Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Recommended Literature
1. Galperin I.R. Stylistics – M., 1977.
2. Kukharenko V.A. A Book of Practice in Stylistics - M., 1986.
3. Kuznetsova L.A., Smykalova L.A. Lectures on English
Stylistics – Lviv, 1972.
4. Skrebnev Yu. M. Fundamentals of English Stylistics – M., 2000.
5. Baldick Ch. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary
Terms – OUP, 1990.
6. Арнольд И.В. Стилистика современного английского языка –
М., 1990.
7. Мороховский А.Н., Воробьева О.П. и др. Стилистика
английского языка – К., 1984.
8. Пелевина Н.Ф. Стилистический анализ художественного текста
– Л., 1986.
9. Кухаренко В.А. Практикум по интерпретации художественного
текста – М., 1987.
Fundamentals of English Lexicology
2. Word-Building
(Main types of word-building: affixation, conversion,
composition, shortening; minor means: sound-
imitation/onomatopoeia, reduplication, back-formation)
4. Homonyms
(Sources of homonymy, classification of homonyms:
a)homophones, homographs, homonyms proper;
b) full homonyms, partial homonyms)
3. Lexico-Grammatical Word-Classes
(Approaches to LG classification, principles of
classification, the system of parts of speech, notional and
functional parts of speech)
4. Syntactical Units
(Word-groups, classification of word-groups, sentence,
classification of sentences, non-sentence utterances)
BRANCHES OF LINGUISTICS
Stylistics is the study of varieties of language whose properties position that language in context.
For example, the language of advertising, politics, religion, individual authors, etc., or the
language of a period in time, all are used distinctively and belong in a particular situation. In
other words, they all have ‘place’ or are said to use a particular 'style'.
Stylistics also attempts to establish principles capable of explaining the particular choices made
by individuals and social groups in their use of language, such as socialization, the production
and reception of meaning, critical discourse analysis and literary criticism.
Other features of stylistics include the use of dialogue, including regional accents and people’s
dialects, descriptive language, the use of grammar, such as the active voice or passive voice, the
distribution of sentence lengths, the use of particular language registers, etc.
Many linguists do not like the term ‘stylistics’. The word ‘style’, itself, has several connotations
that make it difficult for the term to be defined accurately. However, in Linguistic Criticism,
Roger Fowler makes the point that, in non-theoretical usage, the word stylistics makes sense and
is useful in referring to an enormous range of literary contexts, such as John Milton’s ‘grand
style’, the ‘prose style’ of Henry James, the ‘epic’ and ‘ballad style’ of classical Greek literature,
etc. (Fowler. 1996, 185). In addition, stylistics is a distinctive term that may be used to determine
the connections between the form and effects within a particular variety of language. Therefore,
stylistics looks at what is ‘going on’ within the language; what the linguistic associations are that
the style of language reveals.
In linguistic analysis, different styles of language are technically called register. Register refers
to properties within a language variety that associate that language with a given situation. This is
distinct from professional terminology that might only be found, for example, in a legal
document or medical journal. The linguist Michael Halliday defines register by emphasizing its
semantic patterns and context. For Halliday, register is determined by what is taking place, who
is taking part and what part the language is playing. (Halliday. 1978, 23) In Context and
Language, Helen Leckie-Tarry suggests that Halliday’s theory of register aims to propose
relationships between language function, determined by situational or social factors, and
language form. (Leckie-Tarry. 1995, 6) The linguist William Downes makes the point that the
principal characteristic of register, no matter how peculiar or diverse, is that it is obvious and
immediately recognisable. (Downes. 1998, 309)
Halliday places great emphasis on the social context of register and distinguishes register from
dialect, which is a variety according to user, in the sense that each speaker uses one variety and
uses it all the time, and not, as is register, a variety according to use, in the sense that each
speaker has a range of varieties and chooses between them at different times. (Halliday. 1964,
77) For example, Cockney is a dialect of English that relates to a particular region of the United
Kingdom, however, Cockney rhyming slang bears a relationship between its variety and the
situation in which it appears, i.e. the ironic definitions of the parlance within the distinctive tones
of the East-End London patois. Subsequently, register is associated with language situation and
not geographic location.
In ‘Politics and the English Language’ (1946), George Orwell writes against the use of
‘conventional’ language as, in doing so, there is the danger that the traditional ‘style’ of language
that is seemingly appropriate to a specific context will eventually overpower its precise meaning.
In other words, the stylistic qualities of language will degenerate the meaning through the
overuse of jargon and familiar, hackneyed and/or clichéd words and phrases. Orwell condemns
the use of metaphors such as ‘toe the line; ride roughshod over; no axe to grind’. He suggests
that these phrases are often used without thought of their literal meaning. Orwell hits out at
pretentious diction and the use of Latin phrases like ‘deus ex machina’ and even ‘status quo’.
He also argues against unnecessary clauses, such as ‘have the effect of; play a leading part in;
give grounds for’. These are all familiar phrases, but are they really useful in any context?
Orwell says that one reason we use this kind of language is because it is easy. He writes:
It is easier - even quicker, once you have the habit - to say In my opinion it is a not
unjustifiable assumption that ... than to say I think. (Orwell. 1964, 150)
It [modern language] consists in gumming together long strips of words which have
already been set in order by someone else, and making the result presentable by sheer
humbug. (Orwell. 1964, 150)
In Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), the English language is distilled and sanitized
and then imposed upon a population who, out of terror, actively conform to the process. The
language is dehumanizing as it does not allow for any form of communication other than that
permitted by the state. Similarly, in the appendix to the novel, ‘The Principles of Newspeak’,
more subversive linguistic gymnastics are in evidence:
The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-
view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of
thought impossible. (Orwell. 1949, 305)
On the language of George Orwell, Fowler says that the rapidity and fluency are made possible
by the fact that the speaker is simply uttering strings of orthodox jargon and is in no sense
choosing the words in relation to intended meanings or to some state of affairs in the world.
(Fowler. 1995, 212)
Today we have word processor programs that will effortlessly write a letter for any occasion.
Stock phrases and paragraphs can be cut and pasted at random to appear coherent. An extreme
example of this practice is found in Jonathan Swift’s satiric novel Gulliver’s Travels (1726).
When Lemuel Gulliver arrives at the Grand Academy of Lagado he enters the school of writing,
where a professor has devised an enormous ‘frame’ that contains every word in the language.
The machine is put into motion and the words are jumbled up, and when three or four words are
arranged into a recognizable phrase they are written down. The phrases are then collated into
sentences, the sentences into paragraphs, the paragraphs into pages and the pages into books,
which, the professor hopes, will eventually ‘give the world a complete body of all arts and
sciences’. (Swift. 1994, 105)
This method of writing is not only absurd but produces nothing original. It also relies on both the
writer and the reader interpreting what is created in exactly the same way. And it is highly
political as the writer and the reader are indoctrinated into using a particular form of language
and conditioned towards its function and understanding. As Orwell says: ‘A speaker who uses
this kind of phraseology has gone some distance towards turning himself into a machine.’
(Orwell. 1964, 152)
1985. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 2nd edition (Oxford: Basil Blackwell)
1997. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, 2nd edition (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press)
• Roger Fowler. 1996. Linguistic Criticism, 2nd edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
A paradigm is the complete set of related word forms associated with a given lexeme. The
familiar examples of paradigms are the conjugations of verbs, and the declensions of nouns.
Accordingly, the word forms of a lexeme may be arranged conveniently into tables, by
classifying them according to shared inflectional categories such as tense, aspect, mood, number,
gender or case. For example, the personal pronouns in English can be organized into tables,
using the categories of person (1st., 2nd., 3rd.), number (singular vs. plural), gender (masculine,
feminine, neuter), and case (subjective, objective, and possessive). See English personal
pronouns for the details.
The inflectional categories used to group word forms into paradigms cannot be chosen
arbitrarily; they must be categories that are relevant to stating the syntactic rules of the language.
For example, person and number are categories that can be used to define paradigms in English,
because English has grammatical agreement rules that require the verb in a sentence to appear in
an inflectional form that matches the person and number of the subject. In other words, the
syntactic rules of English care about the difference between dog and dogs, because the choice
between these two forms determines which form of the verb is to be used. In contrast, however,
no syntactic rule of English cares about the difference between dog and dog catcher, or
dependent and independent. The first two are just nouns, and the second two just adjectives, and
they generally behave like any other noun or adjective behaves.
An important difference between inflection and word formation is that inflected word forms of
lexemes are organized into paradigms, which are defined by the requirements of syntactic rules,
whereas the rules of word formation are not restricted by any corresponding requirements of
syntax. Inflection is therefore said to be relevant to syntax, and word formation is not. The part
of morphology that covers the relationship between syntax and morphology is called
morphosyntax, and it concerns itself with inflection and paradigms, but not with word formation
or compounding.
Models of Morphology
There are three principal approaches to morphology, which each try to capture the distinctions
above in different ways. These are,
Note that while the associations indicated between the concepts in each item in that list is very
strong, it is not absolute.
Morpheme-based Morphology
The morpheme-based approach is the first one that beginners to morphology usually think of,
and which laymen tend to find the most obvious. This is so to such an extent that very often
beginners think that morphemes are an inevitable, fundamental notion of morphology, and many
five minute explanations of morphology are, in fact, five minute explanations of morpheme-
based morphology. This is, however, not so. The fundamental idea of morphology is that the
words of a language are related to each other by different kinds of rules. Analyzing words as
sequences of morphemes is a way of describing these relations, but is not the only way. In actual
academic linguistics, morpheme-based morphology certainly has many adherents, but is by no
means the dominant approach.
Lexeme-based Morphology
Word-based Morphology
Syntax (from Ancient Greek συν- syn-, "together", and τάξις táxis,
"arrangement") is the study of the principles and rules for constructing sentences in natural
languages. In addition to referring to the discipline, the term syntax is also used to refer directly
to the rules and principles that govern the sentence structure of any individual language, as in
"the syntax of Modern Irish". Modern research in syntax attempts to describe languages in
terms of such rules. Many professionals in this discipline attempt to find general rules that apply
to all natural languages. The term syntax is also sometimes used to refer to the rules governing
the behavior of mathematical systems, such as logic, artificial formal languages, and computer
programming languages.
Modern theories
There are a number of theoretical approaches to the discipline of syntax. Many linguists (e.g.
Noam Chomsky) see syntax as a branch of biology, since they conceive of syntax as the study of
linguistic knowledge as embodied in the human mind. Others (e.g. Gerald Gazdar) take a more
Platonistic view, since they regard syntax to be the study of an abstract formal system.[3] Yet others
(e.g. Joseph Greenberg) consider grammar a taxonomical device to reach broad generalizations
across languages. Some of the major approaches to the discipline are listed below.
Generative grammar
The hypothesis of generative grammar is that language is a structure of the human mind. The
goal of generative grammar is to make a complete model of this inner language (known as i-
language). This model could be used to describe all human language and to predict the
grammaticality of any given utterance (that is, to predict whether the utterance would sound
correct to native speakers of the language). This approach to language was pioneered by Noam
Chomsky. Most generative theories (although not all of them) assume that syntax is based upon
the constituent structure of sentences. Generative grammars are among the theories that focus
primarily on the form of a sentence, rather than its communicative function.
Among the many generative theories of linguistics, the Chomskyan theories are:
Other theories that find their origin in the generative paradigm are:
• Generative semantics (now largely out of date)
• Relational grammar (RG) (now largely out of date)
• Arc Pair grammar
• Generalized phrase structure grammar (GPSG; now largely out of date)
• Head-driven phrase structure grammar (HPSG)
• Lexical-functional grammar (LFG)
Categorial grammar
Categorial grammar is an approach that attributes the syntactic structure not to rules of grammar,
but to the properties of the syntactic categories themselves. For example, rather than asserting
that sentences are constructed by a rule that combines a noun phrase (NP) and a verb phrase (VP)
(e.g. the phrase structure rule S → NP VP), in categorial grammar, such principles are embedded
in the category of the head word itself. So the syntactic category for an intransitive verb is a
complex formula representing the fact that the verb acts as a functor which requires an NP as an
input and produces a sentence level structure as an output. This complex category is notated as
(NP\S) instead of V. NP\S is read as " a category that searches to the left (indicated by \) for a NP
(the element on the left) and outputs a sentence (the element on the right)". The category of
transitive verb is defined as an element that requires two NPs (its subject and its direct object) to
form a sentence. This is notated as (NP/(NP\S)) which means "a category that searches to the
right (indicated by /) for an NP (the object), and generates a function (equivalent to the VP)
which is (NP\S), which in turn represents a function that searches to the left for an NP and
produces a sentence).
Tree-adjoining grammar is a categorial grammar that adds in partial tree structures to the
categories.
