What is Linguistics? 4th Ed , David Crystal.

1. What Linguistics is NOT

*General confusion: singular or plural? One or a collection of objects?

It has not existed for long to be popularly recognized as INTELLECTUAL DISCIPLINE (studied in
British universities since 1960's)
This relatively newness leads to several MISCONCEPTIONS
*Problems even in the definition of LINGUIST: a) one skilled in use of languages or b) one who is
master of other tongues.
There are also some DIFFICULTIES
*Few introductory books (some with faults: too comprehensive; advanced level; rather unreadable –
there's a gap between the study and the view of general people and technical terms have little
explanation)
*some equate it with Philology and there are clashes between disciplines.

LINGUISTICS IS NOT
a PHILOLOGY (Study of the history of the language)
b POLYGLOTTISM
c LITERARY CRITICISM (or fields involving a scale of values)
d TRADITIONAL STUDY OF GRAMMAR

HISTORY OF LANGUAGE
Linguistics is not to be viewed as a historical (diacronich) study:
+evolution/development of languages
+origin og languages?
+world's first language?
Linguistics is the SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE. It deals with NON-HISTORICAL (synchronic)
study of its object (Language), which is to be examined empirically.

LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING

Linguists should be able to speak about language, not many languages.Linguistics give you the
ability to approach the study of language confidently and methodically, inculcates an analytic state
of mind, but it does not mean knowing more than one language.

EVALUATION
Linguistics is not concerned with evaluating language in use: linguists are not literary critics. They
describe the facts of utterances, not the aesthetic/moral value (they do not teach elocution lessons
either).

TRADITIONAL APPROACHES
Linguistics is not to be identified with the older approaches to language study.
MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE NATURE OF LANGUAGE
1- Speech vs Writing: The absence of recognition that they are different media, with different
patterns of grammar and vocabulary and different standards of usage.
Rules were traditionally written to apply one aspect. Studying writing at the expense of speech is
like “putting the cart before the horse” since SPEECH is the primary medium of linguistic
expression (following a natural process). Also, traditional grammar only covers written, more
formal styles. Thus, rules distort the reality of English. Eg. the use of “whom”.
2- Influence of Latin: The inadequacy of traditional grammars shows in their trying to describe
English in terms of another language (usually Latin). Rules were fixed upon Latin structures (eg
Noun Cases in English). In the description of a language we must not impose findings of other
languages. English must be described in its own terms.

LOGIC AND LANGUAGE

there is a tendency to appeal to a criterion of some logic of a sort, when making statements about
the way a language is constructed. Human language is not a logical construct, it is not beautifully
regular. It can change its form over the years and is full of irregularities (big-bigger, but not good-
gooder; double negative).
It is best not to talk about logic, but of regular / irregular forms.

* Complexity of Language: Standards of difficulty are relative. There are no simple, crude or
primitive languages, even if the people are said to be at a low level of cultural development, this is
only anthropologically speaking.
We cannot measure a language against the standard provided by another.

* Aesthetic and Language: an unrealistic standard, no one sound is intrinsically better than another,.
We cannot say that one language is more beautiful, ugly or affected.

*History and Language: an authority people turn to.

The argument is that the correct meaning of a word is the oldest. This point of view is reducible to
absurdity, and illustrates the confusion between the historical and non-historical dimensions of
study. One does not need the past info to study the present state of a language (reverse also true).

*Best authors: The usage of best authors as an authority. Early dictionaries included only words
used by reputable authors. Such a standard produced a description of a very restricted, specialized,
literary English. As if the older states are intrinsically superior to the more recent.

*Impression: Rules based on awareness of the author's own usage. It is difficult (or impossible) to
be sure what one actually says (and the way we say/pronounce it).
There's a problem over determining the language usage of others.
Language is filled with questions of acceptability, each descriptive statement a grammarian makes
must be tested by supplementing his own intuition with info derived from other people's intuitions
about their language.
The ingo which appears in a grammar book is highly selective, no traditional grammar is nearly
complete.

DEFINTIONS
Traditional grammar is characterized by extreme vagueness of definition and a fialure to be explicit
about important issues (eg definiton of NOUN, PARTS OF SPEECH). Often theoretical
assumptions about language/grammar are made but not stated explicitly.

PRESCRIPTIVE VS DESCRIPTIVE
The traditional attitude to language is PRESCRIPTIVE, writers were concerned to make rules about
how people ought to speak and write, in conformity with some standard.
But before prescribing rules, one must first describe the facts about the language.
Modern linguists wan to describe language in its own terms, they are aware that the gramarian does
not “make” the rules – they should codify what is already there, the usage.
The USAGE is alive and the grammar books fossilized. Language is always changing and the book
is always a little behind.
To linguists usages are not right or wrong, they leave it to others to decide which is socially more
appropriate.