In Defence of Language Study: What is Linguistics?

 A little blurb on Linguistics for those of you wondering what on earth it is that I study...

Most people who have heard of Linguistics before know that it has something to do with languages. But beyond that, the general understanding of the subject becomes somewhat murky. As a relatively "new" and somewhat specialised subject, there is a lot of confusion around what it is all about and what linguists are actually interested in. The purpose of this post is to share a rough outline of what Linguistics is really about, at least in the understanding I have developed after studying it for the last five years.

What is Linguistics:

Traditionally we refer to it as "the science of language" but that is a slightly confusing and not very enlightening description. It is a science, but not a "hard science", and therefore belongs to the Humanities or Arts. Some might prefer to call it a Human Science, or even a Social Science, but not even these boxes are quite where it fits. It draws inspiration from a range of fields including: language teaching, literature studies, the classics, maths, the social sciences, anthropology, psychology, philosophy, geography, computer science, neuroscience, anatomy, medicine, acoustics, biology, genetics...the list could go on. In a way, it is one of the truly multi-disciplinary subjects. And yet it requires its own specialisation and jargon.

What Linguistics is not:

There are two common misconceptions regarding what Linguistics is about. Firstly, Linguistics is not about learning lots of languages. It is not about learning any languages. It is about understanding the phenomenon that is Language. A linguist does not need to be fluent in many languages. A person who is so would more appropriately be referred to as a Language Scholar, Language Expert or a Polyglot. Some linguists are polyglots. Some polyglots are linguists. The two are neither mutually exclusive nor mutually inclusive. Knowing many languages - especially different kinds of languages - will naturally contribute to understanding more about Language. But it is not a pre-requisite. If you are, like me, not a natural polyglot (you don't pick up languages easily or naturally) you can still do well in linguistics. Of course, as linguists, we deal with many different languages in trying to grapple with the phenomenon of Language. And to be a good linguist, it helps if you have had lessons in different languages and know things about the rules of their grammar. But learning about a language and its rules is not the same as being fluent in that language. And while fluency in many languages is preferable, it's not necessary. 

The second misconception is that Linguistics is about "rules of grammar" - grammatical and linguistic "correctness". Most linguists are not "grammar police". Our job is not to go around telling people how to speak and why they are speaking wrong. It is not to bemoan the decline in grammatical/language aptitude of our current generation, to preserve the perfection that is a language and to go around correcting and teaching those that can't speak properly. And even if we were interested in that, it is most definitely not about neat writing, correct spelling and punctuation. Writing, spelling and punctuation (in particular) are not Language. They are a means of expressing language but are largely human constructs. There are, of course, reasons why uniformity in these areas is important and useful to society (especially for clarity of expression and avoiding misunderstandings) but that is not the interest of the linguist.

The linguist is interested primarily in Language. That is our concern. What is Language and how does it work? That probably sums up the best what Linguistics is about.

Linguistics is the study of how language works

If we take the statement above as our starting point, all the sub-fields that make up the science of Linguistics fall nicely into place. Linguistics needs to be thought of as a super-discipline: an over-arching term that covers a whole range of sub-fields, some of which are and operate very differently from each other. In the same way the (hard) sciences may be divided up into chemistry, physics, mathematics, biology etc. so does Linguistics have many sub-fields. Unlike experts in the hard sciences, linguists are generally expected to have expertise in a few different (even seemingly unrelated) sub-fields of Linguistics. In part this is because it is still a relatively new discipline (in its current form, that is) and hasn't reached the level of specialisation some of the hard sciences have, and in part because the various disciplines, though different and able to be treated in isolation, do in fact influence each other.

So what are these sub-disciplines? Well they all address the question of how the phenomenon that is language works. But they do so in different ways.  

Sociolinguistics looks at how language works in society. It addresses issues such as dialect variation, identity, and bilingualism within communities, at the level of small social groups and at national level. It examines the role and interaction of different languages within a society and how power-relations are played out through those languages.

