What is a linguist?

What is a linguist? Why do I call this blog The Linguist on Language? Why did I call my book The Way of the Linguist?

Every so often someone comments on my blog about that fact that I am not a linguist, since I have not studied linguistics. I do not know all the terms used in linguistics, and they are many. For $120 dollars you can buy a book which  "Explains all of the terms which students of linguistics and English language are likely to encounter during their undergraduate study."

So let me be clear. I have read a few books and articles about linguistics. I am not interested. I do not find the hair-splitting and categorization of the phenomena of language that takes place in linguistics to be interesting, nor do I find that it helps me to understand anything about language. It certainly does not help me learn languages.

So why do I call the blog The Linguist on Language? Why did I call my book The Way of the Linguist?

Because I use the term "linguist"  in the sense of the first definition provided by the Oxford dictionary. I believe we are all potential linguists.

linguist

The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English | 2009

lin·guist / ˈlinggwist/ • n. 1. a person skilled in foreign languages. 2. a person who studies linguistics.

Comments

[Keith]

The U.S. Army also uses the term linguist for someone proficient in a foreign language.

[chris/blindside70]

Is it only me that sees the irony here?

Shouldn't somebody interested in linguistics know that English is a living language which means that words and ideas of words can change or even take on traditionalist meanings?

I'm mean English isn't Latin, it isn't a dead language. A 'linguist' can't decide what a word means any more than a astronomer can decide on the orbit the moon takes.

This is also related to my thoughts that
"ain't IS a word"

[Igor]

"Linguistics is the scientific[1][2] study of natural language.[3][4] Linguistics encompasses a number of sub-fields. An important topical division is between the study of language structure (grammar) and the study of meaning (semantics). Grammar encompasses morphology (the formation and composition of words), syntax (the rules that determine how words combine into phrases and sentences) and phonology (the study of sound systems and abstract sound units). Phonetics is a related branch of linguistics concerned with the actual properties of speech sounds (phones), non-speech sounds, and how they are produced and perceived. Other sub-disciplines of linguistics include the following: evolutionary linguistics, which considers the origins of language; historical linguistics, which explores language change; sociolinguistics, which looks at the relation between linguistic variation and social structures; psycholinguistics, which explores the representation and functioning of language in the mind; neurolinguistics, which looks at the representation of language in the brain; language acquisition, which considers how children acquire their first language and how children and adults acquire and learn their second and subsequent languages; and discourse analysis, which is concerned with the structure of texts and conversations, and pragmatics with how meaning is transmitted based on a combination of linguistic competence, non-linguistic knowledge, and the context of the speech act."

"Within the field, linguist is used to describe someone who either studies the field or uses linguistic methodologies to study groups of languages or particular languages. Outside the field, this term is commonly used to refer to people who speak many languages or have a great vocabulary."

[Igor]

"So let me be clear. I have read a few books and articles about linguistics. I am not interested."

You are oversimplifying the things here.
Linguistics is a huge field: Applied linguistics, Biolinguistics, Clinical linguistics, Computational linguistics, Developmental linguistics, Evolutionary linguistics, Historical linguistics or diachronic linguistics, Language geography, Linguistic typology, Neurolinguistics, Psycholinguistics, Sociolinguistics, Stylistics...

You're not interested in what?

It's obvious that you're interested in Applied linguistics (the study of language-related issues applied in everyday life, notably language policies, planning, and education), otherwise this blog would have not existed.

[Alex Case]

My first thought was exactly what Igor said, plus Second Language Acquisition. You are also happy to look at theory when it interests you, e.g. recentish pieces on Krashen. There are plenty of very readable and non hair splitting books on SLA and Applied Linguistics, plus of course popular science books on language (Pinker etc). I must say that for me posts where you bring your personal experience to bear on more theoretical stuff like that are by far the most interesting.

[americanoarrabiato]

Steve,
Looks like you've stepped on the toes on some people who've spent a lot of money studying a pseudo-science (diachronic linguistics, indeed!).

Put your suit of armor on, the academics are coming after you!

[Igor]

the academics, the Orks, the Morgoth, Sauron and Saruman, the Klingons and Cardasians! :o)

[Meathead Jones]

There is absolutely no problem with Steve's use of the word 'linguist'. However, I think he is actually MORE than that; I would tend to call him a 'polyglot'.

The only slight issue that I have with this blog is the toon on the banner at the top, depicting Steve as a Mountie in full uniform. (Every time I see this it reminds me of a very cheesy 1970s soft porn film that I saw during my adolescence...)

[Spanish in Valencia]

Nice explanation given by you on the usage of the word linguist.

[Ethan Poole]

I am a linguistics student and, americanoarrabiato, it is not a pseudo-science. It is a very young field with ideas and theories rapidly changing, but a true field nonetheless.

That said, Steve, I find your use of the word appropriate. Even though you haven't studied linguistics in a formal setting and you don't like the theoretical side (syntax, morphology, etc.), you still are a linguist. You have expressed interest and good insight into how we learn languages, which is a huge field in linguistics! I've found many of your blog posts more practical and sensible than most of my textbooks.

Furthermore, the idea that a "linguist" is someone that is good with languages is how most people use the word. Everyone I've encountered outside of the linguistic field uses the word as such.

[americanoarrabiato]

Ethan,
Linguistics is a politically-charged pseudo-science, on par with astrology (whose ideas are also "rapidly changing). As far as language learning goes, it is irrelevant. Steve and most other serious language learners have gotten along just fine without it, and will continue to do so.

I mean no disrespect--it's your money. Your linguistics degree, however, will not get you very far in the real world.

[Igor]

americanoarrabiato, what the hell are you talking about?
Forget about disrespect or respect, just what are you talking about??? Are you aware?

