May 14, 2009
11 things linguists assume that many non-linguists will still disagree with
Like this post?
Regular commenter, Carissa, lists several things linguists take for granted about language even if the rest of us still debate about them.
Update: Carissa has posted a worthwhile follow-up.
* * * * *
I would dispute only two points on her list:
“A language and a dialect are the same thing.”
This is far too simplified to be a correct assessment of what all linguists now take for granted. You would have to define both language and dialect in a very specific sense before this statement would hold true — let alone universally among linguists.
There are grammatical, syntactical and lexicographical differences, for instance, in the way English is spoken in this country. Terms like dialect and accent are still used to attempt to account for the nature and degree of differences as well as to group some of those ways of speaking.
However, if her point is that language should not describe the dominant dialect with all other dialects being understood as ‘deviations’ and therefore labeled dialects … well, then she’s right.
What do you think Carissa? Is this what you’re saying?
As for the other disputed point, you already note that it is:
“Just because your language doesn’t “have a word for” some concept doesn’t mean you are literally unable think in those categories. (Okay, this is slightly contested. But only really marginally.)”
I list it only to say, this is hardly a marginal debate unless you narrow the field of linguistics to exclude entirely the philosophy of language and make it deal only with syntactical analysis.
“Every language has inherent grammar rules that every speaker of that language instinctively knows.”
I doubt it, otherwise we wouldn’t have to teach our children to talk, make them suffer through English class, savage their papers with red pen, or need a book like Strunk and Whites.
hey, thanks for linking me! i actually had edited it just a bit since i posted it, because my friend found it confusing and i figured only my friends would read it. i DID say it was simplified. :]
in answer to myrddin briefly–yes, i meant what you said, which is that there are dialects within a larger language; but each dialect is on its own a legitimate language to be studied in its own right, and not a “deviant” form. and also,–yes, i exclude philosophy of language and am just talking about scientific linguistics proper (which by and large just doesn’t buy the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis wholesale anymore.)
Carissa said: “Every language has inherent grammar rules that every speaker of that language instinctively knows.”
Steve B said: I doubt it, otherwise we wouldn’t have to teach our children to talk, make them suffer through English class, savage their papers with red pen, or need a book like Strunk and Whites.
What Carissa said is true, when you keep in mind that dialects are “legitimate languages” on their own and not “deviant” forms. If a child grows up in South Carolina around people who speak with a thick southern dialect, that child, with no formal training at all, will pick up the common syntactical and morphological forms. Parents and educators may have to teach them the grammatical forms of standard american english, but they understand subconsciously the syntax and morphology and phonology of southern english (and therefore the underlying forms of all english dialects). In other words, you don’t have to teach them to speak the way everyone around them speaks, it develops naturally.
Southern english has some really weird morphology that other forms of english don’t have. For example, take the commonly mocked word: “jeechet” (however it would be spelled). Though everyone now knows what this means thanks to Jeff Foxworthy (or was it Bill Engvall?), in reality, most Southern English speakers would have understood this question immediately and probably would have responded the way Foxworthy suggested: “nawdjew” (or whatever).
My point is that the way words blend together and whatnot is something that native southerners know from the time they are able to speak.
Wow, this was fascinating to me! Thanks for linking to it.
My main question for Carissa or linguists in general, is:
Can grammar be formally taught and should it be?
One of the points said something like, “no native speaker can have bad grammar,” and another said (paraphrase), “no one can change grammar, language, etc.”
So where does this leave the formal teaching of grammar? And by formal, I even include me correcting my 5-year-old’s use of tenses, and sentence structure, etc.
In my mind, if I don’t teach her how to speak “correctly” she won’t. And then she won’t be well understood by her nana and papa and sunday school teachers etc. But she is a native speaker, no?
I guess I’m just wondering what your take is on the formal teaching of one’s own native language to it’s speaker?
[...] Movement Quebec Starting Churches in the Montreal Region « Video: Hermiston/St Jérôme Connexion Video: linguistic elasticity, demagoguery, and a complimentary lemon-scented cleansing square May 14, 2009 I found this video over at a plentiful redemption, guided there by 22 words. [...]
So, does this mean I can stop teaching my kids grammar? That sure would be nice :)
Shoot. Living in a house full of Lindquists where assumptions are abundant, I assumed this post would be all about me.
Nonetheless, very interesting stuff.
Carissa –
Despite the rejection of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, there are still plenty of philosophy of language people who have an impact on the field of linguistics who continue to argue back and forth about meaning and language.
The problem with saying you can think certain thoughts apart from language is that it always bends towards some kind philosophical idealism or inherent conceptualism, which most philosophers (not to mention philosophers of language) have also rejected.
Of course, this all depends upon how you think about “ideas,” “meaning” and “language” ….
Sheesh, I’m going back to Goodnight, Moon.
I just want to know, Carissa–are you saying that LINGUISTS don’t believe someone’s grammar can be “bad,” or that grammar cannot, in principle, be bad?
To put it another way, are you trying to help people avoid misconceptions about what you linguists do, or are you trying to correct misconceptions about grammar in general?
Myrddin–i’m going to admit i’m a bit out of my league when it comes to phil. of language stuff. as i understand it, thought is apart from language (at somewhat), not in any Platonic sense but just in a cognitive sense. all i really was referring to was the idea that if a language doesn’t have a word for the color green, its speakers could never learn what we meant by the word “green.” i and a lot of people think that’s false. some people think it’s true. that’s all. again, not my expertise. :]
Brian–i originally wrote this post really quickly, and for the benefit of the few regular readers i know. i don’t mind at all that more people are reading, but it means, i realize, that i’m going to have to qualify my statements a lot more. in short–yes, i guess i’m taking the liberty of speaking for linguists; but no, i don’t really want to say that no sentence can ever be ungrammatical. there’s more to it than that, and i’ll try to write a followup soon if anyone’s interested.
Cool. I guess this makes me a linguist. :)
Ha! Carissa has been hit by the 22 Words curse!
Abraham cross posts your post in some clever, clipped fashion and you have to write three PhD dissertations in defense!
Maybe it will become a verb. You’ve been 22 Word-ed.