Dependency grammar
• Algebraic syntax
• Word grammar
• Operator Grammar
Theoretical approaches to syntax that are based upon probability theory are known as stochastic
grammars. One common implementation of such an approach makes use of a neural network or
connectionism. Some theories based within this approach are:
• Optimality theory
• Stochastic context-free grammar
Functionalist grammars
Functionalist theories, although focused upon form, are driven by explanation based upon the
function of a sentence (i.e. its communicative function). Some typical functionalist theories
include:
1. Syncretical Forms
Difficulties of this kind arise where a part of the sentence contains two meanings at once
and it is not always clear which of them is the prominent. This is usually the case with various
classes of adverbials, especially those expressed by an infinitive, a participle, or phrases and
complexes with these verbals.
Here are some examples.
She looked under the cot and laughed to see the girl crouched there.
The work done, I felt as free as a bird.
It growing dark, she hurried the boys home.
In all these sentences the parts in italics express at the same time the idea of the cause of the
action of the predicate verb and an indication of the time of these actions.
In the sentence To hear him talk, you'll think he's at least ten years old the underlined part
combines the idea of time with that of condition.
In the sentences She was clever enough to keep silent; I've watched you work too long to
underrate you the adverbials combine the idea of result with the idea of degree.
Sometimes an adverbial expressed by a noun with a preposition which name the place
where the action of the predicate verb was performed actually denotes rather the time of the
action than its place. This is usually the case where the adverbial is detached, as in: At home
she took off her hat and cloak and hurried to the kitchen. Here At home has rather the meaning
'when she came home'.
2. Syntactical Homonyms
Sometimes certain difficulties in analysis may arise from the fact that phrases,
complexes or clauses of similar pattern can have different syntactical functions. They are
then called syntactical homonyms. Here are a few simplest examples:
I'll do it with great pleasure (adverbial of manner). She says she's cut her finger with
that table knife (object). At last there appeared in the distance the house with the green
roof (attribute).
He's always with the losing party (predicative).
He looked as if he did not quite recognize the place (predicative clause).
He looked around as if he did not quite recognize the place (adverbial clause of manner).
The parts in italics have different syntactical functions due to the difference in lexical and
grammatical semantics of the words they comprise or the words they are connected with, or both.
3. Dubious Cases
Difficulties of this kind usually arise because of the subtlety of the border-line between
secondary parts of the sentence expressed by a noun with a preposition or by an infinitive, or
sometimes even by a noun without a preposition, which makes it in some cases hardly
possible to tell an object from an adverbial, or an attribute from an adverbial.
Object or A d v e r b i a l
We come across such difficulties in the sentences She was slowly moving towards Mrs.
Carver; She made the policeman look for the cat among the boxes piled up by the wall and the
like, in which the underlined parts allow of two alternative interpretations each as an adverbial
of place or as an indirect non-recipient object. The possible identifying questions are of no help
here for such parts may equally answer the while re-question and a question with a preposition
what/who: Where was she moving? Towards whom was she moving?
Compare the above sentences with the following: At last she came up to me and. He usually
spent his winters in London, where the underlined parts are respectively an indirect non-
recipient object and an adverbial of place, each allowing of only one identifying question.
In the same way some adverbials of manner may border on an indirect non-recipient
object with an instrumental meaning. Compare: He opened the tin with a knife (object what
he opened the tin with?) and He was wounded with a bullet, where the part underlined may be
analyzed in two ways, as an object or as an adverbial of manner (What was he wounded with?
or How was he wounded?).
Sometimes there is no rigid border-line between a direct object and an adverbial of
measure. This is the case where the formal position of the direct object is filled by a word
denoting a unit of measure (money, weight, time, etc.). Thus in the sentence The job paid her
the minimum rate the underlined part may be analyzed in two ways, that is, either as a
direct object (what?) or as an adverbial of measure (how much?).
Attribute or A d v e r b i a l
References
• Brown, Keith; Jim Miller (eds.) (1996). Concise Encyclopedia of Syntactic Theories.
New York: Elsevier Science. ISBN 0-08-042711-1.
• Carnie, Andrew (2006). Syntax: A Generative Introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
ISBN 1405133848.
• Freidin, Robert; Howard Lasnik (eds.) (2006). Syntax. Critical Concepts in Linguistics.
New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-24672-5.
• Graffi, Giorgio (2001). 200 Years of Syntax. A Critical Survey. Studies in the History of
the Language Sciences 98. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ISBN 90-272-4587-8.
Sentence (linguistics)
Sentence is a grammatical unit of one or more words, bearing minimal
syntactic relation to the words that precede or follow it, often preceded and followed in speech
by pauses, having one of a small number of characteristic intonation patterns, and typically
expressing an independent statement, question, request, command, etc.[1] Sentences are generally
characterized in most languages by the presence of a finite verb, e.g. "The quick brown fox
jumps over the lazy dog".
Components of a sentence
A simple complete sentence consists of a subject and a predicate. The subject is typically a noun
phrase, though other kinds of phrases (such as gerund phrases) work as well, and some languages
allow subjects to be omitted. The predicate is a finite verb phrase: it's a finite verb together with
zero or more objects, zero or more complements, and zero or more adverbials. See also copula
for the consequences of this verb on the theory of sentence structure.
Clauses
A clause consists of a subject and a verb. There are two types of clauses: independent and
subordinate (dependent). An independent clause consists of a subject verb and also demonstrates
a complete thought: for example, "I am sad." A subordinate clause consists of a subject and a
verb, but demonstrates an incomplete thought: for example, "Because I had to really move."
Classification
By structure
One traditional scheme for classifying English sentences is by the number and types of finite
clauses:
By purpose
A major sentence is a regular sentence; it has a subject and a predicate. For example: I have a
ball. In this sentence one can change the persons: We have a ball. However, a minor sentence is
an irregular type of sentence. It does not contain a finite verb. For example, "Mary!" "Yes."
"Coffee." etc. Other examples of minor sentences are headings (e.g. the heading of this entry),
stereotyped expressions (Hello!), emotional expressions (Wow!), proverbs, etc. This can also
include sentences which do not contain verbs (e.g. The more, the merrier.) in order to intensify
the meaning around the nouns (normally found in poetry and catchphrases)[2].
Sentences that comprise a single word are called word sentences, and the words themselves
sentence words.[3]
References
1. 'Sentence' - Definitions from Dictionary.com". Dictionary.com.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sentence. Retrieved on 2008-05-23.
2. Jan Noordegraaf (2001). "J. M. Hoogvliet as a teacher and theoretician". in Marcel Bax,
C. Jan-Wouter Zwart, and A. J. van Essen. Reflections on Language and Language
Learning. John Benjamins B.V.. pp. 24. ISBN 9027225842.
Complex-compound sentence
In syntax, a sentence with at least two independent clauses and one or more dependent clauses
(which can also be called subordinate clause) is referred to as a complex-compound sentence.
Sometimes also called a compound-complex sentence.
Examples
The cat lived in the backyard, but the dog, who knew he was superior, lived inside the
house.
Independent clauses:
Dependent clause:
Independent clauses:
• The Last Shadow did not fare well in the United States.
• It did develop a huge following in Europe.
Dependent clauses:
Gene thought that Finny wanted venerability, but Finny, who did not care, thought that he
was just being a friend.
Independent clauses:
Dependent clause:
• Simple sentence
• Compound sentence
• Complex sentence
Run!
Usually, however, the sentence has a subject as well as a predicate and both the subject and the
predicate may have modifiers. All of the following are simple sentences, because each contains
only one clause:
Melt!
Ice melts.
The ice melts quickly.
The ice on the river melts quickly under the warm March sun.
Lying exposed without its blanket of snow, the ice on the river melts quickly under the
warm March sun.
As you can see, a simple sentence can be quite long -- it is a mistake to think that you can tell a
simple sentence from a compound sentence or a complex sentence simply by its length.
The most natural sentence structure is the simple sentence: it is the first kind which children
learn to speak, and it remains by far the most common sentence in the spoken language of people
of all ages. In written work, simple sentences can be very effective for grabbing a reader's
attention or for summing up an argument, but you have to use them with care: too many simple
sentences can make your writing seem childish.
When you do use simple sentences, you should add transitional phrases to connect them to the
surrounding sentences.
Simple
Canada is a rich country.
Simple
Still, it has many poor people.
Compound
Canada is a rich country, but still it has many poor people.
Compound sentences are very natural for English speakers -- small children learn to use them
early on to connect their ideas and to avoid pausing (and allowing an adult to interrupt):
Today at school Mr. Moore brought in his pet rabbit, and he showed it to the class, and I
got to pet it, and Kate held it, and we coloured pictures of it, and it ate part of my carrot
at lunch, and ...
Of course, this is an extreme example, but if you over-use compound sentences in written work,
your writing might seem immature.
A compound sentence is most effective when you use it to create a sense of balance or contrast
between two (or more) equally-important pieces of information:
compound-complex
The package arrived in the morning, but the courier left before I could check the
contents.
The second special case involves punctuation. It is possible to join two originally separate
sentences into a compound sentence using a semicolon instead of a co-ordinating conjunction:
Sir John A. Macdonald had a serious drinking problem; when sober, however, he
could be a formidable foe in the House of Commons.
Usually, a conjunctive adverb like "however" or "consequently" will appear near the beginning
of the second part, but it is not required:
Simple
My friend invited me to a party. I do not want to go.
Compound
My friend invited me to a party, but I do not want to go.
Complex
Although my friend invited me to a party, I do not want to go.
In the first example, there are two separate simple sentences: "My friend invited me to a party"
and "I do not want to go." The second example joins them together into a single sentence with
the co-ordinating conjunction "but," but both parts could still stand as independent sentences --
they are entirely equal, and the reader cannot tell which is most important. In the third example,
however, the sentence has changed quite a bit: the first clause, "Although my friend invited me to
a party," has become incomplete, or a dependent clause.
A complex sentence is very different from a simple sentence or a compound sentence because it
makes clear which ideas are most important. When you write
or even
The reader will have trouble knowing which piece of information is most important to you.
When you write the subordinating conjunction "although" at the beginning of the first clause,
however, you make it clear that the fact that your friend invited you is less important than, or
subordinate, to the fact that you do not want to go.
Each part of speech explains not what the word is, but how the word is used. In fact, the same
word can be a noun in one sentence and a verb or adjective in the next. The next few examples
show how a word's part of speech can change from one sentence to the next, and following them
is a series of sections on the individual parts of speech, followed by an exercise.
In this sentence, "walk" is a verb, and its subject is the pronoun "we."
In this example, "walk" is a noun, which is part of a prepositional phrase describing where the
mail carrier stood.
Here "jail" is a noun, which is the object of the infinitive phrase "to build."
The sheriff told us that if we did not leave town immediately he would jail us.
In this sentence, "cries" is a noun acting as the direct object of the verb "heard."
The baby cries all night long and all day long.
But here "cries" is a verb that describes the actions of the subject of the sentence, the baby.
The next few sections explain each of the parts of speech in detail. When you have finished, you
might want to test yourself by trying the exercise.
Cognitive linguists deny that the mind has any module for language-acquisition that is unique
and autonomous. This stands in contrast to the work done in the field of generative grammar.
Although cognitive linguists do not necessarily deny that part of the human linguistic ability is
innate, they deny that it is separate from the rest of cognition. Thus, they argue that knowledge
of linguistic phenomena — i.e., phonemes, morphemes, and syntax — is essentially conceptual
in nature. Moreover, they argue that the storage and retrieval of linguistic data is not significantly
different from the storage and retrieval of other knowledge, and use of language in understanding
employs similar cognitive abilities as used in other non-linguistic tasks.
Departing from the tradition of truth-conditional semantics, cognitive linguists view meaning in
terms of conceptualization. Instead of viewing meaning in terms of models of the world, they
view it in terms of mental spaces.
Finally, cognitive linguistics argues that language is both embodied and situated in a specific
environment. This can be considered a moderate offshoot of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, in that
language and cognition mutually influence one another, and are both embedded in the
experiences and environments of its users.
Areas of study
Cognitive linguistics is divided into three main areas of study:
Cognitive linguistics, more than generative linguistics, seeks to mesh together these findings into
a coherent whole. A further complication arises because the terminology of cognitive linguistics
is not entirely stable, both because it is a relatively new field and because it interfaces with a
number of other disciplines.
Insights and developments from cognitive linguistics are becoming accepted ways of analysing
literary texts, too. Cognitive Poetics, as it has become known, has become an important part of
modern stylistics. The best summary of the discipline as it is currently stands is Peter Stockwell's
Cognitive Poetics.[2]
References
1. ^ Croft, William and D. Alan Cruse (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. p. 1.
2. ^ Stockwell, Peter (2002). Cognitive poetics: An Introduction. London and New York:
Routledge.
• Evans, Vyvyan; Benjamin Bergen & Joerg Zinken (2007). The Cognitive Linguistics
Reader. London: Equinox.
• Evans, Vyvyan, Benjamin K. Bergen and Jörg Zinken. The Cognitive Linguistics
Enterprise: An Overview. In Vyvyan Evans, Benjamin K. Bergen and Jörg Zinken (Eds).
The Cognitive Linguistics Reader. Equinox Publishing Co.
