1

LANGUAGE A Preview
The gift of language i the single human trait s that marks us al1 genetically, setting us apart from the rest of life.
Lewis Thomas, The Lives o a Cell f

anguage is many things-a system of communication, a medium for thought, a vehicle for literary expression, a social institution, a matter for political controversy, a factor in nation building. AU normal human beings speak at least one language, and it is hard to imagine much significant social or intellectual activity taking place in its absence. Each of us, then, has a stake in understanding how language is organized and how it is used. This book provides a basic introduction td linguistics, the discipline that studies these matters.

1.1 CREATIVITY
What is human language? What does it mean to "know" a language? To answer these questions, it is first necessary to understand the resources that a language makes available to its native speakers, those who have acquired it as children in a natural setting. The scope and diversity of human thought and experience place great demands on language. Because communication is not restricted to a fixed set of topics, language must do something more than provide a package of ready-made messages. It must enable us to produce and understand new words, phrases, and sentences as the need arises. In short, human language must be creative-allowing novelty and innovation in response to new experiences, situations, and thoughts. Underlying the creative aspect of language is an intricate mental system that defines the boundaries within which innovation can take place. The operation of this system can be illustrated by a relatively simple phenomenon in English: the process that creates verbs (roughly, words naming actions) from nouns (roughly, words naming things). As the following sentences show, there is a great deal of freedom to innovate in the formation of such verbs.
1. a ) He wristed the ball over the net.

+ ,

C)

b) She would try to sttff-upper-lip it through. c ) She Houdini'd her way out of the locked closet.
However, there are also constraints on this freedom. For instance, a new verb is rarely coined if a word with the intended meaning already exists. Although

CHAPTER ONE
Table 11 Nouns used as verbs .

Noun use leave the boat on the beach keep the airplane on the ground crush the aspirin into powder stab the man with a knge catch the fish with a spear make the child an orphan

Verb use beach the boat ground the airplane powder the aspirin knife the man spear the fish orphan the child

we may say carton the eggs to mean 'put the eggs in the carton', we do not say hospital the patient to mean 'put the patient in the hospital'. This is presumably because the well-established verb hospitalize already has the meaning that the new form would have. There are also narrow constraints on the meaning and use of particular subclasses of these verbs. One such constraint involves verbs that are created from time expressions such as summer and holiday. 2. a) b) c) d) Julia summered in Paris. Kent wintered in Mexico. Martine holidayed in France. They honeymooned in Hawaii.

While the sentences in 2 are all acceptable, not al1 time expressions can be used in this way. (Throughout this book an asterisk is used to indicate that a sentence is unacceptable.)
3. a ) *Jerome midnighted in the streets. b) *Andrea nooned at the restaurant. c ) *Philip one o'clocked at the airport.

These examples show that when a verb is created from a time expression, it must be given a very specific interpretation-roughly paraphrasable as 'to be somewhere for the period of time X'. Thus, to summer in Paris is 'to be in Paris for the summer,' to holiday in Fmnce is 'to be in France for the holidays', and so on. Since noon and midnight express points in time rather than periods of time, they cannot be used to create verbs of this new class. 2 ) Constraints are essential to the viability of the creative process. If ; well-established words were constantly being replaced by new creations, the vocabulary of English would be so unstable that communication could be jeopardized. A similar danger would arise if there were no constraints on the 3 meaning of new words. If winter in Hawaii could mean 'make it snow in Hawaii' or 'wish it were winter in Hawaii' or any other arbitrary thing, the production and interpretation of new forms would be chaotic and would subvert rather than enrich communication. This rule-governed creativity characterizes al1 levels of language, including the way in which sounds are combined to form words. The forms in 4, for instante, are recognizable as possible names for new products or inventions.
4. a ) prasp b ) flib c ) traf

LANGUAGE
Suck forms contrast with the patterns in 5, which simply do not have the "sound" of English words.

