STRUCTURE OF ENGLISH
Chapter 1
The Nature of Language and Linguistics
Chapter Preview
The chapter begins by looking at the nature of human language, starting from certain
fundamental beliefs we share concerning the naturalness, power, and function of language and
moving towards a more scientific analysis of human language as a system of arbitrary vocal
signs, having the qualities of universality, innateness, and creativity. Particular attention is
given to the rule-governed nature of language. Language is also seen as uniquely human. The
ambiguous term grammar is then defined and a number of fallacies concerning grammar are
disputed, for example, that one type of grammar is simpler than another, or that changes in
Grammar involves deterioration in a language. Finally, the discipline of linguistics is examined,
with its division in five components, corresponding to the levels of language: phonology,
morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics.
Commentary
The Nature of Human Language
Linguists understand language as a system of arbitrary vocal signs. Language is rule-governed,
creative, universal, innate, and learned, all at the same time. It is also distinctly human.We will
look at what is meant by each of these terms in some detail, but before doing so, let’s briefly
examine some preconceptions about language that a lay person might bring to the study of
language.
Fundamental Beliefs about Language
As speakers of language, we all have certain deep-seated notions concerning the nature of
language. Like all such fundamental beliefs, these are often wrong, though they contain a germ
of truth. For example, as literate beings, we tend to equate language with writing. But there are
significant differences, not only between oral sounds and written symbols, but also between
spoken and written syntax or vocabulary. More importantly, we assume that there is
some necessary, inevitable, or motivated connection between a word and the thing it names.
This assumption lies behind the belief that names tell us something about the bearer of that
name (for example, when one utters a statement such as “She doesn’t look like a Penelope!”)
, or that a change in status must entail a change in name (for example, the custom — now
changing, of course — for a woman to adopt her husband’s surname upon marriage). It also
lies behind the thought, which we may all probably be guilty of having at times, that a foreign
language is somehow perverse and idiotic, while our own language is natural and sensible.
Because we believe that there is an inevitable connection between a word and the thing it
represents, the word is very powerful: names are extremely important (as we see in the Old
Testament Genesis) and the possession of language can be very dangerous (as we see in the
Old Testament story of the Tower of Babel). We avoid naming certain taboo objects explicitly
because doing so might invoke the object named; in addition, we may avoid directly naming
things which we fear or stand in awe of, such as God, our parents, or dangerous animals, and
things which are unpleasant or unclean, such as birth, death, bodily parts and functions, or
disease. Instead, we substitute euphemisms. Even if we recognize that names do not, in fact,
invoke the objects they name, there is a sense in which language has the eFFect of action. That
is, by means of language alone we can perform an action, as for example when you say, “I
nominate Alex”. We will examine this phenomenon in Chapter 11. Finally, we generally think of
language as functioning to give expression to our thoughts (“language as a vehicle for
thought”), to transmit information (the “communicative function”), or perhaps to provide the
raw material for works of literature (the “narrative function”). But language has many more
functions, for example, to get others to do things, to express emotions or feelings, to maintain
social intercourse (as in greetings or talk about the weather — the “phatic” function), to make
promises, to ask questions, to bring about states of aFFairs, to talk to oneself, and even to talk
about language itself, what is known as metalanguage ‘language turned back on itself’, which is
common in everyday life, not just among linguists. The idea that language simply expresses
thought is a result of the philosophical and logical tradition, which treats language as a
collection of propositions consisting of referent(s) and a prediction which have truth-value (are
true or false). However, in normal language use, speakers are not always committing
themselves to the truth of a proposition; in fact, they do so only in the case of assertions or
statements. Likewise, the idea that language has a communicative function, that it conveys new
information, derives from its use in fairly restricted contexts, such as in the classroom or the
newspaper, or when gossiping. In fact, the most important and frequent function of language is
probably its phatic function.
Linguistic Signs
Chapter 1
The Nature of Language and Linguistics
Chapter Preview
The chapter begins by looking at the nature of human language, starting from certain
fundamental beliefs we share concerning the naturalness, power, and function of language and
moving towards a more scientific analysis of human language as a system of arbitrary vocal
signs, having the qualities of universality, innateness, and creativity. Particular attention is
given to the rule-governed nature of language. Language is also seen as uniquely human. The
ambiguous term grammar is then defined and a number of fallacies concerning grammar are
disputed, for example, that one type of grammar is simpler than another, or that changes in
Grammar involves deterioration in a language. Finally, the discipline of linguistics is examined,
with its division in five components, corresponding to the levels of language: phonology,
morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics.
Commentary
The Nature of Human Language
Linguists understand language as a system of arbitrary vocal signs. Language is rule-governed,
creative, universal, innate, and learned, all at the same time. It is also distinctly human.We will
look at what is meant by each of these terms in some detail, but before doing so, let’s briefly
examine some preconceptions about language that a lay person might bring to the study of
language.
Fundamental Beliefs about Language
As speakers of language, we all have certain deep-seated notions concerning the nature of
language. Like all such fundamental beliefs, these are often wrong, though they contain a germ
of truth. For example, as literate beings, we tend to equate language with writing. But there are
significant differences, not only between oral sounds and written symbols, but also between
spoken and written syntax or vocabulary. More importantly, we assume that there is
some necessary, inevitable, or motivated connection between a word and the thing it names.
This assumption lies behind the belief that names tell us something about the bearer of that
name (for example, when one utters a statement such as “She doesn’t look like a Penelope!”)
, or that a change in status must entail a change in name (for example, the custom — now
changing, of course — for a woman to adopt her husband’s surname upon marriage). It also
lies behind the thought, which we may all probably be guilty of having at times, that a foreign
language is somehow perverse and idiotic, while our own language is natural and sensible.
Because we believe that there is an inevitable connection between a word and the thing it
represents, the word is very powerful: names are extremely important (as we see in the Old
Testament Genesis) and the possession of language can be very dangerous (as we see in the
Old Testament story of the Tower of Babel). We avoid naming certain taboo objects explicitly
because doing so might invoke the object named; in addition, we may avoid directly naming
things which we fear or stand in awe of, such as God, our parents, or dangerous animals, and
things which are unpleasant or unclean, such as birth, death, bodily parts and functions, or
disease. Instead, we substitute euphemisms. Even if we recognize that names do not, in fact,
invoke the objects they name, there is a sense in which language has the eFFect of action. That
is, by means of language alone we can perform an action, as for example when you say, “I
nominate Alex”. We will examine this phenomenon in Chapter 11. Finally, we generally think of
language as functioning to give expression to our thoughts (“language as a vehicle for
thought”), to transmit information (the “communicative function”), or perhaps to provide the
raw material for works of literature (the “narrative function”). But language has many more
functions, for example, to get others to do things, to express emotions or feelings, to maintain
social intercourse (as in greetings or talk about the weather — the “phatic” function), to make
promises, to ask questions, to bring about states of aFFairs, to talk to oneself, and even to talk
about language itself, what is known as metalanguage ‘language turned back on itself’, which is
common in everyday life, not just among linguists. The idea that language simply expresses
thought is a result of the philosophical and logical tradition, which treats language as a
collection of propositions consisting of referent(s) and a prediction which have truth-value (are
true or false). However, in normal language use, speakers are not always committing
themselves to the truth of a proposition; in fact, they do so only in the case of assertions or
statements. Likewise, the idea that language has a communicative function, that it conveys new
information, derives from its use in fairly restricted contexts, such as in the classroom or the
newspaper, or when gossiping. In fact, the most important and frequent function of language is
probably its phatic function.
Linguistic Signs