• Geeraerts, D. & H. Cuyckens, eds. (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive
Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Geeraerts, D., ed. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Berlin / New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
• Kristiansen et al., eds. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future
Perspectives. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Rohrer, T. Embodiment and Experientialism in Cognitive Linguistics. In the Handbook of
Cognitive Linguistics, Dirk Geeraerts and Herbert Cuyckens, eds., Oxford University
Press, forthcoming.
• Gilles Fauconnier has written a brief, manifesto-like introduction to Cognitive linguistics,
which compares it to mainstream, Chomsky-inspired linguistics. See Introduction to
Methods and Generalizations. In T. Janssen and G. Redeker (Eds). Scope and
Foundations of Cognitive Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton De Gruyter. Cognitive
Linguistics Research Series. (on-line version)
• Grady, Oakley, and Coulson (1999). "Blending and Metaphor". In Metaphor in cognitive
linguistics, Steen and Gibbs (eds.). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (online version)
• Schmid, H. J. et al. (1996). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. New York,
Longman.
• Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in Thought and Language.
• Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive Grammar. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Croft, W. & D.A. Cruse (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
• Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language. A Usage-Based Theory of Language
Acquisition. Harvard University Press.
• Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner (2003). The Way We Think. New York: Basic Books.
• Lakoff, George (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal
About the Mind University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-46804-6.
Due to its focus on how readers process the language of texts, cognitive poetics represents
simultaneously a turn back in time, to the ancient study of rhetoric; but it also has a grounding in
modern principles of cognitive linguistics.
Topics addressed by cognitive poetics include deixis; text world theory (the feeling of immersion
within texts); schema, script, and their role in reading; attention; foregrounding; and genre.
One of the main focal points of cognitive literary analysis is conceptual metaphor, an idea
pioneered and popularized by the works of Lakoff, as a tool for examining texts. Rather than
regarding metaphors as ornamental figures of speech, cognitive poetics examines how the
conceptual bases of such metaphors interact with the text as a whole.
Prominent figures in the field include Reuven Tsur, who is credited for originating the term,
Ronald Langacker, Mark Turner and Peter Stockwell.
• Cognitive psychology
• Cognitive philology
• Cognitive rhetoric
• Critical theory
• Literary theory
References
• Semino, Elena and Jonathan Culpeper (2002).Cognitive Stylistics: Language and
Cognition in Text Analysis. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Stockwell, Peter (2002).Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction. London: Routledge.
Cognitive philology is the science that studies written and oral texts,
considering them as results of human mental processes. This science, therefore, compares the
results of textual science with those results of experimental research of both psychological field
and artificial intelligence production systems. This discipline:
• deals with transmission modalities of written and textes, and processes through which
different knowledges are classified, availing itself, firstly, of the information theory
• studies the narrative subject, especially regarding its selecting nature
• examines the developing function of rhythm and metre and the pertinence of the semantic
association during processing the cognitive maps
• Finally, it provides the scientific ground for the realization of critical multimedial
editions.
Among the founding fathers and noteworthy students of these matters: Gilles Fauconnier, Alan
Richardson and Mark Turner in the USA; Benoît de Cornulier and François Recanati in France;
David Herman and Manfred Jahn in Germany; Paolo Canettieri, Domenico Fiormonte, Anatole
Pierre Fuksas and Luca Nobile in Italy; Julián Santano Moreno in Spain.
• Cognitive linguistics
• Philology
• Information Theory
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Poetics
• Artificial Intelligence
Psycholinguistics
or psychology of language is the study of the psychological and neurobiological factors that
enable humans to acquire, use, and understand language. Initial forays into psycholinguistics
were largely philosophical ventures, due mainly to a lack of cohesive data on how the human
brain functioned. Modern research makes use of biology, neuroscience, cognitive science, and
information theory to study how the brain processes language. There are a number of
subdisciplines; for example, as non-invasive techniques for studying the neurological workings
of the brain become more and more widespread, neurolinguistics has become a field in its own
right.
Psycholinguistics covers the cognitive processes that make it possible to generate a grammatical
and meaningful sentence out of vocabulary and grammatical structures, as well as the processes
that make it possible to understand utterances, words, text, etc. Developmental psycholinguistics
studies children's ability to learn language.
Areas of study
Psycholinguistics is interdisciplinary in nature and is studied by people in a variety of fields,
such as psychology, cognitive science, and linguistics. There are several subdivisions within
psycholinguistics that are based on the components that make up human language.
Linguistic-related areas:
• Phonetics and phonology are concerned with the study of speech sounds. Within
psycholinguistics, research focuses on how the brain processes and understands these
sounds.
• Morphology is the study of word structures, especially the relationships between related
words (such as dog and dogs) and the formation of words based on rules (such as plural
formation).
• Syntax is the study of the patterns which dictate how words are combined together to
form sentences.
• Semantics deals with the meaning of words and sentences. Where syntax is concerned
with the formal structure of sentences, semantics deals with the actual meaning of
sentences.
• Pragmatics is concerned with the role of context in the interpretation of meaning.
Psychology-related areas:
• The study of word recognition and reading examines the processes involved in the
extraction of orthographic, morphological, phonological, and semantic information from
patterns in printed text.
• Developmental psycholinguistics studies infants' and children's ability to learn language,
usually with experimental or at least quantitative methods (as opposed to naturalistic
observations such as those made by Jean Piaget in his research on the development of
children).
Theories
Theories about how language works in the human mind attempt to account for, among other
things, how we associate meaning with the sounds (or signs) of language and how we use syntax
—that is, how we manage to put words in the proper order to produce and understand the strings
of words we call "sentences." The first of these items—associating sound with meaning—is the
least controversial and is generally held to be an area in which animal and human
communication have at least some things in common (See animal communication). Syntax, on
the other hand, is controversial, and is the focus of the discussion that follows.
There are essentially two schools of thought as to how we manage to create syntactic sentences:
(1) syntax is an evolutionary product of increased human intelligence over time and social
factors that encouraged the development of spoken language; (2) language exists because
humans possess an innate ability, an access to what has been called a "universal grammar." This
view holds that the human ability for syntax is "hard-wired" in the brain. This view claims, for
example, that complex syntactic features such as recursion are beyond even the potential abilities
of the most intelligent and social non-humans. (Recursion, for example, includes the use of
relative pronouns to refer back to earlier parts of a sentence—"The girl whose car is blocking my
view of the tree that I planted last year is my friend.") The innate view claims that the ability to
use syntax like that would not exist without an innate concept that contains the underpinnings for
the grammatical rules that produce recursion. Children acquiring a language, thus, have a vast
search space to explore among possible human grammars, settling, logically, on the language(s)
spoken or signed in their own community of speakers. Such syntax is, according to the second
point of view, what defines human language and makes it different from even the most
sophisticated forms of animal communication.
The first view was prevalent until about 1960 and is well represented by the mentalistic theories
of Jean Piaget and the empiricist Rudolf Carnap. As well, the school of psychology known as
behaviorism (see Verbal Behavior (1957) by B.F. Skinner) puts forth the point of view that
language is behavior shaped by conditioned response. The second point of view (the "innate"
one) can fairly be said to have begun with Noam Chomsky's highly critical review of Skinner's
book in 1959 in the pages of the journal Language.[1] That review started what has been termed
"the cognitive revolution" in psychology.
The field of psycholinguistics since then has been defined by reactions to Chomsky, pro and con.
The pro view still holds that the human ability to use syntax is qualitatively different from any
sort of animal communication. That ability might have resulted from a favorable mutation
(extremely unlikely) or (more likely) from an adaptation of skills evolved for other purposes.
That is, precise syntax might, indeed, serve group needs; better linguistic expression might
produce more cohesion, cooperation, and potential for survival, BUT precise syntax can only
have developed from rudimentary—or no—syntax, which would have had no survival value and,
thus, would not have evolved at all. Thus, one looks for other skills, the characteristics of which
might have later been useful for syntax. In the terminology of modern evolutionary biology,
these skills would be said to be "pre-adapted" for syntax (see also exaptation). Just what those
skills might have been is the focus of recent research—or, at least, speculation.
The con view still holds that language—including syntax—is an outgrowth of hundreds of
thousands of years of increasing intelligence and tens of thousands of years of human interaction.
From that view, syntax in language gradually increased group cohesion and potential for
survival. Language—syntax and all—is a cultural artifact. This view challenges the "innate"
view as scientifically unfalsifiable; that is to say, it can't be tested; the fact that a particular,
conceivable syntactic structure does not exist in any of the world's finite repertoire of languages
is an interesting observation, but it is not proof of a genetic constraint on possible forms, nor
does it prove that such forms couldn't exist or couldn't be learned.
Methodologies
Much methodology in psycholinguistics takes the form of behavioral experiments incorporating
a lexical decision task. In these types of studies, subjects are presented with some form of
linguistic input and asked to perform a task (e.g. make a judgment, reproduce the stimulus, read
a visually presented word aloud). Reaction times (usually on the order of milliseconds) and
proportion of correct responses are the most often employed measures of performance. Such
experiments often take advantage of priming effects, whereby a "priming" word or phrase
appearing in the experiment can speed up the lexical decision for a related "target" word later.[2]
Such tasks might include, for example, asking the subject to convert nouns into verbs; e.g.,
"book" suggests "to write," "water" suggests "to drink," and so on. Another experiment might
present an active sentence such as "Bob threw the ball to Bill" and a passive equivalent, "The
ball was thrown to Bill by Bob" and then ask the question, "Who threw the ball?" We might then
conclude (as is the case) that active sentences are processed more easily (faster) than passive
sentences. More interestingly, we might also find out (as is the case) that some people are unable
to understand passive sentences; we might then make some tentative steps towards
understanding certain types of language deficits (generally grouped under the broad term,
aphasia).[3]
Until the recent advent of non-invasive medical techniques, brain surgery was the preferred way
for language researchers to discover how language works in the brain. For example, severing the
corpus callosum (the bundle of nerves that connects the two hemispheres of the brain) was at one
time a treatment for some forms of epilepsy. Researchers could then study the ways in which the
comprehension and production of language were affected by such drastic surgery. Where an
illness made brain surgery necessary, language researchers had an opportunity to pursue their
research.
Newer, non-invasive techniques now include brain imaging by positron emission tomography
(PET); functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI); event-related potentials (ERPs) in
electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG); and transcranial magnetic
stimulation (TMS). Brain imaging techniques vary in their spatial and temporal resolutions
(fMRI has a resolution of a few thousand neurons per pixel, and ERP has millisecond accuracy).
Each type of methodology presents a set of advantages and disadvantages for studying a
particular problem in psycholinguistics.
Computational modeling - e.g. the DRC model of reading and word recognition proposed by
Coltheart and colleagues[4] - is another methodology. It refers to the practice of setting up
cognitive models in the form of executable computer programs. Such programs are useful
because they require theorists to be explicit in their hypotheses and because they can be used to
generate accurate predictions for theoretical models that are so complex that they render
discursive analysis unreliable. One example of computational modeling is McClelland and
Elman's TRACE model of speech perception.[5]
More recently, eye tracking has been used to study online language processing. Beginning with
Rayner (1978)[6] the importance and informativity of eye-movements during reading was
established. Tanenhaus et al.,[7] have performed a number of visual-world eye-tracking studies to
study the cognitive processes related to spoken language. Since eye movements are closely
linked to the current focus of attention, language processing can be studied by monitoring eye
movements while a subject is presented with linguistic input.
Recent research using new non-invasive imaging techniques seeks to shed light on just where
certain language processes occur in the brain.
There are a number of unanswered questions in psycholinguistics, such as whether the human
ability to use syntax is based on innate mental structures or emerges from interaction with other
humans, and whether some animals can be taught the syntax of human language.
Another major subfield of psycholinguistics investigates first language acquisition, the process
by which infants acquire language. In addition, it is much more difficult for adults to acquire
second languages than it is for infants to learn their first language (bilingual infants are able to
learn both of their native languages easily). Thus, critical periods may exist during which
language is able to be learned readily. A great deal of research in psycholinguistics focuses on
how this ability develops and diminishes over time. It also seems to be the case that the more
languages one knows, the easier it is to learn more.
The field of aphasiology deals with language deficits that arise because of brain damage. Studies
in aphasiology can both offer advances in therapy for individuals suffering from aphasia, and
further insight into how the brain processes language.
References
1. ^ Chomsky, N. (1959). "A Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior". Language 35 (1): 26–58.
doi:10.2307/411334. ISSN 0097-8507.
2. ^ a b Packard, Jerome L (2000). "Chinese words and the lexicon." The Morphology of Chinese: A
Linguistic and Cognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 284-309.
3. ^ Linebarger MC, Schwartz MF, Saffran EM. (1983). Sensitivity to grammatical structure in so-
called agrammatic aphasics. Cognition, 13:361-92.
4. ^ Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: "A dual route
cascaded of visual word recognition and reading aloud." Psychological Review, 108, 204-256.
