradigms and examples of regular constructions, and
observations at various levels of detail and generality about the form and meaning of
expressions. But it does not examine the question of how the reader of the grammar uses
such information to attain the knowledge that is used to form and interpret new expressions,
or the question of the nature and elements of this knowledge: essentially the questions of (1),
above. Without too much exaggeration, one could describe such a grammar as a structured
and organized version of the data presented to a child learning a language, with some general
commentary and often insightful observations. Generative grammar, in contrast, is concerned
primarily with the intelligence of the reader, the principles and procedures brought to bear to
attain full knowledge of a language. Structuralist theories, both in the European and
American traditions, did concern themselves with analytic procedures for deriving aspects of
grammar from data, as in the procedural theories of Nikolay Trubetzkoy, Zellig Harris,
Bernard Bloch, and others, but primarily in the areas of phonology and morphology. The
procedures suggested were seriously inadequate and in any event could not possibly be
understood (and were not intended) to provide an answer to question (1ii), even in the
narrower domains where most work was concentrated. Nor was there an effort to determine
what was involved in offering a comprehensive account of the knowledge of the
speaker/hearer.
As soon as these questions were squarely faced, a wide range of new phenomena were
discovered, including quite simple ones that had passed unnoticed, and severe problems arose
that had previously been ignored or seriously misunderstood. A standard belief 30 years ago
was that language acquisition is a case of "overlearning". Language was regarded as a habit
system, one that was assumed to be much overdetermined by available evidence. Production
and interpretation of new forms was taken to be a straightforward matter of analogy, posing
no problems of principle. Attention to the questions of (1) quickly reveals that exactly the
opposite is the case: language poses in a sharp and clear form what has sometimes been
called "Plato's problem," the problem of "poverty of stimulus," of accounting for the richness,
complexity, and specificity of shared knowledge, given the limitations of the data available.
This difference of perception concerning where the problem lies— overlearning or poverty of
evidence—reflects very clearly the effect of the shift of focus that inaugurated the study of
generative grammar.
(from Chapter 1 Knowledge of Language as a Focus of Inquiry in Noam Chomsky(1985),
Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. Greenwood Publishing Group.)
Text 4
The Domain of Linguistics: An Overview
Geoff Nunberg and Tom Wasow
An Example of Language Use
Pat: Why did the chicken cross the road?
Chris: I give up.
Pat: To get to the other side.
Most of us heard this joke when we were small children and find nothing remarkable in the
ability to engage in such exchanges. But a bit of reflection reveals that even such a mundane
use of language involves an amazing combination of abilities.
Think about it: Pat makes some vocal noises, with the effect that Chris entertains thoughts of
a scenario involving a fowl and a thoroughfare. This leads to an exchange of utterances,
possibly laughter, and the conviction by both parties that Pat has 'told a joke'.
Prerequisites for Language Use
What does it take to make communication through language succeed? Here are just a few of
the many things that are necessary for the exchange above:
Pat's first two words 'why did' sound exactly the same as 'wide id'. Breaking the stream of
sounds into words requires that Chris pays attention to the wider context and knows what
makes sense and what doesn't.
Words like 'chicken' and 'cross' have lots of meanings (consider, for example, one gangster
saying to another, 'You won't cross me because you're chicken'). To conjure up the image of
a bird and a highway, Chris must identify the right choices for these.
Pat has to know to say 'cross', not 'crossed' or 'crossing' in this context.
The order of words could not be 'Why the chicken did cross the road?' or any of lots of other
conceivable orders.
Chris's utterance ('I give up') is entirely conventional, signalling recognition that Pat is posing
a riddle, and that Chris is ready to hear the punchline. The recognition that the first sentence
was a riddle again depends on its relation to the wider context and cultural knowledge.
The punchline is not a complete sentence; Chris must recognize that it means that the chicken
crossed the road in order to get to the other side.
In order to get the joke, Chris must know that answers to such 'why' questions normally
involve some longer-term objective.
The Domain of Linguistics
Linguistics, the study of language, concerns itself with all aspects of how people use
language and what they must know in order to do so. As a universal characteristic of the
species, language has always held a special fascination for human beings, and the history of
linguistics as a systematic field of study goes back almost three thousand years.
