sound.pdf

The English Language From Sound to Sense Gerald P. Delahunty James J. Garvey The English Language From Sound to Sense PERSPECTIVES ON WRITING Series Editor, Mike Palmquist The Perspectives on Writing series addresses writing studies in a broad sense. Consistent with the wide rang...

The English Language From Sound to Sense Gerald P. Delahunty James J. Garvey The English Language From Sound to Sense PERSPECTIVES ON WRITING Series Editor, Mike Palmquist The Perspectives on Writing series addresses writing studies in a broad sense. Consistent with the wide ranging approaches characteristic of teaching and scholarship in writing across the curriculum, the series presents works that take divergent perspectives on working as a writer, teaching writing, administering writing programs, and studying writing in its various forms. The WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press are collaborating so that these books will be widely available through free digital distribution and low- cost print editions. The publishers and the series editor are teachers and researchers of writing, committed to the principle that knowledge should freely circulate. We see the opportunities that new technologies have for further democratizing knowledge. And we see that to share the power of writing is to share the means for all to articulate their needs, interest, and learning into the great experiment of literacy. Existing Books in the Series Charles Bazerman and David R. Russell, Writing Selves/Writing Societies (2003) Charles Bazerman, Adair Bonini, and Débora Figueiredo (Eds.), Genre in a Changing World (2009) David Franke, Alex Reid and Anthony DiRenzo (Eds.), Design Discourse: Composing and Revising the Professional and Technical Writing Curriculum (2010) Gerald P. Delahunty and James Garvey, The English Language: from Sound to Sense (2010) The English Language From Sound to Sense Gerald P. Delahunty James J. Garvey The WAC Clearinghouse wac.colostate.edu Fort Collins, Colorado Parlor Press www.parlorpress.com West Lafayette, Indiana The WAC Clearinghouse, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Parlor Press, 3015 Brackenberry Drive, Anderson, South Carolina 29621 © 2010 Gerald P. Delahunty ISBN 978-0-97270-233-1 (pdf) | 978-1-60235-180-6 (pbk.) DOI 10.37514/PER-B.2010.2331 Produced in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Delahunty, Gerald Patrick. The English language : from sound to sense / Gerald P. Delahunty, James J. Garvey. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-60235-180-6 (pbk. : alk. paper) -- ISBN 978-0-97270-233-1 (adobe ebook) 1. Linguistics. 2. Language and languages. 3. English language--Study and teaching. I. Garvey, James J. II. Title. P121.D384 2010 425--dc22 2010011194 Copyeditor, Designer: David Doran Series Editor: Mike Palmquist The WAC Clearinghouse supports teachers of writing across the disciplines. Hosted by Colorado State University, it brings together scholarly journals and book series as well as resources for teachers who use writing in their courses. This book is available in digital format for free download at wac.colostate.edu. Parlor Press, LLC is an independent publisher of scholarly and trade titles in print and multime- dia formats. This book is available in paperback and Adobe eBook formats from Parlor Press on the World Wide Web at www.parlorpress.com. For submission information or to find out about Parlor Press publications, write to Parlor Press, 816 Robinson St., West Lafayette, Indiana, 47906, or e-mail [email protected]. For Marna and Cian To the memory of James J. Garvey Contents 1 Introduction to the Linguistic Study of Language  3 key concepts 3 who these books are for 3 how to use these books 3 what these books are about 3 communication  4 language 5 discourse  5 text 6 genre 6 ideology 7 language in education  7 thinking critically about language 10 standard english 11 grammar 12 other reasons for studying and teaching about language 14 the organization of these books 15 hints for success 16 references and resources 18 glossary  19 2 Conceptions of Language and Grammar  23 the study of language  23 the roles of the english teacher 25 what is a language? 27 competence and performance  38 approaches to the study of language 43 references and resources 49 glossary  51 3 A Skeletal Introduction to English Grammar 57 introduction 57 clauses  58 sentences 68 phrases  72 complementation and modification  74 words  75 morphemes 76 parts of speech 77 vii  regular and irregular forms 79 grammatical categories  79 sounds and spelling  81 form, function, and meaning 82 references and resources 87 glossary  87 4 Phonetics and Phonology  89 introduction 89 articulatory phonetics 89 consonants 91 vowels 98 syllables and feet 105 phonology  107 phonemes  108 allophones 108 phonological rules 113 references and resources 116 glossary  117 5 Morphology and Word Formation 121 introduction 121 words and morphemes 122 morphemes, allomorphs, and morphs 124 words  125 registers and words  137 the internal structure of complex words 138 classifying words by their morphological properties 140 references and resources  141 glossary  141 appendix a: some english derivational morphemes 142 6 The Major Parts of Speech 147 introduction 147 the major parts of speech: nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs 148 references and resources 184 glossary  185 Appendix to major parts of speech 187 references and resources for appendix  192 7 The Minor Parts of Speech  193 introduction 193 viii  pronouns  194 articles 208 auxiliary verbs 213 prepositions 216 intensifiers 221 conjunctions 222 references and resources 230 glossary  230 8 Word Meaning 235 introduction 235 dictionary entries 236 mental dictionaries 261 concluding remarks 267 references and resources 268 glossary  269 9 Phrases 273 introduction 273 what is a phrase?  