What is Linguistics? 4th Ed , David Crystal. 1. What Linguistics is NOT *General confusion: singular or plural? One or a collection of objects?

It has not existed for long to be popularly recognized as INTE E!T"# $I%!I& INE 'studied in (ritish uni)ersities since *+,-.s/ This relati)ely ne0ness leads to se)eral 1I%!ON!E&TION% *&roble2s e)en in the definition of ING"I%T: a/ one s3illed in use of languages or b/ one 0ho is 2aster of other tongues4 There are also so2e $I55I!" TIE% *5e0 introductory boo3s 'so2e 0ith faults: too co2prehensi)e6 ad)anced le)el6 rather unreadable 7 there.s a gap bet0een the study and the )ie0 of general people and technical ter2s ha)e little explanation/ *so2e e8uate it 0ith &hilology and there are clashes bet0een disciplines4 ING"I%TI!% I% NOT a &9I O OG: '%tudy of the history of the language/ b &O :G OTTI%1 c ITE;#;: !;ITI!I%1 'or fields in)ol)ing a scale of )alues/ d T;#$ITION# %T"$: O5 G;#11#; 9I%TO;: O5 #NG"#GE inguistics is not to be )ie0ed as a historical 'diacronich/ study: <e)olution=de)elop2ent of languages <origin og languages? <0orld.s first language? inguistics is the %!IEN!E O5 #NG"#GE4 It deals 0ith NON>9I%TO;I!# 'synchronic/ study of its object ' anguage/? 0hich is to be exa2ined e2pirically4 #NG"#GE E#;NING #N$ TE#!9ING inguists should be able to spea3 about language? not 2any languages4 inguistics gi)e you the ability to approach the study of language confidently and 2ethodically? inculcates an analytic state of 2ind? but it does not 2ean 3no0ing 2ore than one language4 E@# "#TION inguistics is not concerned 0ith e)aluating language in use: linguists are not literary critics4 They describe the facts of utterances? not the aesthetic=2oral )alue 'they do not teach elocution lessons either/4 T;#$ITION# #&&;O#!9E% inguistics is not to be identified 0ith the older approaches to language study4 1I%!ON!E&TION% #(O"T T9E N#T";E O5 #NG"#GE *> %peech )s Ariting: The absence of recognition that they are different 2edia? 0ith different patterns of gra22ar and )ocabulary and different standards of usage4 ;ules 0ere traditionally 0ritten to apply one aspect4 %tudying 0riting at the expense of speech is li3e Bputting the cart before the horseC since %&EE!9 is the pri2ary 2ediu2 of linguistic expression 'follo0ing a natural process/4 #lso? traditional gra22ar only co)ers 0ritten? 2ore for2al styles4 Thus? rules distort the reality of English4 Eg4 the use of B0ho2C4 D> Influence of atin: The inade8uacy of traditional gra22ars sho0s in their trying to describe English in ter2s of another language 'usually atin/4 ;ules 0ere fixed upon atin structures 'eg Noun !ases in English/4 In the description of a language 0e 2ust not i2pose findings of other languages4 English 2ust be described in its o0n ter2s4 OGI! #N$ #NG"#GE

there is a tendency to appeal to a criterion of so2e logic of a sort? 0hen 2a3ing state2ents about the 0ay a language is constructed4 9u2an language is not a logical construct? it is not beautifully regular4 It can change its for2 o)er the years and is full of irregularities 'big>bigger? but not good> gooder6 double negati)e/4 It is best not to tal3 about logic? but of regular = irregular for2s4 * !o2plexity of anguage: %tandards of difficulty are relati)e4 There are no si2ple? crude or pri2iti)e languages? e)en if the people are said to be at a lo0 le)el of cultural de)elop2ent? this is only anthropologically spea3ing4 Ae cannot 2easure a language against the standard pro)ided by another4 * #esthetic and anguage: an unrealistic standard? no one sound is intrinsically better than another?4 Ae cannot say that one language is 2ore beautiful? ugly or affected4 *9istory and anguage: an authority people turn to4 The argu2ent is that the correct 2eaning of a 0ord is the oldest4 This point of )ie0 is reducible to absurdity? and illustrates the confusion bet0een the historical and non>historical di2ensions of study4 One does not need the past info to study the present state of a language 're)erse also true/4 *(est authors: The usage of best authors as an authority4 Early dictionaries included only 0ords used by reputable authors4 %uch a standard produced a description of a )ery restricted? specialized? literary English4 #s if the older states are intrinsically superior to the 2ore recent4 *I2pression: ;ules based on a0areness of the author.s o0n usage4 It is difficult 'or i2possible/ to be sure 0hat one actually says 'and the 0ay 0e say=pronounce it/4 There.s a proble2 o)er deter2ining the language usage of others4 anguage is filled 0ith 8uestions of acceptability? each descripti)e state2ent a gra22arian 2a3es 2ust be tested by supple2enting his o0n intuition 0ith info deri)ed fro2 other people.s intuitions about their language4 The ingo 0hich appears in a gra22ar boo3 is highly selecti)e? no traditional gra22ar is nearly co2plete4 $E5INTION% Traditional gra22ar is characterized by extre2e )agueness of definition and a fialure to be explicit about i2portant issues 'eg definiton of NO"N? &#;T% O5 %&EE!9/4 Often theoretical assu2ptions about language=gra22ar are 2ade but not stated explicitly4 &;E%!;I&TI@E @% $E%!;I&TI@E The traditional attitude to language is &;E%!;I&TI@E? 0riters 0ere concerned to 2a3e rules about ho0 people ought to spea3 and 0rite? in confor2ity 0ith so2e standard4 (ut before prescribing rules? one 2ust first describe the facts about the language4 1odern linguists 0an to describe language in its o0n ter2s? they are a0are that the gra2arian does not B2a3eC the rules 7 they should codify 0hat is already there? the usage4 The "%#GE is ali)e and the gra22ar boo3s fossilized4 anguage is al0ays changing and the boo3 is al0ays a little behind4 To linguists usages are not right or 0rong? they lea)e it to others to decide 0hich is socially 2ore appropriate4