[Igor]

Am I in the Twilight Zone or something??!
Anybody?
Help?

[Steve Kaufmann]

Can someone explain the relevance of linguistics to language learning? If it is, as I suspect, not useful for language learning, what use it is?

[Igor]

What use?
Practical! Very practical.

Input, extensive reading, intensive reading, listening, making Lingqs, memorizing...

Remember?

[Igor]

If we reason that way, then what is the use of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Maths?
We could survive even without them!

[Igor]

...ridicule them and call them pseudo-science.

[Chris]

I'm inclined to agree with Igor here. Linguistics is a separate discipline from foreign language learning, as I learned when I took a semester of it in Uni a couple of years ago. I don't know why it's considered an Arts subject; it's more on the level of philosophy or mathematics for the most part.

I find some areas of linguistics interesting, as they give you insight into how your own language functions (which is generally what linguistics focuses on; the study of English, which reference to other languages to illustrate and highlight differences and the like).

An example of this was drawing syntax trees, where we would be given an ambiguous, doppeldeutig sentence - "the man saw the child with the binoculars", say - and then demonstrate how the structure of English sentences can be such that this simple sentence can mean two different things. And so on.

I agree with Steve that this stuff is useless for learning a language, but then really, it has never been intended to. At least the broad, common disciplines like syntax (sentence structure), semantics (meaning of words), phonetics (study of speech sounds) and phonology (study of the set of sounds of a particular language) are relevant only to someone who ALREADY knows the language. To an ESL student, the study of English semantics in a typical English-speaking linguistics class is of limited use. To a native English speaker, maybe quite insightful.

So that's my long-winded response. Without linguistics, I wouldn't know that the Chinese languages are unrelated to Thai or Vietnamese. Without it, we wouldn't know how and why the Indo-European languages share a common heritage, but the Finno-Ugric languages don't. It's a science, and for the most part a perfectly valid one. To accuse it of being of little to no relevance to someone interested in learning to speak, read, write and comprehend a foreign language in the most practical sense, one might just as well accuse physics 0r biology of the same thing.

[Steve Kaufmann]

I agree with you Chris, that the study of languages and language groups, and which languages are connected, and how languages evolved and continue to evolve etc..a are all of great interest to me.

Where I have a problem is with the terminology used to describe every minute phenomenon of language, real and artificial, with terms like interlanguage, fossilization, and I do not know what, much of which slops over into the pedagogy of language teaching, with the result that it is often quite remote from the task of learning a language.

[Igor]

Here is a simple example of the practical use of the linguistics theory, it is a "learning program orientation":

"Orientation

One component of EFL needs to be orientation, a brief explanation of language acquisition theory. As noted earlier, our goal is to develop independent, or autonomous acquirers. Knowing how language is acquired will help ensure that this will occur. It is also important to tell students something about the philosophy underlying our practice because the approach outlined here is radically different from traditional approaches; we need to justify our pedagogy to students and in some cases to their parents.

Orientation can be done in the primary language fairly early in the EFL student’s language career and can be covered in more detail at advanced levels in English. S.Y. Lee (1998) included an introduction to language acquisition in an English course at the university level, with excellent results."

Applying the Comprehension Hypothesis: Some Suggestions

Your book "The Way of the Linguist: A Language Learning Odyssey" is a kind of orientation for Lingq, isn't it?

And of course it doesn't have to be written in linguistics terms and those that cannot be replaced are usually easy to understand.

[americanoarrabiato]

Igor and Chris: Linguistics is not only a pseudo-science, its a politically charged one. Since the early 1960's, it has become nothing more than a forum for Chomskyites and other academic radicals to imbue their left wing hatreds on the minds of their impressionable students. To put it on par with math or physics shows a great naivete.

The orientation drivel you posted just illustrates the point. Take this from your post: "we need to justify our pedagogy to students and in some cases to their parents"
Really? Does the university science and math instructors also need to "justify their pedagogy?" It's bunk, guys. No practical application. Zero.

[Steve Kaufmann]

I am with you arraabiato. I am particularly not impressed with Chomsky's idea of a universal grammar. I think that our brains are good at recognizing patterns, any patterns, and that language learning is just an example of that.

I have never figured out why someone like Pinker is so popular. I find his books uninteresting to say the least.Ditto for David Crystal.

[Igor]

americanoarrabiato,
simply too little of you to justify such a strong claim.

[americanoarrabiato]

Igor, is that an ad hominem attack? That too, is a typical Chomskyite tactic. No dissenting opinion allowed. The case, it appears, is closed.

[Igor]

americanoarrabiato,
Chomsky? Who cares about him. I hate too write one thing and than

[Ethan Poole]

americanoarrabiato,

If you're really going to try and assert linguistics is a forum for Chomsky's political ideas, I don't really see a point in arguing. Sure, he has had a huge influence on linguistics, but I disagree it's a political movement or politically charged. There are a lot to other schools of linguistics. Chomsky also hasn't had much influence outside of syntactical theory.

Steve, I also don't know why Pinker and Crystal are so popular. Their books are rather unimpressive and uninteresting. I did like Crystal's book about language endangerment though.

[Igor]

What? My text fell apart. :(

What is really strange about this man/woman "americanoarrabiato" (no ho nessun idea se lui/lei e arrabiato a qualcuno altro o simplicemente a lui/lei stesso) is that he/she is acting like his/her idea of linguistics as a pseudo-science is a wide accepted fact and the rest of us have to prove the opposite so consequently when I asked for at least some explanation for his/her I will repeat "strong" claims of "pseudo-science" he/she has accused me for "an ad hominem attack". What planet are you from? If somebody claims that the humans have four legs instead of two it it quite natural for somebody to ask him if he can explain that! And I don't even want to start about his/her narrow understanding of the word linguistics.