5. a ) psarp b ) bfli C ) ftra

The contrast shows that our subconscious knowledge of English includes a set of constraints on possible sequences of sounds. Stiil other constraints determine how new words can be created from already existing forms with the help of special endings. Imagine, for example, that you learn that there is a word soleme (used perhaps for a newly discovered atomic particle). As a speaker of English, you then automatically know that something with the properties of a soleme can be called solemic. You also know that to make something solemic is to solemicize it, and you cal1 this process solemicization. Further, you know that the c is pronounced as s in solemicize but as k in solemic. Without hesitation, you also recognize that solemicize is pronounced with the stress on the second syliable. (You would say soLEmicize, not SOlemicize or solemiCIZE.) Nowhere is the ability to deal with novel utterances in accordance with rules more obvious than in the production and comprehension of sentences. Apart from a few f i e d expressions and greetings, much of what you say, hear, and read in the course of a day consists of sentences that are novel to you. In conversations, lectures, newscasts, and textbooks you are regularly exposed to novel combinations of words, the expression of unfamiliar ideas, and the presentation of new information. Such is the case with the sentences you have just read. While each of these sentences is no doubt perfectly comprehensible to you, it is extremely unlikely that you have ever seen any of them before. This ability to deal with novel utterances does not ensure that you can understand or use any imaginable combination of words. You would not ordinarily say a sentence such as 6a, although 6b would be perfectly acceptable.
6. a ) *He brought a chair in order to sit on. b ) He brought a chair to sit on.

Or, to take another example, 7a is weli formed-if

bizarre-but

7b is gibberish.

7. a ) The pink kangaroo hopped over the talking lamp. b ) *Pink the the talking hopped kangaroo lamp over.
As with other aspects of language, your ability to produce and comprehend sentences is subject to limitations.

1.2 GRAMMAR AND LINGUISTIC COMPETENCE

As we have seen, speakers of a language are able to produce and understand an unlimited number of utterances, including many that are novel and unfamiliar. This ability, which is often called linguistic competence, constitutes the central 7 b j e c t matter of linguistics and of this book. In investigating linguistic competence, linguists focus on the mental system that allows human beings to form and interpret the words and sentences

CHAPTER ONE

of their language. This system is called a grammar. For the purposes of this book, we will divide the grammar into the'following components.

Table 1.2 The comDonents of a nrammar Component Responsibility Phonetics the articulation and perception of speech sounds Phonology the patterning of speech sounds Morphology word forrnation Syntax sentence formation the interpretation of words and sentences Semantics
Linguists use the term grammar in a rather special and technical way. Because this usage may be unfamiliar, we will devote some time to considering several properties of the system that linguists cal1 a grammar.

Generality: Al1 Langua Have a Grammar

lgeS

----

One of the most fundamental claims of modern linguistic analysis is that ali languages have a gramrnar. This can be verified by considering a few simple facts. Since al1 languages are spoken, they must have phonetic and phonological systems; since they al1 have words and sentences, they also must have a morphology and a syntax; and since these words and sentences have systematic meanings, there obviously must be semantic principles as well. As these are the very things that make up a grammar, it follows that all human languages have this type of system. f t i s f l 0 ~ u r i u s u S T o ~ ~ rSmGkthatTome language-Acadian French, tke Navaho, or Chinese-"has no grammar." (This is especially common in the case of languages that are not written or have not yet been analyzed by Western scholars.) Unfamiliar languages sometimes appear to an untrained observer to have no grammar simply because their grammatical systems are different from those of better-known languages. In Walbiri (an aboriginal language of Australia), for example, the relative ordering of words is so free that the English sentence The two dogs now see seveml kangaroos could be translated by the equivalent of any of the following sentences.
- - - - - - - - - -

8. a) Dogs two now see kangaroos sweral. b) See now dogs two kangaroos several. c ) See now kangaroos severa1 dogs two. d) Kangaroos several now dogs two see. e) Kangaroos severa1 now see dogs two.

Whereas Walbiri may not restrict the order of words in the way English does, its grammar imposes other types of requirements. For example, in the sentence types we are considering, Walbiri speakers must place the ending lu on the word for 'dogs' to indicate that it names the animals that do the seeing rather than the animals that are seen. In English, by contrast, this information is conveyed by placing two dogs in front of the verb and seveml kangaroos after it. Rather than showing that Walbiri has no grammar, such differences simply demonstrate that it has a grammar unlike that of English in certain respects. This important point is applicable to al1 differences among languages: aithough no two languages have exactly the same grammar, there are no languages without a grammar.

