Chapter 1 What Is 1 Linguist The field of linguistics, the scientific study of human natural language, is a growing and exciting area of study, with an important impact on fields as diverse as cducation, anthropology, sociology, language teaching, cog- nitive psychology, philosophy, computer science, neuroscience, and artifi- cial intelligence, among others. Indeed, the last five fields cited, along with linguistics, are the key components of the field of cognitive science, the study of the structure and functioning of human cognitive processes. In spite of the importance of the field of linguistics, many people, even highly educated people, will tell you that they have only a vague idea of what the field is about. Some believe that a linguist is a person who speaks several languages fluently. Others believe that linguists are lan- guage experts who can help you decide whether it is better to say “It is I” or “It’s me.” Yet it is quite possible to be a professional linguist (and an excellent one at that) without having taught a single language class, without having interpreted at the UN, and without speaking any more than one language. What is linguistics, then? Fundamentally, the field is concerned with the nature of language and (linguistic) communication. It is apparent that people have been fascinated with language and communication for thou- sands of years, yet in many ways we are only beginning to understand the complex nature of this aspect of human life. If we ask, What is the nature of language? or How does communication work? we quickly realize that these questions have no simple answers and are much too broad to be answered in a direct way. Similarly, questions such as What is energy? or What is matter? cannot be answered in a simple fashion, and indeed research in physics is carried out in numerous subfields, some of which in- volve investigating the nature of energy and matter. Linguistics is no dif- ferent: the field as a whole represents an attempt to bi down the broad questions about the nature of language and communication into smaller,COMPETENCE Sounds — MODEL —> Linguistic meaning Figure 1.1 A competence model more manageable questions that we can hope to answer, and in so doing establish reasonable results that we can build on in moving closer to answers to the larger questions. Unless we limit our sights in this way and restrict ourselves to particular frameworks for examining different aspects of language and communication, we cannot hope to make prog- ress in answering the broad questions that have fascinated people for so long. As we will see, the field covers a surprisingly broad range of topics related to language and communication. Chomsky (1965, 1972) proposes that three models are central to the general study of (spoken) language. The first he calls a model of linguistic competence, because it models what fluent speakers know when they know a language: “At the crudest level of description, we may say that a language associates sound and meaning in a particular way: to have com- mand of a language is to be able, in principle, to understand what is said, and to produce a signal with the intended semantic interpretation” (1972, 115). Such a model can be represented as in figure 1.1. Following Chomsky, linguists often call the model of competence in a language—the model of what speakers know when they know a language—a grammar of that language: “We will say that a grammar of a language L generates a set of pairs (s, I) where s is the phonetic repre- sentation of a certain signal [sounds] and I is the semantic interpretation {meaning]” (1972, 116). Linguistics traditionally concentrates on building a model of competence at the various levels of language organization— sounds, words, sentences, meaning, and use—as well as how languages vary from one another and evolve over time. We cover these subjects in chapters 2-9. The second model Chomsky calls a model of linguistic performance, be- cause it models how speakers actually use their linguistic competence. Such a model reflects not just a speaker’s knowledge of his or her lan- guage, but also extralinguistic influences on speaking such as memory limitations and the speaker’s purposes: “To study a language, then, We must attempt to dissociate a variety of factors that interact with underly- ing competence to determine actual performance” (1972, 116). Chom-PERFORMANCE Speaker's message <> MODEL, +> Sounds [Grammar] Figure 1.2 A performance model . ACQUISITION BERT OR MANCE Language experience —> a aber 3 MODEL [Grammar] Figure 1.3 An acquisition model sky’s idea is that a performance model should contain a competence model as a part: “Any...model for the production [and comprehension] of sentences must incorporate the system of grammatical rules” (1972, 117). Such a model can be represented as in figure 1.2. Reading this model from left to right gives a model of speech production, and reading it from right to left gives a model of speech comprehension. Chomsky’s third device is called a Janguage acquisition model, because it reflects the changes in a person’s competence and performance as he or she acquires a language and thus provides a model of the child’s language-learning achievements. Such a model can be represented as in figure 1.3. The study of performance and acquisition models is traditionally a ma- jor concern of psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics. Although originally Proposed for spoken languages, these three models have been extended to cover other realizations of language as well, such as sign languages, read- ing, and writing. In sum, Chomsky’s three models can be interpreted as frameworks for which the following questions are addressed: 1. What is the nature and structure of human language? 