274 modification and complementation  277 the adverb phrase (advp) 279 the prepositional phrase (pp) 282 the adjective phrase (ap)  285 the noun phrase (np) 288 the verb phrase (vp) 306 references and resources 318 glossary  319 10 Basic Clause Patterns 321 introduction 321 elements of the clause 322 subjects 324 semantic roles 330 auxiliary verbs 336 tense and aspect  338 basic clause patterns 347 references and resources 364 glossary 364 appendix: time and tense 365 references and resources for appendix  382 ix 11 Modifications of Basic Clause Patterns  383 introduction 383 movement 383 assignment of semantic roles 388 deletion 397 insertion 402 passive 403 references and resources 407 glossary  407 12 Multi-Clause Sentences  411 introduction 411 multi-clause sentences 411 recursion 412 complex sentences 413 finite vs. non-finite clauses 428 coordination 435 miscellaneous information-restructuring sentence types  436 concluding remarks 442 references and resources 442 glossary  442 Index 445 x The English Language From Sound to Sense 1 Introduction to the Linguistic Study of Language key concepts Who these books are for How to use these books What these books are about Communication Language Discourse Text Genre Ideology Language in education Thinking critically about language Standard English Grammar Other reasons for studying and teaching about language The organization of these books Hints for success who these books are for This is the first of two books for teachers about the English language. We be- lieve that all teachers, not just English teachers, share the responsibility for helping students develop their abilities to speak, read, and write. Students must learn to communicate appropriately about math, chemistry, history, and every other school subject. Teaching students these skills necessarily ex- tends across the curriculum. Thus, while one part of our intended audience is English K-12 teachers, we have prepared this book and its companion with teachers (and student teachers) from all disciplines in mind. h ow to u s e t h e s e b o o k s In these books, we use certain typographical marks to help you focus on key points. Important terms are bolded. You can find their definitions in the text and in the glossary. Examples are noted in italics or are separated from the text. w h at t h e s e b o o k s a r e a b o u t These books are about language, but specifically about the English language 3 Delahunty and Garvey and its uses. The first book is about the grammar of English; the second is about related topics, including language variation (e.g., dialects), language learning, English spelling, and the history of the English language. Generally, when people hear the word “grammar,” they immediately think of “correct” or “incorrect” and “good” or “bad” language. Thinking about language in this way is said to be prescriptive. English has a long tradition of judging some expressions as “correct” and others as “incorrect.” For example, expressions such as We was are viewed as “incorrect,” even though a great many people use them. The “correct” version is said to be We were. Counter-posed to the prescriptive tradition is the descriptive one, which developed in linguistics, anthropology, and sociology. This approach is concerned with describing and understanding the linguistic behavior of a community, without judging it. From a descriptive point of view, We was is unobjectionable when used by a member of a community of speakers who characteristically use this expression. However, it is unacceptable to the wider English speaking community in, for example, formal speaking and writing. The point of view presented in these books is essentially descriptive. However, except where the topic is explicitly about linguistic variation, we describe the form of English used in relatively formal public speaking and writing. We recognize that language changes, and that consequently even the prescriptive rules have to change. We believe that these rules should be descriptions of the best accepted practices of the day rather than imposi- tions (often irrelevant) on the language and its use. co m m u n i c at i o n Communication occurs when one person acts with the intention of influ- encing the mind of another, for example, by getting him/her to entertain some idea, and when that other person recognizes the first person’s inten- tion to influence his/her mind. Clearly, it is possible to influence another person’s mind unintentionally; for instance, if I (unintentionally) sneeze, I might prompt you to think that I might have a cold. However, this is a rather different kind of event than one in which I intentionally sneeze and you recognize that my sneeze was intentional. From my first (unintentional) sneeze, you cannot infer that I am trying to get you to think I have a cold; from my second (intentional) sneeze, you can infer that I am trying to get you to think something or another, perhaps that I have a cold. Imagine that we have gone to a party together and that we want to co- ordinate our leaving. So, before we get to the party I say to you, “I’ll pre- 4  Introduction to the Linguistic Study of Language tend to sneeze when I’m ready to go home,” and you agree to interpret my sneeze in this way. When I sneeze at the party you can infer that I sneezed intentionally and interpret my sneeze as indicating my desire to leave. For this communication to succeed two elements must be in place: first, the assumption