A similar point can be made about different varieties of the same language. As you are probably already aware, English is the language of many different com-munities around the world. The particular variety of English found within each of these communities has its own characteristic pronunciation, vocabulary, and sentence patterns. This is just another way of saying that each variety of English has its own grammar. Just as it is impossible to have a language without a grammar, so no variety of language could exist if it did not have a grammar.

Equality: Al1 Grammars Are Equal

Whenever there is more than one variety of a particular language, questions arise as to whether one is somehow better or more correct than another. From the point of view of modern iinguistics, it makes no more sense to say that one variety of English is better than another than it does to say that the grammar of English is better (or worse) than the grammar of Thai. Al languages and al1 varieties of a particular language have grammars l that enable their speakers to express any proposition that the human mind can<produce. In terms of this aii-important criterion, then, al1 varieties of language are absolutely equal as instruments of communication and thought. The goal of contemporary linguistic analysis is not to rank languages on some imaginary 'scale of superiority. Rather, linguists seek to understand the nature of the gramrnatical systems that allow people to speak and understand a language. This same point is sometimes made by noting that linguistics is descnptive, not prescnptive. This means that linguists seek to describe human linguistic ability and knowledge, not to prescribe one system in preference to another. A parallel point of view is adopted in other scientific disciplines as well. The first concern of al1 scientists is to describe and explain the facts that they observe, not to change them. Even though it rejects prescriptivism, modern linguistic analysis does not deny the importance of clear expression in writing and speech. Such skills are quite rightly an object of concern among educators. However, the difficulties that arise in these areas typically result from the inconsistent or careless use of one's linguistic knowledge, not from any inherent flaw in the grammar itself. 1 Linguists also acknowledge that certain patterns ( seen that, They was there, He didn't do nothing, He ain't here) may be restricted to particular socioeconomic groups within the Engiish-speaking community. As discussed in more detail in chapter 12, the use of these patterns may therefore have negative social consequences: it may be harder to win a scholarship, to get a job, to be accepted in certain circles, and so forth. From a purely linguistic point of view, however, there is absolutely nothing wrong with grammars that permit such structures. Like grammars for other variants of English (and other languages), they permit their users to express and understand the same unlimited range of thoughts and ideas. It is a well-established fact that the grammars of al1 languages are constantly changing. Some of these changes are relatively minor and occur very quickly (for example, the addition of new words such as glasnost, yuppie, fax, cursor, and attrit to the vocabulary of English). Other changes have a more dramatic effect on the overall form of the language and typically take place over a long

Changeability: Grammars Change over Time

CHAPTER ONE

period of time. The formation of negative structures in English has undergone this type of change. Prior to 1200, English formed negative constructions by placing ne before the verb and a variant of not after it.
9. a ) Ic ne seye not. ('1 don't say.') b) He ne speketh nawt. ('He does not speak.')

By 1400 or thereabouts, ne was used infrequently and not (or nawt) typically occurred by itself after the verb.
10. a ) 1 seye not the wordes.

b) We saw nawt the knyghtes. It was not until severa1 centuries later that English developed its current practice of allowing not to occur after only certain types of verbs (such as do, have, will, and so on).
11. a ) 1 will not say the words. (versus *I will say not the words.)