5. ^ McClelland, J.L., & Elman, J.L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive
Psychology, 18, 1-86.
6. ^ Rayner, K. Eye movements in reading and information processing. Psychological Bulletin,
1978, 85, 618-660
7. ^ Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M. & Sedivy, J. E. (l995).
"Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension." Science,
268, 1632-1634.
8. ^ Altmann, Gerry T.M. (1997). "Words, and how we (eventually) find them." The Ascent of
Babel: An Exploration of Language, Mind, and Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
pp. 65-83.
Further reading
A short list of books that deal with psycholinguistics, written in language accessible to the non-
expert, includes:
The corpus approach runs counter to Noam Chomsky's view that real language is riddled with
performance-related errors, thus requiring careful analysis of small speech samples obtained in a
highly controlled laboratory setting.
Corpus linguistics does away with Chomsky's competence/performance split; adherents believe
that reliable language analysis best occurs on field-collected samples, in natural contexts and
with minimal experimental interference. Within CL there are divergent views as to the value of
corpus annotation, from John Sinclair[1] advocating minimal annotation and allowing texts to
'speak for themselves', to others, such as the Survey of English Usage team[2] advocating
annotation as a path to greater linguistic understanding and rigour.
History
A landmark in modern corpus linguistics was the publication by Henry Kucera and Nelson
Francis of Computational Analysis of Present-Day American English in 1967, a work based on
the analysis of the Brown Corpus, a carefully compiled selection of current American English,
totalling about a million words drawn from a wide variety of sources. Kucera and Francis
subjected it to a variety of computational analyses, from which they compiled a rich and
variegated opus, combining elements of linguistics, language teaching, psychology, statistics,
and sociology. A further key publication was Randolph Quirk's 'Towards a description of English
Usage' (1960)[3] in which he introduced The Survey of English Usage.
Other publishers followed suit. The British publisher Collins' COBUILD monolingual learner's
dictionary, designed for users learning English as a foreign language, was compiled using the
Bank of English. The Survey of English Usage Corpus was used in the development of one of
the most important Corpus-based Grammars, the Comprehensive Grammar of English (Quirk et
al 1985)[4].
The Brown Corpus has also spawned a number of similarly structured corpora: the LOB Corpus
(1960s British English), Kolhapur (Indian English), Wellington (New Zealand English),
Australian Corpus of English (Australian English), the Frown Corpus (early 1990s American
English), and the FLOB Corpus (1990s British English). Other corpora represent many
languages, varieties and modes, and include the International Corpus of English, and the British
National Corpus, a 100 million word collection of a range of spoken and written texts, created in
the 1990s by a consortium of publishers, universities (Oxford and Lancaster) and the British
Library. For contemporary American English, work has stalled on the American National
Corpus, but the 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) (1990-
present) is now available.
The first computerized corpus of transcribed spoken language was constructed in 1971 by the
Montreal French Project [5], containing one million words, which inspired Shana Poplack's much
larger corpus of spoken French in the Ottawa-Hull area [6]
Methods
Corpus Linguistics has generated a number of research methods, attempting to trace a path from
data to theory. Wallis and Nelson (2001)[7] first introduced what they called the 3A perspective:
Annotation, Abstraction and Analysis.
• Analysis consists of statistically probing, manipulating and generalising from the dataset.
Analysis might include statistical evaluations, optimisation of rule-bases or knowledge
discovery methods.
Most lexical corpora today are POS-tagged. However even corpus linguists who work with
'unannotated plain text' inevitably apply some method to isolate terms that they are interested in
from surrounding words. In such situations annotation and abstraction are combined in a lexical
search.
The advantage of publishing an annotated corpus is that other users can then perform
experiments on the corpus. Linguists with other interests and differing perspectives than the
originators can exploit this work. By sharing data, corpus linguists are able to treat the corpus as
a locus of linguistic debate, rather than as an exhaustive fount of knowledge.
References
1. ^ Sinclair, J. 'The automatic analysis of corpora', in Svartvik, J. (ed.) Directions in Corpus
Linguistics (Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 82). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1992.
2. ^ Wallis, S. 'Annotation, Retrieval and Experimentation', in Meurman-Solin, A. & Nurmi, A.A.
(ed.) Annotating Variation and Change. Helsinki: Varieng, University of Helsinki. 2007. e-
Published
3. ^ Quirk, R. 'Towards a description of English Usage', Transactions of the Philological Society.
1960. 40-61.
4. ^ Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. A Comprehensive Grammar of the
English Language London: Longman. 1985.
5. ^ Sankoff, D. & Sankoff, G. Sample survey methods and computer-assisted analysis in the study
of grammatical variation. In Darnell R. (ed.) Canadian Languages in their Social Context
Edmonton: Linguistic Research Incorporated. 1973. 7-64.
6. ^ Poplack, S. The care and handling of a mega-corpus. In Fasold, R. & Schiffrin D. (eds.)
Language Change and Variation, Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1989. 411-451.
7. ^ Wallis, S. and Nelson G. 'Knowledge discovery in grammatically analysed corpora'. Data
Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 5: 307-340. 2001.
Journals
There are several international peer-reviewed journals dedicated to corpus linguistics, for
example, Corpora, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, ICAME Journal and the
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics.
Book series
Book series in this field include Language and Computers, Studies in Corpus Linguistics and
English Corpus Linguistics
Other
• Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen R. Corpus Linguistics, Investigating Language Structure
and Use, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998. ISBN 0-521-49957-7
• McCarthy, D., and Sampson G. Corpus Linguistics: Readings in a Widening Discipline,
Continuum, 2005. ISBN 0-826-48803-X
• Facchinetti, R. Theoretical Description and Practical Applications of Linguistic Corpora.
Verona: QuiEdit, 2007 ISBN 978-88-89480-37-3
• Facchinetti, R. (ed.) Corpus Linguistics 25 Years on. New York/Amsterdam: Rodopi,
2007 ISBN 978-90-420-2195-2
• Facchinetti, R. and Rissanen M. (eds.) Corpus-based Studies of Diachronic English.
Bern: Peter Lang, 2006 ISBN 3-03910-851-4
It also studies how lects differ between groups separated by certain social variables, e.g.,
ethnicity, religion, status, gender, level of education, age, etc., and how creation and adherence
to these rules is used to categorize individuals in social class or socio-economic classes. As the
usage of a language varies from place to place (dialect), language usage varies among social
classes, and it is these sociolects that sociolinguistics studies.
The social aspects of language were in the modern sense first studied by Indian and Japanese
linguists in the 1930s, and also by Gauchat in Switzerland in the early 1900s, but none received
much attention in the West until much later. The study of the social motivation of language
change, on the other hand, has its foundation in the wave model of the late 19th century.
Sociolinguistics in the west first appeared in the 1960s and was pioneered by linguists such as
William Labov in the US and Basil Bernstein in the UK.
Applications of sociolinguistics
For example, a sociolinguist might determine through study of social attitudes that a particular
vernacular would not be considered appropriate language use in a business or professional
setting. Sociolinguists might also study the grammar, phonetics, vocabulary, and other aspects of
this sociolect much as dialectologists would study the same for a regional dialect.
The study of language variation is concerned with social constraints determining language in its
contextual environment. Code-switching is the term given to the use of different varieties of
language in different social situations.
William Labov is often regarded as the founder of the study of sociolinguistics. He is especially
noted for introducing the quantitative study of language variation and change,[1] making the
sociology of language into a scientific discipline.
Sociolinguistics differs from sociology of language in that the focus of sociolinguistics is the
effect of the society on the language, while the latter's focus is on the language's effect on the
society.
Sociolinguistic variables
Studies in the field of sociolinguistics typically take a sample population and interview them,
assessing the realisation of certain sociolinguistic variables. Labov specifies the ideal
sociolinguistic variable to
• be high in frequency,
• have a certain immunity from conscious suppression,
• be an integral part of larger structures, and
• be easily quantified on a linear scale.
Phonetic variables tend to meet these criteria and are often used, as are grammatical variables
and, more rarely, lexical variables. Examples for phonetic variables are: the frequency of the
glottal stop, the height or backness of a vowel or the realisation of word-endings. An example of
a grammatical variable is the frequency of negative concord (known colloquially as a double
negative).
Speech Community
Speech community is a concept in sociolinguistics that describes a more or less discrete group of
people who use language in a unique and mutually accepted way among themselves.
Speech communities can be members of a profession with a specialized jargon, distinct social
groups like high school students or hip hop fans, or even tight-knit groups like families and
friends. Members of speech communities will often develop slang or jargon to serve the group's
special purposes and priorities.
Crucial to sociolingusitic analysis is the concept of prestige; certain speech habits are assigned a
positive or a negative value which is then applied to the speaker. This can operate on many
levels. It can be realised on the level of the individual sound/phoneme, as Labov discovered in
investigating pronunciation of the post-vocalic /r/ in the North-Eastern USA, or on the macro
scale of language choice, as realised in the various diglossias that exist throughout the world,
where Swiss-German/High German is perhaps most well known. An important implication of
sociolinguistic theory is that speakers 'choose' a variety when making a speech act, whether
consciously or subconsciously.
Social network
Understanding language in society means that one also has to understand the social networks in
which language is embedded. A social network is another way of describing a particular speech
community in terms of relations between individual members in a community. A network could
be loose or tight depending on how members interact with each other (Wardhaugh, 2002:126-
127). For instance, an office or factory may be considered a tight community because all
members interact with each other. A large course with 100+ students be a looser community
because students may only interact with the instructor and maybe 1-2 other students. A multiplex
commmunity (Wardhaugh, 2002:126-127) is one in which members have multiple relationships
with each other. For instance, in some neighborhoods, members may live on the same street,
work for the same employer and even intermarry.
The looseness or tightness of a social network may affect speech patterns adopted by a speaker.
For instance, Dubois and Hovarth (1998:254) found that speakers in one Cajun Louisiana
community were more likely to pronounce English "th" [θ] as [t] (or [ð] as [d]) if they
participated in a relatively dense social network (i.e. had strong local ties and interacted with
many other speakers in the community), and less likely if their networks were looser (i.e. fewer
local ties).[2]
A social network may apply to the macro level of a country or a city, but also to the inter-
personal level of neighborhoods or a single family. Recently, social networks have been formed
by the Internet, through chat rooms, MySpace groups, organizations, and online dating services.
Class aspiration
Studies, such as those by William Labov in the 1960s, have shown that social aspirations
influence speech patterns. This is also true of class aspirations. In the process of wishing to be
associated with a certain class (usually the upper class and upper middle class) people who are
moving in that direction socio-economically will adjust their speech patterns to sound like them.
However, not being native upper class speakers, they often hypercorrect, which involves
overcorrecting their speech to the point of introducing new errors. The same is true for
individuals moving down in socio-economic status.
Basil Bernstein, a well-known British socio-linguist, devised in his book, 'Elaborated and
restricted codes: their social origins and some consequences,' a social code system which he used
to classify the various speech patterns for different social classes. He claimed that members of
the middle class have ways of organizing their speech which are fundamentally very different
from the ways adopted by the working class.
Restricted code
In Basil Bernstein's theory, the restricted code was an example of the speech patterns used by the
working-class. He stated that this type of code allows strong bonds between group members,
who tend to behave largely on the basis of distinctions such as 'male', 'female', 'older', and
'younger'. This social group also uses language in a way which brings unity between people, and
members often do not need to be explicit about meaning, as their shared knowledge and common
understanding often bring them together in a way which other social language groups do not
experience. The difference with the restricted code is the emphasis on 'we' as a social group,
which fosters greater solidarity than an emphasis on 'I'.
Elaborated code
Basil Bernstein also studied what he named the 'elaborated code' explaining that in this type of
speech pattern the middle and upper classes use this language style to gain access to education
and career advancement. Bonds within this social group are not as well defined and people
achieve their social identity largely on the basis of individual disposition and temperament.
There is no obvious division of tasks according to sex or age and generally, within this social
formation members negotiate and achieve their roles, rather than have them there ready-made in
advance. Due to the lack of solidarity the elaborated social language code requires individual
intentions and viewpoints to be made explicit as the 'I' has a greater emphasis with this social
group than the working class.
A diagram showing variation in the English language by region (the bottom axis) and by social
class (the side axis). The higher the social class, the less variation.
The existence of differences in language between social classes can be illustrated by the
following table:
Any native speaker of English would immediately be able to guess that speaker 1 was likely of a
different social class than speaker 2. The differences in grammar between the two examples of
speech is referred to as differences between social class dialects or sociolects.
It is also notable that, at least in England, the closer to standard English a dialect gets, the less
the lexicon varies by region, and vice-versa.
One example of subgroup vernacular is the speech of street youth. Just as street youth dress
differently from the "norm", they also often have their own "language". The reasons for this are
the following: (1) To enhance their own cultural identity (2) To identify with each other, (3) To
exclude others, and (4) To invoke feelings of fear or admiration from the outside world. Strictly
speaking, this is not truly age-based, since it does not apply to all individuals of that age bracket
within the community.