that I intend to influence you in some way, and sec- ond, our agreement about the meaning of my intentional sneeze. There is nothing in the nature of a sneeze that requires it to mean “Let’s go home.” We could have agreed that it was to mean, “It’s safe to slip upstairs to steal the host’s jewelry.” By specifying a meaning for a sneeze, we have created a little code, a sort of miniscule language. l a n g uag e Fortunately, we cannot read each others’ minds. So, if we want to allow some- one access to what we are thinking, we must provide them with clues that they can perceive. Language is a system that connects thoughts, which can not be heard, seen, or touched, with sounds, letters, manual signs, or tactile symbols (e.g., Braille) which can. In this way, one person’s private ideas may be communicated to another person. For example, imagine that I want to communicate to you my idea that my study needs to be tidied up. You can’t see, hear, touch, taste, or otherwise perceive that idea; it’s locked away in my mind. To communicate it to you I have to cast it in a form that you can perceive—typically in spoken, visual, or tactile form—that is systematically connected to the idea, for example, the sentence, My study needs to be tidied up. Without this perceivable expression, you cannot know that I have an idea to communicate; without the systematic connection between the idea and the form of the expression, you cannot know which idea I want to communicate. So, language is a code that systematically connects private thoughts with pub- lic expressions. These books are about the systems we use to connect private ideas to public activities. Language has been a major topic of research for well over two centuries. Linguistic research intersects with anthropology, biology, computer science, history, human development, literature, philosophy, politics, psychology, as well as reading and writing. d i s co u r s e When we communicate we engage in discourse; that is, we deploy language with the purpose of providing our audiences with clues about how we want to influence them. All discourse takes place in context; that is, the producer of a piece of discourse (speaker/writer) purposefully deploys, at some time and in some 5 Delahunty and Garvey place, clues about his or her intention which are to be interpreted by their intended recipient(s) (audience). The clues have, generally, been selected with that audience, in that time and place, and with those purposes in mind. Some scholars argue that because different discourse situations require different patterns of communicative practice, we must speak of discours- es rather than of discourse (Gee 1992, 1996). We have, for instance, the discourse in which we are currently engaged—the discourse of linguistics, which differs from the discourse of literary study, which differs from the dis- course of chemical engineering, which differs from the discourse of history, and so on. A student who aims to be a practitioner in a field must master the ways in which practitioners in that field communicate with each other about topics in the field. Recognizing these specialized communicative practices has given rise to the Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) movement. text When people communicate, they produce texts. Texts always occur in some medium, which may be auditory, visual, tactile, or some combina- tion of these. Texts also always occur in some channel, that is, the environ- ment through which the medium travels from the text’s producer(s) to its receiver(s). For ordinary face-to-face conversation, the medium is the air, which is set in motion by the producer and whose motions affect the ears of the receiver(s). Communication by telephone involves at least two chan- nels—the air between the speaker’s mouth and the phone, the mechanical and electronic devices that connect the speaker’s and receiver’s phones, and the air between the receiver’s phone and his/her ear. Texts may incorporate non-linguistic elements such as pictures, diagrams, music, and the like. genre A genre is a communicative category. Genres differ from each other in partici- pants, forms, and purposes. Texts come in genres; for example, a Shakespear- ean sonnet is a different type of text from a business letter, which is a different type of text from a casual conversation. Communicative acts come in genres, too. The sales pitch of a car salesman differs from an end-of-term class presentation, which differs from texting a party invitation to a friend. The various discourses require their own specific genres. For example, the discourse of creative writing in English includes the genres of the short story, the novel, and poetry (which includes such sub-genres as the lyric and the dramatic monologue). The discourse of business includes the annual report, various kinds of advertisements, and business letters. 