b) He did not see the knights. (versus *He saw not the knights.) These modifications illustrate the extent to which grammars can change over time. The structures exemplified in 10 are archaic by today's standards and those in 9 sound completely foreign to most speakers of modern English. Through the centuries, individuals and organizations who believe that certain varieties of language are better than others have frequently expressed concern over what they perceive to be the deterioration of English. In 1710, for example, the writer Jonathan Swift (author of Gulliver's Travels) lamented "the continua1 Corruption of our English Tongue." Among the corruptions to which Swift objected were contractions such as he's for he is, although he had t no objection to Tis for Z is. In the nineteenth century, Edward S. Gould, a columnist for the New York Evening Post, published a book entitled Good English; or, Popular Errors in Language, in whicb he accused newspaper writers and authors of "sensation novels" of ruining the language by introducing "spurious words" like jeopardize, leniency, and underhanded. To this day, the tradition of prescriptive concern about the use of certain words continues in the work of such popular writers as Edwin Newman and John Simon, who form a kind of self-appointed language police. Linguists reject the view that languages attain a state of perfection at some point in their history and that subsequent changes lead to deterioration and corruption. As noted above, there are simply no grounds for claiming that one system of grammar is somehow superior to another. There is therefore no reason to think that language change can or will undermine the adequacy of English (or any other language) as a medium of communication. There are many differences among languages, as even a superficial examinaUniversality: patterns, vocabularies, and word G r a m m a r s 3 tion of their sound there are no limits on the type of order reveals. But this does not mean that grammars that human Are *like in beings can acquire and use. Quite to the contrary, current research suggests Basic Ways A t h a t there are important grammatical principles and tendencies shared by al1 human languages.

LANOUAGE

One such principle involves the manner in which sentences are negated. With unlirnited variation, one would expect the equivalent of English not to occur in different positions within the sentence in different languages. Thus, we might predict that each of the following possibilities should occur with roughly equal frequency. 12. a ) b) c) d) Not Pat is here. Pat not is here. Pat is not here. Pat is here not.

As it happens, the first and fourth patterns are very rare. In virtually al1 languages, negative elements such as not either immediately precede or immediately follow the verb. The relative ordering of other elements is also subject to constraints. To see this, we need only consider the six logically possible orders for a simple three-word statement such as Canadians like hockey. .

13. a ) b) c) d) e)

Canadians like hockey. Canadians hockey like. Like Canadians hockey. Like hockey Canadians. Hockey like Canadians. f) Hockey Canadians like.

3 Interestingly, more than 95 percent of the world's languages adopt one of the
first three orders for basic statements. Only a handful of languages use any of the last three orders as basic. This once again reflects the existente of constraints and preferences that limit variation among languages. These are not isolated examples. As later chapters will show, some gram~ a t i c a categories and principles are universal. And where there is variation l (as in the case of word order), there is typically a very limited set of options. Contrary to first appearances, then, the set of grammars learned and used by human beings is limited in significant ways. Because the use of language to communicate presupposes a grammar, it fol?Iicitness: ~ O W Sthat aU speakers of a language must have knowledge of its grarnmar. Grammafical However, this knowledge differs from knowledge of arithmetic, traffic safety, KnowledgeIS and other subjects that are taught at home or in school. Unlike these other s u b c o n ~ ~ i o utypes of knowledge, grammatical knowledge is acquired without the help of ins ( struction when one is still a child and it remains largely subconscious throughout life. As an example of this, consider your pronunciation of the past tense ending written as ed in the following words.
14. a) hunted b ) slipped C ) buzzed

Notice that whereas you say id in hunted, you say t in slipped and d in buzzed. Moreover, if you heard the new verb flib, you would form the past tense as flibbed and pronounce the ending as d. Although it is unlikely that you have

CHAPTER ONE

ever been aware of this phenomenon before now, you make these distinctions automatically if you are a native speaker of English. This is because the grammatical subsystem regulating this aspect of speech was acquired when you were a child and now exists subconsciously in your mind. Even more subtle phonological patterning can be found in languaie, as the following contrasts help illustrate.
15. pint

fiend locked wronged next glimpse

*paynk *fiemp *lockf *wrongv *nexk *glimpk

The words in the left-hand column obey an obscure constraint on the selection of consonant sequences in word-final position: when a vowel is long and followed by two consonants @int) or when a vowel is short and followed by three consonant sounds (next, pronounced 'nekst'), the final consonant must always be one made with the tongue tip raised. (The consonants t. d, S, and z are made in this manner, but consonants such as p, v, and k are not.) Words that do not adhere to this phonological constraint (the right-hand column) are unacceptable to speakers of English. Even linguists have to dig deeply to uncover such patterning, but in everyday language use, we routinely make decisions about the acceptability of forms based on subconscious knowledge of such constraints. Consider one final exarnple. Speakers of English know that there are certain structures in which the word he can refer to each member of a group or to a single individual outside that group.
16. Each boy who the woman interviewed thinks that he is a genius.