Modern linguists concern themselves with many different facets of language, from the
physical properties of the sound waves in utterances to the intentions of speakers towards
others in conversations and the social contexts in which conversations are embedded. The
branches of linguistics are concerned with how languages are structured, how languages are
used, and how they change.
Language as a Formal System
Linguistic structure can be studied at many different levels. The sounds of language can be
investigated by looking at the physics of the speech stream and by studying the physiology of
the vocal tract and auditory system. A more psychological approach is also possible, namely
considering what physical properties of the vocal tract or muscalature are used to make
linguistic distinctions, and how the sounds of languages pattern.
Words, phrases, and sentences have internal structure. Many words are made up of smaller
meaningful units, such as stems and suffixes; for example, stem 'happy' + suffix '-ly'.
Linguists investigate the different ways such pieces can be put together to form words, a
study called morphology. Likewise, words cluster together into phrases, which combine to
make sentences, and linguists explore the rules governing such combinations. The scientific
study of word structure and sentence structure is what modern linguists mean by the term
grammar; this is quite different from the sort of 'normative' grammar instruction aimed to
teach 'proper usage' common in primary and secondary school, which linguists call
prescriptivism. Words and sentences are used to convey meanings.
Linguists study this too, seeking to specify precisely what words mean, how they combine
into sentence meanings, and how these combine with contextual information to convey the
speaker's thoughts. The first two of these areas of investigation are called semantics, and the
third is called pragmatics.
Language as a Human Phenomenon
Even the most formal and abstract work on linguistic structure is colored by the awareness
that language is a uniquely human phenomenon. It is lodged in human brains; it is passed on
from one generation to the next; it is intimately bound up with the forms of human thought.
Unlike a specialized system like arithmetic, it serves a vast range of communicative
needs—from getting your neighbor to keep the weeds down, to reporting simple facts, telling
jokes, making declarations of love, or praying to a deity. And of course it functions in the
midst of complex societies, not just as a means of communication, but as a marker of social
identity—a sign of membership in a social class, ethnic group, or nation. It isn't surprising,
then, that linguistic research shares some concerns with just about every one of the human
sciences, from psychology and neurology to literary study, anthropology, sociology, and
political science.
All languages change. In other words, languages have histories, and a complete
understanding of a linguistic structure often involves examining variation and change in the
language under investigation. This is extremely difficult in most cases, because the vast
majority of languages have had no writing systems until very recently.
Important as historical explanations and evidence are in linguistics, they are not necessary for
competent language use—and most speakers don't know anything about them. Hence, most
linguistic explanations focus on what speakers must know in order to speak and understand
language the way all normal humans do. There are many facets to the study of language and
brain. It encompasses both child language acquisition and how adults produce and process
language.
One particularly fascinating question is whether our language shapes the way we perceive the
world and if so, how? In particular, can there be thinking without language? Such questions
have fascinated people for thousands of years, but only in recent times have researchers been
in a position to examine them scientifically and to investigate how languages can reflect or
reinforce particular ways of looking at the world and the world-views of particular cultures.
Linguists document the remarkable diversity of means of expression employed in the
languages of the world. At the same time, though, researchers have come to understand that
many of the features of language are universal, both because there are universal aspects to
human experience and because language has a built-in biological basis. This latter subject
belongs to the subfield called neurolinguistics, which studies how language is realized in the
human brain. The connection can be revealed through experiment or by studying the way
brain damage can lead to disruptions of language function in disorders like dyslexia or
aphasia. Or it can be revealed in more subtle ways, like the slips of the tongue that people
make, which can shed light on the mental circuitry of language in something like the way a
computer malfunction can shed light on how it is programmed or how its hardware was
designed. It can also be revealed by the changes that can take place in language and by the
limitations which make some changes impossible.
Language as a Social Phenomenon
The social life of language begins with the smallest and most informal interactions. Every
conversation is a social transaction, governed by rules that determine how sentences are put
together into larger discourses—stories, jokes, or whatever—and how participants take turns
speaking and let each other know that they are attending to what is being said. The
organization of these interactions is the subject of the subfield called discourse analysis.