6  Introduction to the Linguistic Study of Language i d e o lo g y Many scholars stress the power of discourse and language to influence speak- ers’ perceptions and conceptualizations of their worlds, and to create and maintain the structures of their societies. Educators interested in language emphasize its power to create and maintain ideologies, i.e., beliefs about the ways in which goods are distributed in society. Goods are “anything that the people in the society generally believe are beneficial to have or harmful not to have, whether this be life, space, time, ‘good’ schools, ‘good’ jobs, wealth, status, power, control, or whatever” (Gee, 1996: 21). l a n g uag e i n e d u c at i o n Language is central to education: it is the means by which educational con- tent is communicated; it is an object of study; it is an object of beliefs that are important in education; it is a key element of students’ identities; it poses potential problems in education, largely because of the beliefs we have about it; and it is a valuable resource for those who know how to make use of it. Language is a means of education in that it is the primary medium of communication between students and teachers and between students and textbooks. Language is an object of education because it is the material out of which texts are woven, and because language itself is the object of study in writ- ing and speaking courses. We focus on language as we learn to edit our essays and speeches. We develop our vocabularies and learn the meanings, uses, and conventional spellings of words. We learn to control the genres required for various disciplines and the specific characteristics expected in those genres, for example, personal essays, academic papers of various sorts, business letters, reports, and magazine articles. Language is also an object of study in so far as we develop our skills in using it to communicate, to acquire knowledge from lectures and books, to integrate new information with old, to replace false beliefs with new true ones, and to increase or de- crease our estimates of the likelihood that some belief we hold is true. It is important to note here that students who are learning English as a sec- ond language labor under a double burden, because English is simultaneously both the means and an object of their education. Exercise When asked what she thought was the most important aspect of learn- ing English as a second language, a Japanese student replied: “Knowing 7 Delahunty and Garvey many vocabularies.” What do you think she meant? Is her expression an acceptable piece of English? How would you change it so it retains her apparent meaning and is acceptable? Why would you make that par- ticular change? Is (your understanding of) her assertion true? Language is also an object of our beliefs. Many people believe that some forms of English are good and others bad; that some languages are beautiful and others ugly; that some languages are limited in what they can express when compared to languages such as English; that people who speak certain varieties are uneducated, perhaps stupid, and unworthy of certain types of work. Beliefs like these constitute ideologies about language. Some ideolo- gies are liberating and others quite oppressive. Whether liberating or op- pressive, they must become objects of critical awareness for teachers and of critical discussion for students (Kress 1985; Fairclough 1989, 1992). Language also represents one of the key elements of our students’ social, cultural, and personal identities. Writing explores values our students may not be able to explore otherwise. As their writing improves, the range and sophistication of these identities increases. Teachers have potentially powerful effects on students’ lives. Our re- sponse to our students’ language will influence their attitudes. Young chil- dren have a fascination with language and almost no inhibitions about it. Adults, in contrast, typically display considerable anxiety about their language. They often have “strongly negative attitudes towards their native speech pattern” (Labov 1972: 117). This anxiety is known as linguistic in- security. This insecurity does not develop naturally; it is the consequence of repeated experiences in which their native speech patterns are dispar- aged, often by teachers (who should know better). This problem is par- ticularly acute for students who are not native speakers of English, or who do not speak the variety of the language regarded as “correct.” Exercise 1. How do you feel about your ability as a singer? Would you be will- ing to sing Madonna’s “Love Profusion” in front of your class? (It’s on her American Life album, if you want to practice beforehand.) What experiences with singing have formed your attitude? What attitudes about singing do children have? What light does this shed on linguistic insecurity? 8  Introduction to the Linguistic Study of Language 2. How many words do you have in your vocabulary? Consider first your active vocabulary, i.e., words you use regularly in speaking and writ- ing, such as often. Then estimate your passive vocabulary, i.e., words that you recognize and understand, but which don’t come readily to mind when you want them, for example, prestidigitation. Estimates based on objective study appear at the end of this chapter. Language is a potential problem to the extent that it—or our beliefs about it—impedes students’ learning. If we believe that students who speak English with a Latino accent, or who speak Black English (a.k.a. “Ebonics”), will be unable to keep up in our classes, then very likely they will not, because teach- ers’ expectations strongly affect students’ success in school. Because teachers respond to students’ language on many levels, they must develop a critical awareness of their own linguistic preferences, prejudices, and beliefs—ev- eryone has these beliefs, even linguists. They must also be able to critically evaluate textbooks, dictionaries, style manuals, computerized style analyzers, and newspaper articles on language, because these also embody assumptions about language, many of them just plain wrong, often destructively so. Language is a potential resource for teaching critical thinking. We can evalu- ate our attitudes about other languages and other dialects and their speak- ers; we can collect linguistic data, observe its patterns, and articulate those patterns as hypotheses which we can then test; we can evaluate the ways we talk about language for their precision, and come to appreciate the value of precision in language use generally. Language data for analysis is very readily available. Students can collect their own data from bumper stickers, license plates, ads, poems—whatever. Schools (or the internet) can provide comput- erized collections of authentic spoken and written texts (corpora) along with computer programs to analyze them (concordancers). Because the linguistic study of language is fundamentally scientific, studying language in this way can provide us and our students with an understanding and appreciation of scientific methods. Exercise 1. Write a brief essay on at least two of the ways in which language is an element in education. 