Age-graded variation is a stable variation which varies within a population based on age. That is,
speakers of a particular age will use a specific linguistic form in successive generations. This is
relatively rare. Chambers (1995) cites an example from southern Ontario, Canada where the
pronunciation of the letter 'Z' varies. Most of the English-speaking world pronounces it 'zed';
however, in the United States, it is pronounced 'zee'. A linguistic survey found that in 1979 two-
thirds of the 12 year olds in Toronto ended the recitation of the alphabet with the letter 'zee'
where only 8% of the adults did so. Then in 1991, (when those 12 year olds were in their mid-
20s) a survey showed only 39% of the 20-25 year olds used 'zee'. In fact, the survey showed that
only 12% of those over 30 used the form 'zee'. This seems to be tied to an American children's
song frequently used to teach the alphabet. In this song, the rhyme scheme matches the letter Z
with V 'vee', prompting the use of the American pronunciation. As the individual grows older,
this marked form 'zee' is dropped in favor of the standard form 'zed'.[3]
People tend to use linguistic forms that were prevalent when they reached adulthood. So, in the
case of linguistic change in progress, one would expect to see variation over a broader range of
ages. Bright (1997) provides an example taken from American English where there is an on-
going merger of the vowel sounds in such pairs of words as 'caught' and 'cot'.[4] Examining the
speech across several generations of a single family, one would find the grandparents' generation
would never or rarely merge these two vowel sounds; their children's generation may on
occasion, particularly in quick or informal speech; while their grandchildren's generation would
merge these two vowels uniformly. This is the basis of the apparent-time hypothesis where age-
based variation is taken as an indication of linguistic change in progress.
More recently, Deborah Tannen has compared gender differences in language as more similar to
'cultural' differences ("cultural difference approach"). Comparing conversational goals, she
argued that men have a report style, aiming to communicate factual information, whereas women
have a rapport style, more concerned with building and maintaining relationships.[6] Such
differences are pervasive across media, including face-to-face conversation (e.g., Fitzpatrick,
Mulac, & Dindia, 1995: Hannah & Murachver, 1999), written essays of primary school children
(Mulac, Studley, & Blau, 1990), email (Thomson & Murachver, 2001), and even toilet graffiti
(Green, 2003).[7][8][9][10]
Communication styles are always a product of context, and as such, gender differences tend to be
most pronounced in single-gender groups. One explanation for this, is that people accommodate
their language towards the style of the person they are interacting with. Thus, in a mixed-gender
group, gender differences tend to be less pronounced. A similarly important observation is that
this accommodation is usually towards the language style, not the gender of the person
(Thomson, Murachver, & Green, 2001). That is, a polite and empathic male will tend to be
accommodated to on the basis of their being polite and empathic, rather than their being male.[11]
Minimal responses
One of the ways in which the communicative competence of men and women differ is in their
use of minimal responses, i.e., paralinguistic features such as ‘mhm’ and ‘yeah’, which is
behaviour associated with collaborative language use (Carli, 1990).[12] Men, on the other hand,
generally use them less frequently and where they do, it is usually to show agreement, as
Zimmerman and West’s (1975) study of turn-taking in conversation indicates.[13]
Questions
Men and women differ in their use of questions in conversations. For men, a question is usually a
genuine request for information whereas with women it can often be a rhetorical means of
engaging the other’s conversational contribution or of acquiring attention from others
conversationally involved, techniques associated with a collaborative approach to language use
(Barnes, 1971).[14] Therefore women use questions more frequently (Fitzpatrick, et al., 1995;
Todd, 1983).[7][15][16] In writing, however, both genders use rhetorical questions as literary devices.
For example, Mark Twain used them in "A War Prayer" to provoke the reader to question his
actions and beliefs.
Turn-taking
According to Dorval (1990), in his study of same-sex friend interaction, males tend to change
subject more frequently than females. This difference may well be at the root of the conception
that women chatter and talk too much, and may still trigger the same thinking in some males. In
this way lowered estimation of women may arise.[19] Incidentally, this androcentric attitude
towards women as chatterers arguably arose from the idea that any female conversation was too
much talking according to the patriarchal consideration of silence as a womanly virtue common
to many cultures.
Self-disclosure
Female tendencies toward self-disclosure, i.e., sharing their problems and experiences with
others, often to offer sympathy (Dindia & Allen, 1992; Tannen, 1991:49), contrasts with male
tendencies to non-self disclosure and professing advice or offering a solution when confronted
with another’s problems.[20][6]
Verbal aggression
Men tend to be more verbally aggressive in conversing (Labov, 1972), frequently using threats,
profanities, yelling and name-calling.[21] Women, on the whole, deem this to disrupt the flow of
conversation and not as a means of upholding one’s hierarchical status in the conversation.
Where women swear, it is usually to demonstrate to others what is normal behaviour for them.[22]
It appears that women attach more weight than men to the importance of listening in
conversation, with its connotations of power to the listener as confidant of the speaker. This
attachment of import by women to listening is inferred by women’s normally lower rate of
interruption — i.e., disrupting the flow of conversation with a topic unrelated to the previous one
(Fishman, 1980) — and by their largely increased use of minimal responses in relation to men
(Zimmerman and West, 1975).[23][13] Men, however, interrupt far more frequently with non-
related topics, especially in the mixed sex setting (Zimmerman and West,1975) and, far from
rendering a female speaker's responses minimal, are apt to greet her conversational spotlights
with silence, as the work of DeFrancisco (1991) demonstrates.[17]
This, in turn, suggests a dichotomy between a male desire for conversational dominance – noted
by Leet-Pellegrini (1980) with reference to male experts speaking more verbosely than their
female counterparts – and a female aspiration to group conversational participation.[24] One
corollary of this is, according to Coates (1993: 202), that males are afforded more attention in the
context of the classroom and that this can lead to their gaining more attention in scientific and
technical subjects, which in turn can lead to their achieving better success in those areas,
ultimately leading to their having more power in a technocratic society.[25]
Politeness
Politeness in speech is described in terms of positive and negative face.[26] Positive face refers to
one's desire to be liked and admired, while negative face refers to one's wish to remain
autonomous and not to suffer imposition. Both forms, according to Brown’s study of the Tzeltal
language (1980), are used more frequently by women whether in mixed or single-sex pairs,
suggesting for Brown a greater sensitivity in women than have men to face the needs of
others.[27] In short, women are to all intents and purposes largely more polite than men. However,
negative face politeness can be potentially viewed as weak language because of its associated
hedges and tag questions, a view propounded by O’Barr and Atkins (1980) in their work on
courtroom interaction.[28]
Complimentary language
Compliments are closely linked to politeness in that, as Coates believes (1983), they cater for
positive face needs.[29]
Notes
1. ^ Paolillo, John C. Analyzing Linguistic Variation: Statistical Models and Methods CSLI Press
2001, Tagliamonte, Sali Analysing Sociolinguistic Variation Cambridge, 2006
2. ^ Dubois, Sylvie and Hovarth, Barbara. (1998). "Let's tink about dat: Interdental Fricatives in
Cajun English." Language Variation and Change 10 (3), pp 245-61.
3. ^ Chambers, J.K. (1995). Sociolinguistic Theory, Oxford: Blackwell.
4. ^ Bright, William (1997). "Social Factors in Language Change." In Coulmas, Florian (ed) The
Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
5. ^ Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Women’s Place. New York: Harper & Row.
6. ^ a b Tannen, Deborah. (1991). You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation.
London: Virago.
7. ^ a b Fitzpatrick, M. A., Mulac, A., & Dindia, K. (1995). Gender-preferential language use in
spouse and stranger interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 18-39.
8. ^ Mulac, A., Studley, L.B., & Blau, S. (1990). "The gender-linked language effect in primary and
secondary students’ impromptu essays." Sex Roles 23, 439-469.
9. ^ Thomson, R., & Murachver, T. (2001). "Predicting gender from electronic discourse." British
Journal of Social Psychology 40, 193-208.
10. ^ Green, J. (2003). "The writing on the stall: Gender and graffiti." Journal of Language and
Social Psychology 22, 282-296.
11. ^ Thomson, R., Murachver, T., & Green, J. (2001). "Where is the gender in gendered language?"
Psychological Science 12, 171-175.
12. ^ Carli, L.L. (1990). "Gender, language, and influence." Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 5, 941-951.
13. ^ a b Zimmerman, Don and West, Candace. (1975) "Sex roles, interruptions and silences in
conversation." In Thorne, Barrie and Henly, Nancy (eds) Language and Sex: Difference and
Dominance pp. 105-29. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury.
14. ^ Barnes, Douglas (1971). "Language and Learning in the Classroom." Journal of Curriculum
Studies. 3:1.
15. ^ Todd, Alexandra Dundas. (1983) "A diagnosis of doctor-patient discourse in the prescription of
contraception."
16. ^ In Fisher, Sue and Todd, Alexandra D. (eds) The Social Organization of Doctor-Patient
Communication pp. 159-87. , Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics.
17. ^ a b DeFrancisco, Victoria (1991). "The sound of silence: how men silence women in marital
relationships." Discourse and Society 2 (4):413-24.
18. ^ Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. (1974) "A simple systematics for the
organization of turn-taking for conversation." Language 50: 696-735.
19. ^ Dorval, Bruce. (1990). Conversational Organization and its Development. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
20. ^ Dindia, K. & Allen, M. (1992). Sex differences in disclosure: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 112, 106-124.
21. ^ Labov, William. (1972). Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia
Press.
22. ^ Eder, Donna. (1990). "Serious and Playful Disputes: variation in conflict talk among female
adolescents." In Grimshaw, Allan (ed)Conflict Talk pp. 67-84. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
23. ^ Fishman, Pamela. (1980). "Interactional Shiftwork." Heresies 2: 99-101.
24. ^ Leet-Pellegrini, Helena M. (1980) "Conversational dominance as a function of gender and
expertise." In Giles, Howard, Robinson, W. Peters, and Smith, Philip M (eds) Language: Social
Psychological Perspectives. pp. 97-104. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
25. ^ Coates, Jennifer (1993). Women, Men and language. London: Longman.
26. ^ Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen. (1978). "Universals in Language Usage: Politeness
Phenomena." In Goody, Esther (ed) Questions and Politeness pp 56-289. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
27. ^ Brown, Penelope. (1980). "How and why are women more polite: some evidence from a
Mayan community." In McConnell-Ginet, S. et al. (eds) Women and Language in Literature and
Society pp. 111-36. New York: Praeger.
28. ^ O’Barr, William and Bowman Atkins. (1980) "'Women’s Language' or 'powerless language'?"
In McConnell-Ginet et al. (eds) Women and languages in Literature and Society. pp. 93-110. New
York: Praeger.
29. ^ Coates, Jennifer (1983). Language and Sexism, LAUD Paper No. 173, University of Duisburg.
References
• Barnes, Douglas (1971), Language and Learning in the Classroom, Journal of
Curriculum Studies. 3:1
• Bright, William (1997), Social Factors in Language Change, p 83 in Coulmas, Florian
[ed] The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
• Brown, Penelope (1980), How and why are women more polite: some evidence from a
Mayan community, pp. 111-36 in McConnell-Ginet, S. et al. [eds] Women and Language
in Literature and Society. Praeger, New York.
• Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen (1978), Universals in Language Usage:
Politeness Phenomena, pp 56-289 in Goody, Esther [ed] Questions and Politeness.
Cambridge University Press. Reprinted separately in 1987 as Politeness: Some
Universals in Language Usage, ISBN 978-0521313551.
• Carli, L.L. (1990). Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 5, 941-951.
• Chambers, J.K. (1995), Sociolinguistic Theory, Oxford, England: Blackwell; p206-208.
• Coates, Jennifer (1983), Language and Sexism, LAUD Paper No. 173, University of
Duisburg.
• Coates, Jennifer (1987), Epistemic modality and spoken discourse, Transactions of the
Philological Society, 110-31.
• Coates, Jennifer (1993), Women, Men and language. London: Longman
• Coates, Jennifer (ed.) (1998), Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
• DeFrancisco, Victoria (1991), The sound of silence: how men silence women in marital
relationships, Discourse and Society 2 (4):413-24.
• Dindia, K. & Allen, M. (1992). Sex differences in disclosure: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 112, 106-124.
• Dorval, Bruce (1990), Conversational Organization and its Development, Ablex,
Norwood, NJ.
• Dubois, Sylvie and Hovarth, Barbara. (1998) "Let's tink about dat: Interdental Fricatives
in Cajun English," Language Variation and Change, 10 (3), pp 245-61.
• Eder, Donna (1990), Serious and Playful Disputes: variation in conflict talk among
female adolescents, pp. 67-84 in Grimshaw, Allan [ed]Conflict Talk, Cambridge
University Press.
• Fishman, Pamela(1980), Interactional Shiftwork, Heresies 2:99-101.
• Fitzpatrick, M. A., Mulac, A., & Dindia, K. (1995). Gender-preferential language use in
spouse and stranger interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 18-39.