Psycholinguistics looks at how language works in the human mind. How are individual languages acquired and learnt by children and adults? How are mental thoughts converted into spoken language and how is spoken language understood and de-constructed back into mental thoughts by those who hear or read it? The related field of Neurolinguistics looks at how language is physically processed by the brain. Which parts of the brain are responsible for processing language, what kinds of language formations are more difficult for the brain to process and why, and how are brain defects related to language defects?

Historical Linguistics looks at how languages are related to one another. What "genetic" connections are there between the different languages of the world and how and why do languages change over time (why do dialects, and eventually different languages, develop)? It looks at trying to understand, through reconstruction, rules of sound and grammatical change within the history of language groups.

Then there is a group of sub-fields within linguistics that may be grouped together under the heading Formal Linguistics. These fields look at how Language works internally by analysing the different building blocks that make up Language. These sub-fields, in particular, can use very formal methods derived from mathematics and logic. Phonetics and Phonology look at the underlying sounds used by humans to string together words and sentences. They examine particular rules that govern how these sounds are combined to derive different meanings. Semantics and Pragmatics look at the meaning behind individual words, how these words are combined to convey larger amounts of information, and how meaning is related and conveyed by different contexts. Morphology looks at how individual words are formed in different languages and made more precise by combining root meanings with semantically meaningful or grammatical forms like prefixes and suffixes. Syntax examines sentence structure and the way words of different types (nouns, verbs, adjectives, function words etc.) are combined according to particular rules in different languages to convey meaning.

The last two fields make up what you may more generally know as "grammar". But again, what we are interested in as linguists is not whether grammar is used "correctly" or not, so much as what the "natural" rules underlying the grammars of different languages are, why they work like that and why there are differences in different languages.

I've tried to keep this description simple, but it is hard to convey accurately what Linguistics is about without getting into technical terms. This, in a nutshell, sums up the basic ideas behind Linguistics and the focus of the different sub-fields. It is not an exhaustive description, and perhaps not even fully accurate. But the idea was to convey the gist of it.

Many of these fields are still in early stages of development and there is a lot of contention and debate within each field. Although language is something every human being is familiar with, it is also abstract and intangible; especially when one is trying to work out how language works in the mind or how the internal structure of a language is built up. No one can physically see or measure these things and so we are working with many theories and conjectures. Like with other sciences that deal with the intangible, it means there are disputes. But we are not simply grasping at straws. We use scientific methods to test our theories and have some evidence for their correctness. But we still have a long way to go.

And that, in part, is why I study Linguistics. There is still so much to learn about how language works. This amazing ability which we use almost every day of our lives and which almost every linguist will tell you is unique to humans is so very little understood. In the same way a biologist studies a life form to try and learn better what beautiful creatures exist in our world and what makes up this complex thing called life; in the same way an astronomer studies cosmic phenomena to better understand what is out there in the universe, and perhaps through that seeks for understanding in how our universe is made up; so the linguist wishes to study this beautiful and complex ability called Language.

Not all linguistics would feel the same, but for me, as a Christian who believes language was created and built into our genetic make-up by God, as a means of communicating with one another and hence enriching our lives, I can think of few better things to do than study this amazing ability with which he has blessed us. And in understanding these things, to gain a better appreciation for the great God whose imagination and power brought such a great phenomenon to be.

So that is what Linguistics is all about and why I study it. I hope it has shed some light on what I spend my time doing. I plan a follow-up post looking into more detail about why Linguistics is important to me, the Descriptive versus Prescriptive debate (which relates to the issue of grammatical correctness) and what that means to me as a Christian.

The term is over!

Quite literally this time round. After four and a half years of studying at the same University, yesterday closed that chapter of my life.

As I left the exam hall yesterday evening, it occurred to me that the next exam I write will be in Oxford. Oxford! The idea still brings chills (both figurative and literal ;-)). I've referred in previous posts to going to Oxford as as a dream, but the dream is fast becoming a reality. I have four months to get everything ready. The thought of packing is especially scary. How do I decide what to take and what to leave behind? Do I buy stuff here and take it over, or wait and buy stuff there? So many questions, so much to do, but I am excited, and nervous and petrified O.O and impatient (all at the same time).