2. How is language put to use in thought and communication? 3. How do language and our ability to use it develop? Part I of the text contains chapters dealing primarily with the structural components of language. Chapter 2, “Morphology,” is concerned with understanding the relatedness of words and with the way morphological units combine to create new words, Chapter 3, “Phonetics and Phonemiciption.” introduces the physiology involved in the production , uinds as well as phonemic and phonetic transcription SYStemg 0 represent the sounds of English. Chapter 4, “Phonology on ional principles that determine the patterns the © 5, “Syntax,” presents a Study of Chapter 6, “Semantics,” specch § that are used ¢ surveys. the organi speech sounds are subject to, Chapte! the structure of sentences and phrai Surveys the properties of linguistic meaning. Chapter 7, “Language Variation, deals with the ways speakers and groups of speakers can differ from each other in terms of the various forms of language that they usc. Chapter 8, anguage Change,” examines how languages change over time and how languages can be historically related. Having examined certain structural propertics of human language in part I, we turn to functional properties in part IJ. Chapter 9, “Prag. matics,” explores some of the issues involved in describing human com- munication and proposes certain communication strategies that people use when they talk to cach other, Chapter 10, “Psychology of Language,” examincs how language is produced and understood. Chapter 11, “Lan- guage Acquisition in Children,” studies the stages involved in language acquisition by humans with normal brain function and reviews the evi- dence for positing a genctically endowed “Language Acquisition De- vice.” Finally, chapter 12, “Language and the Brain,” deals with how language is stored and processed in the brain, and discusses recent ad- vances in genetics that contribute to understanding the biological basis of human language. To turn now from the particular to the general, what are some of the background assumptions that linguists make when they study language? Perhaps the most important fundamental assumption is that human lan- guage at all levels is rule- (or principle-) governed. Every known language has systematic rules governing pronunciation, word formation, and gram- matical construction. Further, the way in which meanings are associated with phrases of a language is characterized by regular rules. Finally, the use of language to communicate is governed by important generalizations that can be expressed in rules. The ultimate aim in each chapter, there- fore, is to formulate rules to describe the phenomena under consideration. Indeed, chapter 7, “Language Variation,” shows that even so-called ca- sual speech is governed by systematic regularities expressible in rules. ii oe eine must ae an impor unt qualification to what we have lal way that lingutate eee cic s rule and ruk es governed in the spe- person's understanding of the ter: te Peas ren from the lay- ms. In school most of us were taughtso-called rules of grammar, which we were told to follow in order to speak and write “correctly”—rules such as “Do not end a sentence with a preposition,” or “Don't say ain't,” or “Never split an infinitive.” Rules of this sort are called prescriptive rules, that is to say, they prescribe, or dictate to the speaker, the way the language supposedly should be written or spoken in order for the speaker to appear correct or educated. Pre- scriptive rules are really rules of style rather than rules of grammar. In sharp contrast, when linguists speak of rules, they are not referring to prescriptive rules from grammar books. Rather, linguists try to formu- late descriptive rules when they analyze language, rules that describe the actual language of some group of speakers and not some hypothetical language that speakers “should” use. Descriptive rules express generaliza- tions and regularities about various aspects of language. Thus, when we say that language is rule-governed, we are really saying that the study of human language has revealed numerous generalizations about and regu- laritics in the structure and function of language. Even though language is governed by strict principles, speakers nonetheless control a system that is unbounded in scope, which is to say that there is no limit to the kinds of things that can be talked about. How language achieves this property of effability (anboundedness in scope) is addressed in chapters 2 and 5, “Morphology” and “Syntax.” Another important background assumption that linguists make is that various human languages constitute a unified phenomenon: linguists as- sume that it is possible to study human language in general and that the study of particular languages will reveal features of language that are uni- versal. What do we mean by universal features of language? So far we have used the terms /anguage and human language without referring to any specific language, such as English or Chinese. Students are sometimes puzzled by this general use of the term fanguage; it would seem that