• Green, J. (2003). The writing on the stall: Gender and graffiti. Journal of Language and
Social Psychology, 22, 282-296.
• Holmes, Janet (1988), Paying Compliments: a sex-preferential politeness strategy,
Journal of Pragmatics 12:445-65
• Labov, William (1966), The Social Stratification of English in New York City, Diss.
Washington.
• Labov, William (1972), Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of
Philadelphia Press.
• Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Women’s Place. New York: Harper & Row.
• Leet-Pellegrini, Helena M. (1980) Conversational dominance as a function of gender
and expertise, pp. 97-104 in Giles, Howard, Robinson, W. Peters, and Smith, Philip M
[eds] Language: Social Psychological Perspectives. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
• Mulac, A., Studley, L.B., & Blau, S. (1990). The gender-linked language effect in
primary and secondary students’ impromptu essays. Sex Roles, 23, 439-469.
• O’Barr and Atkins (1980) ‘Women’s Language’ or ‘powerless language’?, pp. 93-110 in
McConnell-Ginet et al. [eds] Women and languages in Literature and Society. New York:
Praeger.
• Sacks et al (1974) A simple systematics for the organization of turn-taking for
conversation, Language 50:696-735.
• Tannen, Deborah (1991), You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation,
London: Virago.
• Thomson, R., & Murachver, T. (2001). Predicting gender from electronic discourse.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 193-208.
• Thomson, R., Murachver, T., & Green, J. (2001). Where is the gender in gendered
language? Psychological Science, 12, 171-175.
• Wardhaugh, Ronald. (2004) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, Fourth Edition. London:
Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 1-631-22540-4.
• Todd, Alexandra Dundas (1983), A diagnosis of doctor-patient discourse in the
prescription of contraception, pp. 159-87 in Fisher, Sue and Todd, Alexandra D. [eds]
The Social Organization of Doctor-Patient Communication, Center for Applied
Linguistics, Washington D.C.
• Zimmerman, Don and West, Candace (1975) Sex roles, interruptions and silences in
conversation, pp. 105-29 in Thorne, Barrie and Henly, Nancy [eds] Language and Sex:
Difference and Dominance. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House
Further reading
• Lakoff, Robin T. (2000). The Language War. Berkely, CA: University of California Press.
ISBN 0-520-21666-0
• Meyerhoff, Miriam. (2006). Introducing Sociolinguistics. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-
415-39948-3
• Milroy, Lesley and Gordon. Matthew. (2003) Sociolinguistics: Method and Interpretation
London: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0-631-22225-1. (More advanced, but has lots of
good examples and describes research methodologies to use.)
• Paulston, Christina Bratt and G. Richard Tucker, editors. 1997. The early days of
sociolinguistics: memories and reflections. (Publications in Sociolinguistics, 2.) Dallas:
Summer Institute of Linguistics.
• Trudgill, Peter. (2000). Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society(4th
Ed.). London: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-028921-6 This book is a very readable, if
Anglo-centric, introduction for the non-linguist.
• Wardhaugh, Ronald. (2005) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, Fifth Edition. Wiley-
Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 1-405-13559-X. A sociolinguistics textbook, but assumes
little or no previous experience with linguistics.
• Watts, Richard J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-
0-521-79406-0. A sociolinguistics book specializing in the research in politeness. It's a
little tough at times, but very helpful and informational.
Descriptive linguistics
is the work of analyzing and describing how language is spoken (or how it was spoken in the
past) by a group of people in a speech community. All scholarly research in linguistics is
descriptive; like all other sciences, its aim is to observe the linguistic world as it is, without the
bias of preconceived ideas about how it ought to be. Modern descriptive linguistics is based on a
structural approach to language, as exemplified in the work of Bloomfield and others.
Linguistic description is often contrasted with linguistic prescription, which is found especially
in education and in publishing. Prescription seeks to define standard language forms and give
advice on effective language use, and can be thought of as the attempt to present the fruits of
descriptive research in a learnable form, though it also draws on more subjective aspects of
language aesthetics. Prescription and description are essentially complementary, but have
different priorities and sometimes are seen to be in conflict.
Accurate description of real speech is a difficult problem, and linguists have often been reduced
to approximations. Almost all linguistic theory has its origin in practical problems of descriptive
linguistics. Phonology (and its theoretical developments, such as the phoneme) deals with the
function and interpretation of sound in language. Syntax has developed to describe the rules
concerning how words relate to each other in order to form sentences. Lexicology collects
"words" and their derivations and transformations: it has not given rise to much generalized
theory.
An extreme "mentalist" viewpoint denies that the linguistic description of a language can be
done by anyone but a competent speaker. Such a speaker has internalized something called
"linguistic competence", which gives them the ability to extrapolate correctly from their
experience new but correct expressions, and to reject unacceptable expressions.
There are tens of thousands of linguistic descriptions of thousands of languages that were
prepared by people without adequate linguistic training. Prior to 1900, there was little academic
descriptions of language.
References
• Antoinette Renouf, Andrew Kehoe, The Changing Face of Corpus Linguistics - 2006 -
408 pages, p. 377
• Patrick R. Bennett, Comparative Semitic Linguistics: A Manual - 1998 - 269 pages, p. 3
• William A. Haviland, PRINS, WALRATH, Harald E. L. Prins, Dana Walrath, Bunny
McBride, Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge - HAVILAND - 2004 - 496
pages, p. 93
According to this definition, phonetics can also be called linguistic analysis of human speech at
the surface level. That is one obvious difference from phonology, which concerns the structure
and organisation of speech sounds in natural languages, and furthermore has a theoretical and
abstract nature. One example can be made to illustrate this distinction: In English, the suffix -s
can represent either [s], [z] or can be silent (symbolised as ø) depending on context.
Articulatory phonetics
Auditory phonetics
Auditory phonetics is a branch of phonetics concerned with the hearing, acquisition and
comprehension of phonetic sounds of words of a language. As articulatory phonetics explores the
methods of sound production, auditory phonetics explores the methods of reception--the ear to
the brain, and those processes.
Acoustic phonetics
Acoustic phonetics is a subfield of phonetics which deals with acoustic aspects of speech sounds.
Acoustic phonetics investigates properties like the mean squared amplitude of a waveform, its
duration, its fundamental frequency, or other properties of its frequency spectrum, and the
relationship of these properties to other branches of phonetics (e.g. articulatory or auditory
phonetics), and to abstract linguistic concepts like phones, phrases, or utterances.
Morphology
Morphology is the study of word structure. For example, in the sentences The dog runs and The
dogs run, the word forms runs and dogs have an affix -s added, distinguishing them from the
bare forms dog and run. Adding this suffix to a nominal stem gives plural forms, adding it to
verbal stems restricts the subject to third person singular. Some morphological theories operate
with two distinct suffixes -s, called allomorphs of the morphemes Plural and Third person
singular, respectively. Languages differ with respect to their morphological structure. Along one
axis, we may distinguish analytic languages, with few or no affixes or other morphological
processes from synthetic languages with many affixes. Along another axis, we may distinguish
agglutinative languages, where affixes express one grammatical property each, and are added
neatly one after another, from fusional languages, with non-concatenative morphological
processes (infixation, umlaut, ablaut, etc.) and/or with less clear-cut affix boundaries.
Syntax
Syntax is the study of language structure and word order. It is concerned with the relationship
between units at the level of words or morphology. Syntax seeks to delineate exactly all and only
those sentences which make up a given language, using native speaker intuition. Syntax seeks to
describe formally exactly how structural relations between elements (lexical items/words and
operators) in a sentence contribute to its interpretation. Syntax uses principles of formal logic
and Set Theory to formalize and represent accurately the hierarchical relationship between
elements in a sentence. Abstract syntax trees are often used to illustrate the hierarchical
structures that are posited. Thus, in active declarative sentences in English the subject is followed
by the main verb which in turn is followed by the object (SVO). This order of elements is crucial
to its correct interpretation and it is exactly this which syntacticians try to capture. They argue
that there must be such a formal computational component contained within the language faculty
of normal speakers of a language and seek to describe it.
Semantics
Semantics is the study of intensive meaning in words and sentences.
Semantics can be expressed through diction (word choice) and inflexion. Inflexion may be
conveyed through an author's tone in writing and a speaker's tone of voice, changing pitch and
stress of words to influence meaning.
References
• Ottenheimer, H.J. (2006). The Anthropology of Language: An Introduction to Linguistic
Anthropology.Canada: Thomas Wadsworth.
Pragmatics
Pragmatics is the study of how the arrangement of words and phrases can alter the meaning of a
sentence. The ability to understand another speaker's intended meaning is called pragmatic
competence. An utterance describing pragmatic function is described as metapragmatic. Another
perspective is that pragmatics deals with the ways we reach our goal in communication. Suppose
a person wanted to ask someone else to stop smoking. This could be achieved by using several
utterances. The person could simply say, 'Stop smoking, please!' which is direct and with clear
semantic meaning; alternatively, the person could say, 'Whew, this room could use an air purifier'
which implies a similar meaning but is indirect and therefore requires pragmatic inference to
derive the intended meaning.
Pragmatics is regarded as one of the most challenging aspects for language learners to grasp, and
can only truly be learned with experience.
Pragmatics was a reaction to structuralist linguistics outlined by Ferdinand de Saussure. In many
cases, it expanded upon his idea that language has an analyzable structure, composed of parts
that can be defined in relation to others. Pragmatics first engaged only in synchronic study, as
opposed to examining the historical development of language. However, it rejected the notion
that all meaning comes from signs existing purely in the abstract space of langue. Meanwhile,
historical pragmatics has also come into being.
While Chomskyan linguistics famously repudiated Bloomfieldian anthropological linguistics,
pragmatics continues its tradition. Also influential were Franz Boas, Edward Sapir and Benjamin
Whorf.
Areas of interest
Pragmatics differs from linguistics in its main areas of interest, which are:
• The study of the speakers' meaning, which means focusing not on the phonetic or
grammatical form of an utterance, but instead on what are the speakers' intentions and
beliefs.
• The study of the meaning in its context, and the influence that a given context can have
on the message. It requires knowledge of the speakers' identities, and the place and time
of the utterance.
• The study of implicatures, i.e. the things that are communicated even though they are not
explicitly expressed.
• The study of the relative distance, both social and physical, between speakers in order to
understand what determines the choice of what is said and what is not said.
Related fields
There is a considerable overlap between pragmatics and sociolinguistics, since both share an
interest in linguistic meaning as determined by usage in a speech community. However,
sociolinguists tend to be more oriented towards variations within such communities.
According to Charles W. Morris, pragmatics tries to understand the relationship between signs
and their users, while semantics tends to focus on the actual objects or ideas to which a word
refers, and syntax (or "syntactics") examines relationships among signs.
Semantics is the literal meaning of an idea whereas pragmatics is the implied meaning of the
given idea.
Suzette Haden Elgin has also written a number of books known of as the Gentle Art of Verbal
Self Defense series, where she extensively outlines structured methods like those surveyed in
pragmatics to defend against the use of pejoratives in various common situations, drawing
parallels between applied linguistics and martial arts techniques.
Linguistic anthropology
Pragmatics helps anthropologists relate elements of language to broader social phenomena; it
thus pervades the field of linguistic anthropology. Because pragmatics describes generally the
forces in play for a given utterance, it includes the study of power, gender, race, identity, and
their interactions with individual speech acts. For example, the study of code switching directly
relates to pragmatics, since a switch in code effects a shift in pragmatic force.[1]
Pragmatics in philosophy
Jaques Derrida once remarked that some of linguistic pragmatics aligned well with the program
he outlined in Of Grammatology.
Linguistic pragmatics underpins Judith Butler's theory of gender performativity. In Gender
Trouble, she claims that gender and sex are not natural categories, but called into being by
discourse. In Excitable Speech she extends her theory of performativity to hate speech, arguing
that the designation of certain utterances as "hate speech" affects their pragmatic function.
Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari discuss linguistic pragmatics in the fourth chapter of A
Thousand Plateaus ("November 20, 1923--Postulates of Linguistics"). They draw three
conclusions from Austin: (1) A performative utterance doesn't communicate information about
an act second-hand—it does the act; (2) Every aspect of language ("semantics, syntactics, or
even phonematics") functionally interacts with pragmatics; (3) The distinction between language
and speech is untenable. This last conclusion attempts to simultaneously refute Saussure's
division between langue and parole and Chomsky's distinction between surface structure and
deep structure. [2]
Significant works
• J. L. Austin's How To Do Things With Words
• Paul Grice's cooperative principle and conversational maxims
• Brown & Levinson's Politeness Theory
• Geoffrey Leech's politeness maxims
• Levinson's Presumptive Meanings
• Jürgen Habermas's universal pragmatics
• Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson's relevance theory
Footnotes
• ^ Duranti, Alessandro (1997). Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge University Press.
• ^ Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari (1987) [1980]. A Thousand Plateaus. University of
Minnesota Press.
References
• Austin, J. L. (1962) How to Do Things With Words. Oxford University Press.
• Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. (1978) Politeness: Some Universals in
Language Usage. Cambridge University Press.
• Carston, Robyn (2002) Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit
Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Clark, Herbert H. (1996) "Using Language". Cambridge University Press.
• Cole, Peter, ed.. (1978) Pragmatics. (Syntax and Semantics, 9). New York: Academic
Press.
• Dijk, Teun A. van. (1977) Text and Context. Explorations in the Semantics and
Pragmatics of Discourse. London: Longman.
• Grice, H. Paul. (1989) Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University
Press.
• Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward. (2005) The Handbook of Pragmatics. Blackwell.
• Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
• Levinson, Stephen C. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
• Levinson, Stephen C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized
conversational implicature. MIT Press.
• Mey, Jacob L. (1993) Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell (2nd ed. 2001).
• Kepa Korta and John Perry. (2006) Pragmatics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy.
• Potts, Christopher. (2005) The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford Studies in
Theoretical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre. (2005) Pragmatics. In F. Jackson and M. Smith (eds.)
Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy. OUP, Oxford, 468-501. (Also available
here.)
• Thomas, Jenny (1995) Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. Longman.
• Verschueren, Jef. (1999) Understanding Pragmatics. London, New York: Arnold
Publishers.
• Verschueren, Jef, Jan-Ola Östman, Jan Blommaert, eds. (1995) Handbook of Pragmatics.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• Watzlawick, Paul, Janet Helmick Beavin and Don D. Jackson (1967) Pragmatics of
Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes.
New York: Norton.
• Wierzbicka, Anna (1991) Cross-cultural Pragmatics. The Semantics of Human
Interaction. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Yule, George (1996) Pragmatics (Oxford Introductions to Language Study). Oxford
University Press.
Lexis (linguistics)
In linguistics, lexis (in Greek λέξις = word) describes the storage of language in our mental
lexicon as prefabricated patterns (lexical units) that can be recalled and sorted into meaningful
speech and writing. Recent research in corpus linguistics suggests that the long-held dichotomy
between grammar and vocabulary does not exist.[citation needed] Lexis as a concept differs from the
traditional paradigm of grammar in that it defines probable language use, not possible language
usage. This notion contrasts starkly with the Chomskian proposition of a “Universal Grammar”
as the prime mover for language; grammar still plays an integral role in lexis, of course, but it is
the result of accumulated lexis, not its generator.
Register
Michael K. Halliday (1987) proposes a useful dichotomy of spoken and written language which
actually entails a shift in paradigm: while linguistic theory posits the superiority of the spoken
language over written language (as the former is the origin, comes naturally, and thus precedes
the written language), or the written over the spoken (for the same reasons: the written language
being the highest form of rudimentary speech), Halliday states they are two entirely different
entities. In short, he claims that speech is grammatically complex while writing is lexically dense
(Halliday, 1993). In other words, a sentence such as “a cousin of mine, the one who I was talking
about the other day –the one who lives in Houston, not the one in Dallas – called me up
yesterday to tell me the very same story about Mary, who…” is most likely to be found in
conversation, not as a newspaper headline. “Prime Minister vows conciliation”, on the other
hand, would be a typical news headline.
Halliday’s work suggests something radically different: language behaves in registers. Biber et al
working on the LGSWE worked with four (these are not exhaustive, merely exemplary):
conversation, literature, news, academic. These four registers clearly highlight distinctions within
language use which would not be clear through a “grammatical” approach. Not surprisingly, each
register favors the use of different words and structures: whereas news headline stories, for
example, are grammatically simple, conversational anecdotes are full of lexical repetition. The
lexis of the news, however, can be quite dense, just as the grammar of speech can be incredibly
complicated.
Lexis (linguistics)
In linguistics, lexis (in Greek λέξις = word) describes the storage of language in our mental
lexicon as prefabricated patterns (lexical units) that can be recalled and sorted into meaningful
speech and writing. Recent research in corpus linguistics suggests that the long-held dichotomy
between grammar and vocabulary does not exist.[citation needed] Lexis as a concept differs from the
traditional paradigm of grammar in that it defines probable language use, not possible language
usage. This notion contrasts starkly with the Chomskian proposition of a “Universal Grammar”
as the prime mover for language; grammar still plays an integral role in lexis, of course, but it is
the result of accumulated lexis, not its generator.
Lexicon
In short, the lexicon is
A major area of study psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics involves the question of how words
are retrieved from the mental lexicon in online language processing and production. For
example, the cohort model seeks to describe lexical retrieval in terms of segment-by-segment
activation of competing lexical entries.[1][2]
Formulaic Language
In recent years,the compilation of language databases using real samples from speech and
writing has enabled researchers to take a fresh look at the composition of languages. Among
other things, statistical research methods offer reliable insight into the ways in which words
interact. The most interesting findings have taken place in the dichotomy between language use
(how language is used) and language usage (how language could be used).
Language use shows which occurrences of words and their partners are most probable. The
major finding of this research is that language users rely to a very high extent on ready-made
language “lexical chunks”, which can be easily combined to form sentences. This eliminates the
need for the speaker to analyze each sentence grammatically, yet deals with a situation
effectively. Typical examples include “I see what you mean” or “Could you please hand me the
…” or “Recent research shows that…”
Language usage, on the other hand, is what takes place when the ready-made chunks do not
fulfill the speaker’s immediate needs; in other words, a new sentence is about to be formed and
must be analyzed for correctness. Grammar rules have been internalized by native speakers,
allowing them to determine the viability of new sentences. Language usage might be defined as a
fall-back position when all other options have been exhausted.
• Collocation: words and their co-occurrences (examples include “fulfill needs” and “fall-
back position”)
• Semantic prosody: the connotation words carry (“pay attention” can be neutral or
remonstrative, as when a teacher says to a pupil: “Pay attention!” (or else)
• Colligation: the grammar words use (while “I hope that suits you” sounds natural, “I hope
that you are suited by that” does not).
• Register: the text style a word is used in (“President vows to support allies” is most likely
found in news headlines, whereas “vows” in speech most likely refer to “marriages”; in
speech, the verb “vow” is most likely used as “promise”).
Once data has been collected, it can be sorted to determine the probability of co-occurrences.
One common and well-known way is with a concordance: the KWIC is centered and shown with
dozens of examples of it in use, as with the example for “possibility” below.
Semantics
Semantics is the study of meaning in communication. The word is derived from the Greek word
σημαντικός (semantikos), "significant",[1] from σημαίνω (semaino), "to signify, to indicate" and
that from σήμα (sema), "sign, mark, token".[2] In linguistics it is the study of interpretation of
signs as used by agents or communities within particular circumstances and contexts.[3] It has
related meanings in several other fields.
Semanticists differ on what constitutes meaning in an expression. For example, in the sentence,
"John loves a bagel", the word bagel may refer to the object itself, which is its literal meaning or
denotation, but it may also refer to many other figurative associations, such as how it meets
John's hunger, etc., which may be its connotation. Traditionally, the formal semantic view
restricts semantics to its literal meaning, and relegates all figurative associations to pragmatics,
but many find this distinction difficult to defend.[4] The degree to which a theorist subscribes to
the literal-figurative distinction decreases as one moves from the formal semantic, semiotic,
pragmatic, to the cognitive semantic traditions.
The word semantic in its modern sense is considered to have first appeared in French as
sémantique in Michel Bréal's 1897 book, Essai de sémantique'. In International Scientific
Vocabulary semantics is also called semasiology. The discipline of Semantics is distinct from
Alfred Korzybski's General Semantics, which is a system for looking at the semantic reactions of
the whole human organism in its environment to some event, symbolic or otherwise.
Linguistics
In linguistics, semantics is the subfield that is devoted to the study of meaning, as inherent at the
levels of words, phrases, sentences, and even larger units of discourse (referred to as texts). The
basic area of study is the meaning of signs, and the study of relations between different linguistic
units: homonymy, synonymy, antonymy, polysemy, paronyms, hypernymy, hyponymy,
meronymy, metonymy, holonymy, exocentricity / endocentricity, linguistic compounds. A key
concern is how meaning attaches to larger chunks of text, possibly as a result of the composition
from smaller units of meaning. Traditionally, semantics has included the study of connotative
sense and denotative reference, truth conditions, argument structure, thematic roles, discourse
analysis, and the linkage of all of these to syntax.
Formal semanticists are concerned with the modeling of meaning in terms of the semantics of
logic. Thus the sentence John loves a bagel above can be broken down into its constituents
(signs), of which the unit loves may serve as both syntactic and semantic head.
In the late 1960s, Richard Montague proposed a system for defining semantic entries in the
lexicon in terms of lambda calculus. Thus, the syntactic parse of the sentence above would now
indicate loves as the head, and its entry in the lexicon would point to the arguments as the agent,
John, and the object, bagel, with a special role for the article "a" (which Montague called a
quantifier). This resulted in the sentence being associated with the logical predicate loves (John,
bagel), thus linking semantics to categorial grammar models of syntax. The logical predicate
thus obtained would be elaborated further, e.g. using truth theory models, which ultimately relate
meanings to a set of Tarskiian universals, which may lie outside the logic. The notion of such
meaning atoms or primitives are basic to the language of thought hypothesis from the 70s.
Despite its elegance, Montague grammar was limited by the context-dependent variability in
word sense, and led to several attempts at incorporating context, such as :
• situation semantics ('80s): Truth-values are incomplete, they get assigned based on
context
• generative lexicon ('90s): categories (types) are incomplete, and get assigned based on
context
In the Chomskian tradition in linguistics there was no mechanism for the learning of semantic
relations, and the nativist view considered all semantic notions as inborn. Thus, even novel
concepts were proposed to have been dormant in some sense. This traditional view was also
unable to address many issues such as metaphor or associative meanings, and semantic change,
where meanings within a linguistic community change over time, and qualia or subjective
experience. Another issue not addressed by the nativist model was how perceptual cues are
combined in thought, e.g. in mental rotation.[5]
This traditional view of semantics, as an innate finite meaning inherent in a lexical unit that can
be composed to generate meanings for larger chunks of discourse, is now being fiercely debated
in the emerging domain of cognitive linguistics[6] and also in the non-Fodorian camp in
Philosophy of Language.[7] The challenge is motivated by
• factors internal to language, such as the problem of resolving indexical or anaphora (e.g.
this x, him, last week). In these situations "context" serves as the input, but the interpreted
utterance also modifies the context, so it is also the output. Thus, the interpretation is
necessarily dynamic and the meaning of sentences is viewed as context-change potentials
instead of propositions.
• factors external to language, i.e. language is not a set of labels stuck on things, but "a
toolbox, the importance of whose elements lie in the way they function rather than their
attachments to things."[7] This view reflects the position of the later Wittgenstein and his
famous game example, and is related to the positions of Quine, Davidson, and others.
A concrete example of the latter phenomenon is semantic underspecification — meanings are not
complete without some elements of context. To take an example of a single word, "red", its
meaning in a phrase such as red book is similar to many other usages, and can be viewed as
compositional.[8] However, the colours implied in phrases such as "red wine" (very dark), and
"red hair" (coppery), or "red soil", or "red skin" are very different. Indeed, these colours by
themselves would not be called "red" by native speakers. These instances are contrastive, so "red
wine" is so called only in comparison with the other kind of wine (which also is not "white" for
the same reasons). This view goes back to de Saussure:
Each of a set of synonyms like redouter ('to dread'), craindre ('to fear'), avoir peur ('to be
afraid') has its particular value only because they stand in contrast with one another. No
word has a value that can be identified independently of what else is in its vicinity.[9]
and may go back to earlier Indian views on language, especially the Nyaya view of words as
indicators and not carriers of meaning.[10]
Prototype theory
Another set of concepts related to fuzziness in semantics is based on prototypes. The work of
Eleanor Rosch and George Lakoff in the 1970s led to a view that natural categories are not
characterizable in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions, but are graded (fuzzy at their
boundaries) and inconsistent as to the status of their constituent members.
Systems of categories are not objectively "out there" in the world but are rooted in people's
experience. These categories evolve as learned concepts of the world — meaning is not an
objective truth, but a subjective construct, learned from experience, and language arises out of
the "grounding of our conceptual systems in shared embodiment and bodily experience".[4] A
corollary of this is that the conceptual categories (i.e. the lexicon) will not be identical for
different cultures, or indeed, for every individual in the same culture. This leads to another
debate (see the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis or Eskimo words for snow).
English nouns are found by language analysis to have 25 different semantic features, each
associated with its own pattern of fMRI brain activity. The individual contribution of each
parameter predicts the fMRI pattern when nouns are considered thus supporting the view that
nouns derive their meaning from prior experience linked to a common symbol.[11]
Morphology (linguistics)
Morphology is one of the fields of linguistics which studies the internal structure of words.
(Words as units in the lexicon are the subject matter of lexicology.) While words are generally
accepted as being (with clitics) the smallest units of syntax, it is clear that in most (if not all)
languages, words can be related to other words by rules. For example, English speakers
recognize that the words dog, dogs, and dog catcher are closely related. English speakers
recognize these relations from their tacit knowledge of the rules of word formation in English.