I'll never forget UKZN, even if I am in that beautiful place called Oxford. I'll miss my musty office, the winding passages of MTB, the clinical rooms of Shepstone, the freezing Classics museum, and most of all the beloved Library. That library was my second home and place of refuge for the first two years (before I had my own office), the views of the harbour and city were my constant companions (and what beautiful views they were). And the books in that Library. One of the first and most exciting things I discovered there was a three-volume complete set of The History of Middle Earth. After years of searching for the various volumes - there they were just sitting on the shelves. As I advanced in my studies I lost count of the number of books I borrowed. Even if they were (my lesser preference) non-fiction books, they contained treasure troves of Classical and Linguistic information. Some of those books (like the Loeb transtlations) hadn't been taken out in 30 years. Some weren't on the electronic system - but they were precious, and I always felt a thrill, leaving that Library with another treasured book (or pile of books) in my hands.

Then there's my lecturers, classmates, colleagues, students and friends. I'll miss them the most, but that's for another post on another day.

That stage of my life is over, and a new one awaits. New (and probably older) hallways, new libraries, new colleagues and friends. A new chapter is starting, even better than the one before, and I can't wait to live it...

Dear Lord, I praise you for the life you have given me and the adventures I have faced. Please keep me strong as a prepare for the next adventure. Be my guide and my light, and keep me safe by your side as I venture into the unknown. Never let me slip out of your hands, for you are my strength and salvation.

Latin Background Summaries

So you've probably noticed (anyone that actually reads this) that my recent posts have all been work-related. Well, that's 'cause it's exam time, and all my focus is on studying. Only one more week - I promise. This is also to do with my Latin exam, but may be slightly more interesting than confusing summaries that only really make sense if you already know the grammar (in which case, you really don't need them ;-p)

What I'm writing now, are summaries on Roman Background readings. When you learn a new language, it's useful to know something about the culture that speaks the language. This is true for ancient as well as modern languages. And thankfully, we know a fair amount about Roman culture, even though it no longer exists in this form.

The following are summary points taken from passages in the textbook we used: The Oxford Latin Course: Part III, (ed. Balme, M & Morwood, J - 2nd edition)

Brutus & Cassius (37)

• Brutus & Cassius fled from Rome almost immediately after Caesar's death
• They claimed to have acted in the name of freedom from dicatatorship, but meant power would be restored to the aristocracy
• History depicts Cassius unfavourably, Shakespeare shows two sides to him: he is "sincere in his hatred of tyranny"
• Brutus is more likeable - drawn unwillingly into the plot, he is a geniune philosopher as well as a soldier. He roused up the young students of Athens to join his cause.
• Brutus was also a writer, writing a book on virtus

Octavian returns to Italy (38)

• The moment Octavius heard of Caesar's death, he rushed back to Italy
• As Caesars' heir, he began to promote himself and changed his name to C. Julius Caesar Octavianus.
• He quickly aroused the jealousy of Antony, who saw him a young upstart.
• The senate tried to use him to destroy Antony. After he succeeded, they tried to brush him aside.
• The 19 year-old would have none of this. He demanded and won the consulship, for which the minimum age had been 43.
• In 42 BC, with Octavian taken ill, Antony won the battle of Phillipi
• While Ant. established peace in the East, Oct. began to find land for the veterans by confiscating the farms of farmers who had not supported him
• Tension between Ant and Oct grew as Ant's wife and brother supported the farmers
• Civil War was imminent on Ant's return to Italy, but they managed to effect a truce.

The Confisctions (39)

• The confiscations were devastating for the Romans. Horace's family, and perhaps even Vergil, suffered lost their farms
• Vergil describes the sense of loss in two poems: They speak of how the dispossessed feel, either having to work as servants of the new landowners, or having been forced to find a new home

But the rest of us must go from here and be dispersed - 
To Scythia, bone-dry Africa, the chalky spate of the Oxus,
Even to Britain - that place at the very world's end.