Sentence 16 can mean either that each boy in the group that the woman interviewed thinks that he himself is a genius or that each boy thinks that a particular person not mentioned in the sentence (say, the teacher) is a genius. However, only one of these interpretations is possible in the foliowing sentence.
17. The woman who each boy interviewed thinks that he is a genius.

In 17, he can refer only to someone not mentioned in the sentence. In contrast with what happens in sentence 16, he cannot refer to each individual in the group designated by the phrase each boy. Since speakers are able to make this contrast, they must have knowledge of the relevant grammatical principie even though they are not consciously aware of it.

Summary

Linguists use the term grammar to refer to a subconscious linguistic system of a particular type. Consisting of several components (phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics), a grammar makes possible the production and comprehension of a potentially unlimited number of utterances. Because no language can exist without a grammar and no one can use a language without knowledge of its grarnrnar, the study of grammatical systems has come to be the focus of contemporary linguistic analysis.

LANGUAGE

' -

As noted above, the grammatical knowledge needed to use and understand language is acquired without the benefit of instruction and is for the most part subconscious. Since we therefore cannot investigate grammar by simply recalling prior training or by self-consultation, the study of human linguistic systems requires considerable effort and ingenuity. As is the case in al1 science, information about facts that can be observed (the pronunciation of words, the interpretation of sentences, and so on) must be used to draw inferences about the sometimes invisible mechanisms (atoms, cells, or grammars, as the case may be) that are ultimately responsible for these phenomena. A good deal of this book is concerned with the findings of this research and with what they te11 us about the nature and use of human language.

1.3 SPECIALIZATION
As far as can be determined, the languages spoken in the world today cannot be traced to a common source. Rather, they seem to belong to a number of distinct families whose histories can be traced back no more than a few thousand years. Archaeological evidence suggests that language existed prior to that time for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, but virtually nothing is known about this period of linguistic prehistory or about how language originated in the first place. There is every reason to believe, though, that humans have a special capacity for language that is not shared by other creatures. The evolutionary adaptation of certain physiologicai mechanisms for linguistic ends has occurred only in humans. The so-called speech organs (the lungs, larynx, tongue, teeth, lips, palate, and nasal passages) did not originally evolve for speech; rather, they were-and still are-directly concerned with ensuring the physicai survival of the organism. But each nonlinguistic use of these organs is paralleled by a linguistic use unique to humans. Table 1.3 compares the linguistic uses of the major speech organs with their primary survival functions in humans and other mammals. In humans, these organs have a become highly specialized for linguistic l ends. The vocal folds, for example, are more muscular and less fatty in humans than in nonhuman primate such as chimpanzees and gorillas. Because of a highly
lsrble 1.3 Dual functions of the s~eech ornans Organ Survival function Speech function Lungs to exchange CO,, to supply air for speech oxygen Vocal folds to create sea1 to produce voice for speech sounds over passage to lungs Tongue to move food to articulate vowels back to throat and consonants Teeth to break up to provide place of articulation for consonants food Lips to sea1 oral cavity to articulate vowels and consonants

CHAPTER ONE

<

developed network of neural pathways, they also respond more precisely to commands from the brain. The same extensive set of neural pathways aliows a high degree of control over other speech organs, such as the tongue, palate, and lips. Such control exceeds anything found in even our closest primate relatives. There are additional indications of the evolution of linguistic vocai~ation. Unlike the breathing of survival respiration, speech breathing shows higher lung pressure and a longer exhalation time than respiration. Abdominal muscles that are not normally employed for respiration are brought into play in a systematic and refined manner in order to maintain the air pressure needed for speech. Again, a specialized, extensive set of neurological controls exclusive to humans makes this type of breathing possible. In other words, the human capacity for speech is superimposed on already existing biological structures. Evolution has produced a refinement both in degree and in kind through a long interplay between the demands of language and the development of the human speech-producing apparatus. We know considerably less about the evolutionary specialization for nonvocal aspects of language such as word formation, sentence formation, and the interpretation of meaning. Nonetheless, it is clear that some sort of evolutionary specialization must have occurred. As we will see in Chapter 9, specific parts of the brain are associated with each of these linguistic activities. Moreover, the brain areas in question have no counterparts in other species. These facts suggest that the human brain is specially structured for language, and that species with different types of brains will not be able to acquire or use the types of grammars associated with human language. After devoting most of this book to the study of grammatical phenomena in human language, we wiii, in Chapter 14, return to the question of whether comparable linguistic systems occur in other species.