this use is rarely found outside of linguistics-related courses. Foreign language courses, after all, deal with specific languages such as French or Russian. Further, specific human languages appear on the sur- face to be so different from cach other that it is often difficult to under- stand how linguists can speak of language as though it were a single thing. Although it is obvious that specific languages differ from each other on the surface, if we look closer we find that human languages are sur- prisingly similar. For instance, all known languages are at a similar level of complexity and detail—there is no such thing as a primitive human language. All languages provide a means for asking questions, makingrequests, making assertions, and so on. And there is nothing that can be expressed in one language that cannot be expressed in any other. Obyj. ously, one language may have terms not found in another language, but it is always possible to invent new terms to express what we mean: any. thing we can imagine or think, we can express In any human language, Turning to more abstract properties, even the formal structures of have sentences made up of smaller language are similar: all languages phrasal units, these units in turn being made up of words, which are themselves made up of sequences of sounds. All of these features of hu- man language are so obvious to us that we may fail to see how surprising it is that languages share them. When linguists use the term /anguage, or natural human language, they are revealing their belief that at the abstract level, beneath the surface variation, languages are remarkably similar in form and function and conform to certain universal principles. In relation to what we have just said about universal principles, we should observe once again that most of the illustrative examples in this book are drawn from the English language. This should not mislead you into supposing that what we say is relevant only to English. We will be introducing fundamental concepts of linguistics, and we believe that these have to be applicable to all languages. We have chosen English examples so that you can continually check our factual claims and decide whether they are empirically well founded. Linguistics, perhaps more than any other science, provides an opportunity for the student to participate in the research process. Especially in chapter 5, “Syntax,” you will be able to assess the accuracy of the evidence that bears on hypothesis formation, and after having followed the argumentation in the chapter, you will be in a position to carry out similar reasoning processes in the exercises at the end. Finally, we offer a brief observation about the general nature of linguis- tics, To many linguists the ultimate aim of linguistics is not simply to un- derstand how language itself is structured and how it functions. We hope that as we come to understand more about human language, we will cor- respondingly understand more about the processes of human thought. In this view the study of language is ultimately the study of the human mind. This goal is perhaps best expressed by Noam Chomsky in his book Reflections on Language (1975, 3-4): Why study language? There are many possible answers, and by focusing on some I do not, of course, mean to disparage others or question their legitimacy. One may, for example, simply be fascinated by the elements of language in themselves and want to discover their order and arrangement, their origin in history or in theindividual, or the ways in which they are used in thought, in science or in art, or in normal social interchange. One reason for studying language—and for me per- sonally the most compelling reason—is that it is tempting to regard language, in the traditional phrase, as “a mirror of mind.” I do not mean by this simply that the concepts expressed and distinctions developed in normal language use give us insight into the patterns of thought and the world of “common sense” constructed by the human mind. More intriguing, to me at least, is the possibility that by studying language we may discover abstract principles that govern its structure and use, principles that are universal by biological necessity and not mere histori- cal accident, that derive from mental characteristics of the species. A human lan- guage is a system of remarkable complexity. To come to know a human language would be an extraordinary intellectual achievement for a creature not specifically designed to accomplish this task. A normal child acquires this knowledge on rela- tively slight exposure and without specific training. He can then quite effortlessly make use of an intricate structure of specific rules and guiding principles to con- vey his thoughts and feelings to others, arousing in them novel ideas and subtle perceptions and judgments. For the conscious mind, not specifically designed for the purpose, it remains a distant goal to reconstruct and comprehend what the child has done intuitively and with minimal effort. Thus language is a mirror of mind in a deep and significant sense. It is a product of human intelligence, created anew in each individual by operations that lie far beyond the reach of will or consciousness. Bibliography Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 1972. Language and mind. Enlarged ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Chomsky, N. 1975. Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon Books.