• Despite Ocavian's ruthlessness during this time, ten years later he would be it's patron
• Now he improved roads, reduced crime and encouraged poets who were some of country-folk whose farms he'd siezed

Cleopatra (48)

• Came to the throne of Egypt as joint-hier with her brother on their father's death
• Was exiled by her brother, but restored with Caesar's help
• She had a son by Caesar, Caesarion. The mother and child lived in a villa in Rome till Caesar's death. They then returned to Egypt
• 3 years later she first met
• Antony as he was establishing matters in the East
• They had twins and perhaps a third child before he left her to make peace with Octavian
• Four years later, Ant returned to the East, leaving his wife Octavia and publicly declaring himself Cleopatra's husband
• Octavian was able to use this as fuel against Ant and Cleopatra against whom he and the senate declared war

(This story is obviously more complex, but the rest of it is in the Latin part of the book and is not necessary for this summary)

Caesar Augustus (49)

• Rome, it seems, had had enough of Civil War. Tired of the instability, the people welcomed Octavian as their hero and saviour.
• They awarded him the name Augustus ("worthy of honour and reverence")
• Poets such as Vergil and Horace praised him, Vergil even linking him to the family of his hero Aeneas (prince of Troy and founder of the precursor to Rome)
• Many celebrated him as the peace-maker. The Gates of War, in Janus' temple were shut for the first time in years and an "Altar of Peace" set up near the Tiber.
• By taking the name princeps and not rex, Augustus transformed the Republic to an Empire, but most of the people did not seem to mind.

Umndeni Wami

Okay, I admit that this is random. But just for fun, I thought I'd post my isiZulu oral that I'm doing in class tomorrow. It's very simple ('cause I've only done one semester of the language) and basically tells of my family, my dad's 60th birthday party, my sister and I squabbling over a hair brush and the family holiday we are going on next week. We had to use certain grammatical forms (including direct commands, hence the squabble, the recent past and future tense, and non-verbal predicates).

Umndeni Wami

NginguAjnos. Ngingumfundi. Nginomndeni omuhle kakulu. Nginomama nobaba nomfowethu nodadewethu. Anginabo omkhulu. Umama ungutisha futhi ubaba uyi-Urban Designer. Umfowethu igama lakhe nguTenebrous, futhi udadewethu igama lakhe nguArwen. UTeneb uyafunda i-IT kodwa uArwen usesikoleni. Sinezinja izimbili. Amagama lazo nguJuliet noJasmine. Ziyabukeka. Abazali bayazona izinja. Zithanda ukulala embhedeni. Azithandi ukudlala phandle.

NgoMgqibelo ubaba wenze iphathi. Uneminyaka engu60. Asiyibukanga i-rugby. Abantu abaningi beze ephathini. Sidle uboeboetie nobreyani namameatballs.

Udadewethu uyahlupha kancane. Uyantshontsha ibhulashi lezinwele zami.

NgoMqibelo ekuseni uthe “Ajnos, mawungiboleka ibhulashi.”
Ngithe, “Cha, liphi ibhulashi lakho?”
UArwen uthe, “Angazi. Angikwazi ukulithola”
Ngithe, “Cha, uzolahla ibhulashi lami futhi.”

Ntambama ibhulashi lisegunjini lami lokulala. Udadewthu ulintshonshile.

Ngimemeze, “Arwen, mus' ukuntshonsha ibhulashi. Libuyise!”
Uthe, “Mus' ukungikhuza!” Ubalekile.

Kodwa ngithanda udadewethu. Ngithanda umndeni wonke. Ngesonto elizayo sizohamba eholidini. Sizohamba eDrakensburg. Asizuhamiba sodwa. O-anti nomalume bazohamba futhi. Sizohamba ngezimoto. Sizohlala impelasonto yonke.

When a dream dies

"Living in the aftermath" was written during a time of grave dissapointment. "Seed's, death and fruit" was the expression when (against all hope) that disappointment was removed. For both posts to really make sense, you need to have read the following. Also, you probably need to know me and a bit about my circumstances. Because the first post on my blog, doesn't really make sense in the absense of this, I now present a link to the piece to which it was really the sequel:
When a dream dies