Another, related, area of study concerns the literary uses of language, which involve the
particular rules that shape poetic structure or the organization of forms like the sonnet or the
novel, and which often make special use of devices like metaphor—though to be sure,
linguists have discovered too that metaphor and figurative language are essential elements of
everyday forms of speech.
At a larger level, the field of sociolinguistics is also concerned with the way the divisions of
societies into social classes and ethnic, religious, and racial groups are often mirrored by
linguistic differences. Of particular interest here, too, is the way language is used differently
by men and women.
In most parts of the world, communities use more than one language, and the phenomenon of
bilingualism or multilingualism has a special interest for linguists. Multilingualism raises
particular psychological questions: How do two or more languages coexist within an
individual mind? How do bilingual individuals decide when to switch from one language to
another? It also raises questions at the level of the community, where the question of which
language to use is determined by tacit understandings, and sometimes by official rules and
regulations that may invoke difficult questions about the relation of language to nationality.
In many nations, including the US, there are currently important debates about establishing
an official language.
Multilingual communities are interesting to linguists for another reason: Languages that
come into contact can influence each other in various ways, sometimes converging in
grammar or other features. Under certain social conditions, a mix of languages can give rise
to 'new' languages called pidgins and creoles, which have a particular interest for linguists
because of the way they shed light on language structure and function. Often, though, the
result when languages come into contact is that one becomes dominant at the expense of the
other, especially when the contact pits a widely used language of a powerful community
against a local or minority language. Modern communications have accelerated this process,
to the point where the majority of the languages currently used in the world are endangered,
and may disappear within a few generations—a situation that causes linguists concerns that
go beyond the purely academic.
Applications of Linguistics
Linguistics can have applications wherever language itself becomes a matter of practical
concern. Strictly speaking, then, the domain of applied linguistics is not a single field or
subfield, but can range from the research on multilingualism the teaching and learning of
foreign languages to studies of neurolinguistic disorders like aphasia and of various speech
and hearing defects. It includes work in the area of language planning, like the efforts to
devise writing systems for languages in the post-colonial world, and the efforts to standardize
terminologies for various technical domains, or to revitalize endangered languages.
Examples of the applications of linguistics can be multiplied indefinitely. The techniques of
discourse analysis have been applied to the problem of avoiding air accidents due to
miscommunication and to the problems of communication between members of different
ethnic groups. And linguists are increasingly called on in legal proceedings that turn on
questions of precise interpretation, a development that has given rise to a new field of study
of language and law.
Probably the oldest forms of applied linguistics are the preparation of dictionaries and the
field of interpretation and translation, all of which have been greatly influenced by the advent
of the computer. The applications of computers to language have not been limited to these
areas, though; they extend to the development of interfaces that enable people to interact with
computers using ordinary language, of systems capable of understanding speech and writing,
and of techniques that allow people to retrieve information more effectively from text
databases or from the Web. Not surprisingly, then, an increasing number of linguists are
working in high-tech industries.
(from http://www.lsadc.org/info/ling-fields-overview.cfm)
Text 5
Why Major in Linguistics?
Monica Macaulay and Kristen Syrett
What is linguistics?
If you are considering a linguistics major, you probably already know at least something
about the field. However, you may find it hard to answer people who ask you, "What exactly
is linguistics, and what do linguists do?" They might assume that it means that you are
multilingual. And you may, in fact, be a polyglot, but that's not what this major is about.
Linguistics is, broadly, the scientific study of language, and many topics are studied under
this umbrella.
At the heart of linguistics is the search for the unconscious knowledge that humans have
about language(s), an understanding of the structure of language, and knowledge about how
languages differ from each other. What exactly do we mean by this? When you were born,
you were not able to communicate with the adults around you using their language. But by
the time you were five or six, you were able to produce sentences, understand jokes, make
rhymes, and so on. In short, you became a fluent native speaker. All of this happened before
you entered first grade! (If you studied a foreign language in high school, you know that
learning a language later in life did not go nearly as smoothly or as quickly.) During those
first few years of your life, you accumulated a wide range of knowledge about language.