Summing Up
Human language is characterized by rule-governed creativity. Speakers of a language possess a grammar, a mental system of elements and rules that allows them to form and interpret familiar and novel utterances. The grammar governs the articulation, perception, and patterning of speech sounds, the formation of words and sentences, and the interpretation of utterances. Contrary to popular belief, ail languages have grammars that are roughly equal in complexity and are acquired subconsciously by their speakers. The existence of such linguistic systems in humans is the product of unique anatomical and cognitive specialization.

Key Erms
creative descriptive grarnmar linguistic competence native speakers phonetics phonology prescriptive semantics syntax

LANGUAGE

Sources
The discussion of word creation is based on an article by Eve Clark and Herb Clark, "When Nouns Surface As Verbs" in Lunguage 55 (1979). The Walbiri data are based on K. Hale's article "Person Marking in Walbiri" in A Fmtschrift for Morris Halle, edited by S. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973). The Gould book is cited in Dennis Baron's Gmmmar and Good Tase (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982). The data on the positioning of negative elements within sentences in human language come from an article by O. Dahl, ''Mology of Sentence Negation" in Linguistics 17:79-106 (1979).

Recommended Reading
Clark, Eve and Herb Clark. 1979. "When Nouns Surface As Verbs." Lunguage 55:767-811. Farb, Peter. 1975. Word Play: What Happens When People Talk. New York: Bantam Books. Matthei, Edward and Thomas Roeper, 1983. Understanding and Producing Speech. Glasgow: Fontana.

Questions
1. We can create verbs from nouns as discussed in section 1.1.
i ) Describe the meanings of the new verbs in the following sentences.

a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k)

We punk-rocked the night away. He dog-teamed his way across the arctic. We MG'd to Oregon. We Concorded to London. He Khaddafi'd the American Embassy. He Gretzky'd his way to the net. We Greyhounded to Toronto. We'll have to Ajax the sink. She Windexed the windows. You should Clairol your hair. Let's carton the eggs.

ii) Create five verbs from nouns. Make a sentence using each new verb you created.
2. Imagine that you are an advertising executive and that your job involves inventing new names for products.

i ) Which of the following forms would be acceptable to native speakers of English? Discuss them with your friends.

CHAPTER ONE

a) b) c) d)

mbood frall coofp ktleem

e) f) g) h)

sproke flube worpz bsarn

ii) Create four new forms that would be accepted by native spe8kers of English and four that would not.

3. Part of linguistic competence involves the ability to recognize whether novel utterances are acceptable. Consider the following sentences and determine which are possible sentences in English. For each unacceptable sentence, describe the reason for its unacceptability and change the sentence to make it acceptable.
a) b) c) d) e)
:

f)

g) h) i) j) k)

Jason's mother left himself with nothing to eat. Miriam is eager to talk to. This is the man who 1 took a picture of. Colin made Jane a sandwich. 1s the dog sleeping the bone again? Wayne prepared Zena a cake. Max cleaned the garden up. Max cleaned up the garden. Max cleaned up it. 1 desire you to leave. That you likes liver surprises me.

4. Consider the following sentences, each of which is acceptable to some speakers of English, but not to others. Try to identify the prescriptive rules that are violated in each case.

a) b) c) d) e)
f)

g) h) i) j) k) 1) m)

He don't know about the race. You was out when 1 called. Me and Peter walked to school. There's twenty horses registered in the show. That window's broke, so be careful. Jim and me are gonna go campin' this weekend. Who did you come with? 1 seen the parade last week. He been lost in the woods for ten days. My car needs cleaned 'cause of al1 the rain. Julie ain't got none. Somebody left their book on the train. Murray hurt hisself in the game.