They infer intuitively that dog is to dogs as cat is to cats; similarly, dog is to dog catcher as dish
is to dishwasher. The rules understood by the speaker reflect specific patterns (or regularities) in
the way words are formed from smaller units and how those smaller units interact in speech. In
this way, morphology is the branch of linguistics that studies patterns of word formation within
and across languages, and attempts to formulate rules that model the knowledge of the speakers
of those languages.
Proto-English
The Germanic tribes that gave rise to the English language (the Angles, Saxons, Frisians, Jutes
and perhaps even the Franks), both traded and fought with the Latin-speaking Roman Empire in
the centuries-long process of the Germanic peoples' expansion into Western Europe. Many Latin
words for common objects entered the vocabulary of these Germanic peoples before any of their
tribes reached Britain; examples include camp, cheese, cook, fork, inch, kettle, kitchen, linen,
mile, mill, mint (coin), noon, pillow, pin, pound, punt (boat), street and wall. The Romans also
gave the English language words which they had themselves borrowed from other languages:
anchor, butter, chest, devil, dish, sack and wine.
Our main source for the culture of the Germanic peoples (the ancestors of the English) in ancient
times is Tacitus' Germania. While remaining quite conversant with Roman civilisation and its
economy, including serving in the Roman military, they retained political independence. We can
be certain that Germanic settlement in Britain was not intensified until the time of Hengist and
Horsa in the fifth century, since had the English arrived en-masse under Roman rule, they would
have been thoroughly Christianised as a matter of course. As it was, the Angles, Saxons and
Jutes arrived as pagans, independent of Roman control.
According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, around the year 449, Vortigern (or Gwrtheyrn from the
Welsh tradition), King of the Britons, invited the "Angle kin" (Angles led by Hengest and Horsa)
to help him in conflicts with the Picts. In return, the Angles were granted lands in the southeast
of England. Further aid was sought, and in response "came men of Ald Seaxum of Anglum of
Iotum" (Saxons, Angles and Jutes). The Chronicle talks of a subsequent influx of settlers who
eventually established seven kingdoms, known as the heptarchy. Modern scholarship considers
most of this story to be legendary and politically motivated, and the identification of the tribes
with the Angles, Saxons and Jutes is no longer accepted as an accurate description (Myres, 1986,
p. 46ff), especially since the Anglo-Saxon language is more similar to the Frisian languages than
any of the others.
Old English
The invaders' Germanic language displaced the indigenous Brythonic languages of what became
England. The original Celtic languages remained in parts of Scotland, Wales and Cornwall. The
dialects spoken by the Anglo-Saxons formed what is now called Old English. Later, it was
strongly influenced by the North Germanic language Norse, spoken by the Vikings who invaded
and settled mainly in the north-east of England (see Jórvík and Danelaw). The new and the
earlier settlers spoke languages from different branches of the Germanic family; many of their
lexical roots were the same or similar, although their grammars were more distinct, including the
prefix, suffix and inflection patterns for many words. The Germanic language of these Old
English-speaking inhabitants was influenced by contact with Norse invaders, which might have
been responsible for some of the morphological simplification of Old English, including the loss
of grammatical gender and explicitly marked case (with the notable exception of the pronouns).
The most famous surviving work from the Old English period is a fragment of the epic poem
"Beowulf" composed by an unknown poet; it is thought to have been substantially modified,
probably by Christian clerics long after its composition.
The period when England was ruled by Anglo-Saxon kings, with the assistance of their clergy,
was an era in which the Old English language was not only alive, but thriving. Since it was used
for legal, political, religious and other intellectual purposes, Old English is thought to have
coined new words from native Anglo-Saxon roots, rather than to have "borrowed" foreign words.
(This point is made in a standard text, The History of the English Language, by Baugh).
The introduction of Christianity added another wave of Latin and some Greek words.
The Old English period formally ended with the Norman conquest, when the language was
influenced to an even greater extent by the Norman-speaking Normans.
The use of Anglo-Saxon to describe a merging of Anglian and Saxon languages and cultures is a
relatively modern development. According to Lois Fundis (Stumpers-L, Fri, 14 Dec 2001), "The
first citation for the second definition of 'Anglo-Saxon', referring to early English language or a
certain dialect thereof, comes during the reign of Elizabeth I, from a historian named Camden,
who seems to be the person most responsible for the term becoming well-known in modern
times".
Middle English
For about 300 years following the Norman Conquest in 1066, the Norman kings and their high
nobility spoke only one of the langues d'oïl called Anglo-Norman, whilst English continued to be
the language of the common people. Various contemporary sources suggest that within fifty
years of the invasion, most of the Normans outside the royal court spoke English[citation needed], with
French remaining the prestige language of government and law, largely out of social inertia. For
example, Orderic Vitalis, a historian born in 1075 and the son of a Norman knight, said that he
learned French only as a second language[citation needed]. A tendency for French-derived words to
have more formal connotations has continued to the present day; most modern English speakers
would consider a "cordial reception" (from French) to be more formal than a "hearty welcome"
(Germanic). Another example is the very unusual construction of the words for animals being
separate from the words for their food products e.g. beef and pork (from the French boeuf and
porc) being the products of the Germanically-named animals 'cow' and 'pig'.
While the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle continued until 1154, most other literature from this period
was in Old Norman or Latin. A large number of Norman words were taken into Old English,
with many doubling for Old English words. The Norman influence is the hallmark of the
linguistic shifts in English over the period of time following the invasion, producing what is now
referred to as Middle English. English was also influenced by the Celtic languages it was
displacing, most notably with the introduction of the continuous aspect, a feature found in many
modern languages, but developed earlier and more thoroughly in English.[1][2] English spelling
was also influenced by Norman in this period, with the /θ/ and /ð/ sounds being spelled th rather
than with the Old English letters þ (thorn) and ð (eth), which did not exist in Norman. The most
famous writer from the Middle English period was Geoffrey Chaucer and of his works, The
Canterbury Tales is the best known.
English literature started to reappear around 1200, when a changing political climate and the
decline in Anglo-Norman made it more respectable. The Provisions of Oxford, released in 1258,
were the first English government document to be published in the English language since the
Conquest.[3] Edward III became the first king to address Parliament in English when he did so in
1362.[4] By the end of that century, even the royal court had switched to English. Anglo-Norman
remained in use in limited circles somewhat longer, but it had ceased to be a living language.
English has continuously adopted foreign words, especially from Latin and Greek, since the
Renaissance. (In the 17th century, Latin words were often used with the original inflections, but
these eventually disappeared). As there are many words from different languages and English
spelling is variable, the risk of mispronunciation is high, but remnants of the older forms remain
in a few regional dialects, most notably in the West Country.
In 1755, Samuel Johnson published the first significant English dictionary, his Dictionary of the
English Language.
Hwæt! Wē Gār-
in geārdagum,
Dena
þēodcyninga, þrym gefrūnon,
hū ðā æþelingas ellen fremedon.
sceaþena
Oft Scyld Scēfing
þrēatum,
monegum meodosetla
mǣgþum, oftēah,
Syððan ǣrest
egsode eorlas.
wearð
hē þæs frōfre
fēasceaft funden,
gebād,
wēox under weorðmyndum
wolcnum, þāh,
oðþæt him þāra
ǣghwylc ymbsittendra
ofer hronrāde hȳran scolde,
Þæt wæs gōd
gomban gyldan.
cyning!
Here is a sample prose text, the beginning of The Voyages of Ohthere and Wulfstan. The full text
can be found at The Voyages of Ohthere and Wulfstan, at Wikisource.
Ōhthere sǣde his hlāforde, Ælfrēde cyninge, ðæt hē ealra Norðmonna norþmest būde. Hē cwæð þæt hē
būde on þǣm lande norþweardum wiþ þā Westsǣ. Hē sǣde þēah þæt þæt land sīe swīþe lang norþ
þonan; ac hit is eal wēste, būton on fēawum stōwum styccemǣlum wīciað Finnas, on huntoðe on wintra,
ond on sumera on fiscaþe be þǣre sǣ. Hē sǣde þæt hē æt sumum cirre wolde fandian hū longe þæt land
norþryhte lǣge, oþþe hwæðer ǣnig mon be norðan þǣm wēstenne būde. Þā fōr hē norþryhte be þǣm
lande: lēt him ealne weg þæt wēste land on ðæt stēorbord, ond þā wīdsǣ on ðæt bæcbord þrīe dagas. Þā
wæs hē swā feor norþ swā þā hwælhuntan firrest faraþ. Þā fōr hē þā giet norþryhte swā feor swā hē
meahte on þǣm ōþrum þrīm dagum gesiglau. Þā bēag þæt land, þǣr ēastryhte, oþþe sēo sǣ in on ðæt
lond, hē nysse hwæðer, būton hē wisse ðæt hē ðǣr bād westanwindes ond hwōn norþan, ond siglde ðā
ēast be lande swā swā hē meahte on fēower dagum gesiglan. Þā sceolde hē ðǣr bīdan ryhtnorþanwindes,
for ðǣm þæt land bēag þǣr sūþryhte, oþþe sēo sǣ in on ðæt land, hē nysse hwæþer. Þā siglde hē þonan
sūðryhte be lande swā swā hē meahte on fīf dagum gesiglan. Ðā læg þǣr ān micel ēa ūp on þæt land. Ðā
cirdon hīe ūp in on ðā ēa for þǣm hīe ne dorston forþ bī þǣre ēa siglan for unfriþe; for þǣm ðæt land
wæs eall gebūn on ōþre healfe þǣre ēas. Ne mētte hē ǣr nān gebūn land, siþþan hē from his āgnum hām
fōr; ac him wæs ealne weg wēste land on þæt stēorbord, būtan fiscerum ond fugelerum ond huntum, ond
þæt wǣron eall Finnas; ond him wæs āwīdsǣ on þæt bæcbord. Þā Boermas heafdon sīþe wel gebūd hira
land: ac hīe ne dorston þǣr on cuman. Ac þāra Terfinna land wæs eal wēste, būton ðǣr huntan
gewīcodon, oþþe fisceras, oþþe fugeleras.
Ohthere said to his lord, King Alfred, that he of all Norsemen lived north-most. He quoth that he lived in
the land northward along the North Sea. He said though that the land was very long from there, but it is
all wasteland, except that in a few places here and there Finns [i.e. Sami] encamp, hunting in winter and
in summer fishing by the sea. He said that at some time he wanted to find out how long the land lay
northward or whether any man lived north of the wasteland. Then he traveled north by the land. All the
way he kept the waste land on his starboard and the wide sea on his port three days. Then he was as far
north as whale hunters furthest travel. Then he traveled still north as far as he might sail in another three
days. Then the land bowed east (or the sea into the land — he did not know which). But he knew that he
waited there for west winds (and somewhat north), and sailed east by the land so as he might sail in four
days. Then he had to wait for due-north winds, because the land bowed south (or the sea into the land —
he did not know which). Then he sailed from there south by the land so as he might sail in five days. Then
a large river lay there up into the land. Then they turned up into the river, because they dared not sail forth
past the river for hostility, because the land was all settled on the other side of the river. He had not
encountered earlier any settled land since he travelled from his own home, but all the way waste land was
on his starboard (except fishers, fowlers and hunters, who were all Finns). And the wide sea was always
on his port. The Bjarmians have cultivated their land very well, but they did not dare go in there. But the
Terfinn’s land was all waste except where hunters encamped, or fishers or fowlers.
Middle English
Glossary:
• soote: sweet
• swich licour: such liquid
• Zephirus: the west wind (Zephyrus)
• eek: also (Dutch ook; German auch)
• holt: wood (German Holz)
• the Ram: Aries, the first sign of the Zodiac
• yronne: run
• priketh hem Nature: Nature pricks them
• hir corages: their hearts
Modern English
The evening arrived; the boys took their places. The master, in his cook's uniform, stationed himself at the
copper; his pauper assistants ranged themselves behind him; the gruel was served out; and a long grace
was said over the short commons. The gruel disappeared; the boys whispered each other, and winked at
Oliver; while his next neighbours nudged him. Child as he was, he was desperate with hunger, and
reckless with misery. He rose from the table; and advancing to the master, basin and spoon in hand, said:
somewhat alarmed at his own temerity:
The master aimed a blow at Oliver's head with the ladle; pinioned him in his arm; and shrieked aloud for
the beadle.
References
1. ^ John McWhorter (2006-06-20). "Speak We Proper English?". Language Log.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003270.html.
2. ^ Filppula, Markku, Juhani Klemola und Heli Pitkänen (eds.). 2002. The Celtic Roots of English.
Joensuu: UUniversity of Joensuu, Faculty of Humanities.
3. ^ English and its Historical Development, Part 20 (English was re-established in Britain)
4. ^ Edward3rd
Scott Shay (2008). The History of English: A Linguistic Introduction. Washington: Wardja Press.
ISBN 0615168175