Speakers of all languages know a lot about their languages, usually without knowing that
they know it. For example, as a speaker of American English, you possess knowledge about
word order: You understand that Sarah admires the teacher is grammatical, while Admires
Sarah teacher the is not, and also that The teacher admires Sarah means something entirely
different. You know that when you ask a yes-no question, you may reverse the order of
words at the beginning of the sentence and that your voice goes up at the end of the sentence
(for example, in Are you going?). However, if you speak French, you might add est-ce que at
the beginning; if you speak Japanese, you probably add ka at the end; and if you know
American Sign Language, you raise your eyebrows during the question. In addition, you
understand that asking a wh-question (who, what, where, etc.) calls for a somewhat different
strategy (compare the rising intonation in the question above to the falling intonation in
Where are you going?). You also possess knowledge about the sounds of your language, e.g.
which consonants can go together in a word. You know that slint could be an English word,
while sbint or srint could not be.
Linguists investigate how linguistic knowledge of this kind is acquired, how it interacts with
other mental processes, how it varies from person to person and region to region (even within
one language), and how computer programs can model this knowledge. They study how the
structure of language (such as sounds or phrases) can be represented, and how different
components of language interact with each other (such as intonation and meaning). Linguists
work with consultants who speak different languages, search corpora, and run carefully
designed experiments to answer these questions about language. (Yes, linguistics is a
science!) By now you can see that linguists may benefit by knowing multiple languages, but
you can see that this is not the full extent of what a linguist does.
What will I study as a linguistics major?
When you choose to major in linguistics, you're choosing a major that gives you insight into
one of the most intriguing aspects of human knowledge and behavior and at the same time
exposes you to related disciplines. Majoring in linguistics means that you will learn about
many aspects of human language, including the physical properties and structure of sounds
(phonetics and phonology), words (morphology), sentences (syntax), and meaning
(semantics). It can involve looking at how languages change over time (historical linguistics);
how they vary from situation to situation, group to group, and place to place (sociolinguistics
and dialectology); how people use language in context (pragmatics); or how people acquire
or learn language (language acquisition). Faculty members in linguistics programs are
experts in at least one (if not several) of these subfields. Many linguists, in fact, have
expertise in multiple subfields and enjoy collaborating with other linguists with different
backgrounds in order to further scientific knowledge. Linguistics programs may be organized
around different aspects of linguistics. For example, a program might focus on the linguistics
of a particular group of languages (like Slavic linguistics); how language is acquired and
processed (psycholinguistics); how language relates to social and cultural issues, including
language learning and teaching (applied linguistics); or the connections between linguistics
and cognitive science. All of these programs share an interest in the unconscious knowledge
that humans have about the language(s) that they know and what is possible or impossible in
language.
Although linguistics programs in the United States may vary in their approach, they tend to
have similar requirements. Most linguistics majors are either required or encouraged to have
proficiency in at least one language besides English. This knowledge helps students
understand how languages vary and how the students' native language fits into a broader
picture. Many linguistics majors spend time studying and/or traveling abroad. Students are
also encouraged to complement their linguistic studies with courses in related areas (such as
psychology, cognitive science, anthropology, or computer science) to be more well-rounded
and better informed.
What opportunities will I have with a linguistics degree?
In the course of their training, students who major in linguistics acquire valuable intellectual
skills, including analytic reasoning and argumentation, and learn how to study language
scientifically. This means making insightful observations, formulating and testing clear
hypotheses, making arguments and drawing conclusions, and communicating findings to a
wider community. Linguistics majors are therefore well equipped for a variety of jobs and
graduate-level programs.
Job Opportunities
A linguistics major provides students with valuable training for many different kinds of
opportunities following graduation. Some may require additional training or skills, but not all
do. Here are just a few:




Work in the computer industry: Linguists may work on speech recognition, search
engines, and artificial intelligence.
Teach at the university level: A graduate degree in linguistics allows you to teach in
departments such as linguistics, philosophy, psychology, speech/communication
sciences, anthropology, English, and foreign languages.
Work in education: People with a background in linguistics and education develop
curricula and materials, train teachers, and design tests and other methods of
assessment, especially for language arts and second language learning. At the
university level, many applied linguists are involved in teacher education and
educational research.
Teach English as a Second Language (ESL) in the United States or abroad: If
you want to teach ESL in the US, you will probably need additional training in










language pedagogy, such as a Masters degree in Education or TESOL. Many teaching
positions abroad require only an undergraduate degree, but at least some specialized
training in the subject will make you a much more effective teacher. Linguistics can
give you a valuable crosslanguage perspective.
Work as a translator or interpreter: Skilled translators and interpreters are needed
everywhere, from government to hospitals to courts of law. For this line of work, a
high level of proficiency in the relevant language(s) is necessary, and specialized
training may be required. Nonetheless, linguistics can help you understand the issues
that arise when a message is communicated from one language to another.
Work on language documentation or do fieldwork: A number of projects and
institutes around the world are looking for linguists to work with language consultants
to document, analyze, and preserve languages (many of which are endangered). Some
organizations engage in language-related fieldwork, including documenting
endangered languages, conducting language surveys, establishing literacy programs,
and translating documents of cultural heritage. This is a great way to interact with
speakers of diverse languages, representing communities around the world.
Teach a foreign language: Your students will benefit from your knowledge of
language structure and your ability to make certain aspects of the language especially
clear. You will need a high level of proficiency in the relevant language, and you may
need additional training to teach a foreign language.
Work in the publishing industry, as a technical writer, or a journalist: The verbal
skills that linguists develop are ideal for positions in editing, publishing, and writing.
Work for a testing agency: Linguists help prepare and evaluate standardized exams
and conduct research on assessment issues.
Work with dictionaries (lexicography): Knowledge of phonology, morphology,
historical linguistics, dialectology, and sociolinguistics is key to becoming a
lexicographer.
Become a consultant on language in professions such as law or medicine: The
subfield of forensic linguistics involves studying the language of legal texts, linguistic
aspects of evidence, issues of voice identification, and so on. Law enforcement
agencies such as the FBI and police departments, law firms, and the courts hire
linguists for these purposes.
Work for a product-naming company: Companies that name products do extensive
linguistic research on the associations that people make with particular sounds and
classes of sounds. A background in linguistics qualifies you for this line of work.
Work for the government: The federal government hires linguists for the Foreign
Service, the FBI, etc.
Become an actor or train actors: Actors need training in pronunciation, intonation,
and different elements of grammar in order to sound like real speakers of a language
or dialect. They may even need to know how to make mistakes to sound like an
authentic nonnative speaker.
To enhance your chances of finding a good job after graduation, you might choose to
double-major and make your linguistic work part of an interdisciplinary program of study. A
secondary specialization in an area such as psychology, computer science, the speech
sciences, education, journalism, philosophy, or a foreign language complements a linguistics
major nicely.
Beyond the Bachelor's Degree
Graduate and professional programs require students to have strong verbal and analytical
skills. A linguistics major will provide you with solid preparation for such programs. These
include: professional programs such as law school or library/information science, clinical
programs such as speech and language therapy, MA and PhD programs in fields such as
linguistics, cognitive science, psychology, computer science, anthropology, philosophy,
communication sciences, education, and the study of particular language(s), TESOL
programs and other programs associated with teaching English to nonnative language users.
Additional Resources
The Linguistic Society of America
General information about the field of linguistics, a directory of linguistics programs in the
US, job postings, and additional resources
The LinguistList
Just about any information on the field that you could possibly want, including conference
listings, job postings, and links to sites for downloading phonetic fonts
Linguistic Enterprises
For people with linguistics degrees seeking jobs in industry. It is geared more towards people
with degrees beyond the undergraduate level but can help guide your career planning
Still curious about linguistics but are not ready to become a linguistics major? Look at an
introductory textbook or even enroll in an introductory-level course in the field. Offered at
many colleges and universities, these courses often satisfy distribution requirements and are
always very interesting. We also encourage you to talk to a linguist! Faculty members in
linguistics departments would be happy to talk with prospective students and answer
questions about the major and the field.
(from http://www.lsadc.org/info/ling-faqs-whymajor.cfm)