2. In your college library, consult the journals Linguistics and Literature, 9 Delahunty and Garvey Style, and Linguistics and Education. Report back to the class on (a) the types of topics covered in each journal and (b) one article that inter- ested you. 3. What do you understand by the term “grammar”? t h i n k i n g c r i t i c a l ly a b o u t l a n g uag e Clearly, teachers must know about reading and writing, as well as about teaching their disciplines. But why should they learn about language? One answer is that teachers should have a well-developed critical understand- ing of at least some modern thinking about the nature of language and its roles in education because reading, writing, and all subject matters crucially depend on language. Good craftspeople always understand their materials, and as language is the raw material of the discourses of all disciplines, teach- ers should understand its nature. Second, all modern approaches to reading and writing—cultural, femi- nist, Marxist, post-modernist, psychological—accord language a central place. Third, because the linguistic study of language is quite different in its ap- proaches, goals, and methods from the approaches to the study of reading or writing, it complements those approaches. Fourth, societal attitudes to lan- guage (teachers’, students’, and parents’) can profoundly affect students’ learn- ing and performance. One of our goals is to enable you to think critically about language and the claims of those who write about it (including ours). Critical thinking has many facets, including creating and evaluating arguments, reasoning from premises to conclusions, and detecting covert claims in arguments. In lan- guage study, we think critically when we determine whether a grammar, style manual, or dictionary is appropriate for our students, or whether a linguistic claim (e.g., “double negatives make a positive”) has any validity. Exercise Is it valid to say that double negatives make a positive in English? What evidence can you muster for your decision? How valid is your evidence? Critical thinking is important in any discipline, but it is of particular im- portance in reading and writing. To be able to read in any discipline, students 10  Introduction to the Linguistic Study of Language must know how to accurately interpret the language of texts in that discipline and to be able to recreate their authors’ meanings. Both of these tasks require, at a minimum, knowing the discipline’s technical terms. Some disciplines may require readers to be knowledgeable about further aspects of the language. Literature students, for instance, must be able to understand language made difficult by archaisms, rhetorical figures, complex grammar, and willful gram- matical and semantic violations (Dillon, 1978). When writing, students think critically when they analyze their personal preconceptions and biases, when they assess the relevance and effectiveness of their ideas, and when they decide on the best linguistic formulation of those ideas for their intended audiences. The ability to think critically about language is particularly needed now, because the school grammar tradition has generally become quite unin- formed about research into current English discourse practices. The respon- sibility for this situation lies partly with linguists themselves. We have not been successful in our efforts to educate the public about language. How- ever, the greatest share of the responsibility lies with institutions, journalists, and teachers who have vigorously defended an ultra-conservative status quo, who know little if anything about language, and who often misconstrue what linguists have to say about it. Many believe, for instance, that linguists claim that “anything goes in English these days.” Nothing could be farther from the truth, as we will show in our chapter on Conceptions of Language. s ta n d a r d e n g l i s h Learning to read and write is partly a matter of linguistic development, i.e., the growth in a student’s ability to communicate appropriately in an in- creasingly broad range of circumstances. Teachers who concern themselves with the linguistic development of their students typically view their role as twofold: (a) to promote their students’ ability to speak, read, and write in their disciplines, and (b) to develop their students’ ability to write in Standard English (SE), the variety of English generally expected in formal communication in various disciplines. Exercise 1. Where around the world is English spoken? In what kinds of circum- stances? For what kinds of purposes? Make lists from your own general knowledge before you consult sources such as Bernard Comrie’s The World’s Major Languages; David Crystal’s Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language; Peter Trudgill and Jean Hannah’s International English: A 11 Delahunty and Garvey Guide to the Varieties of Standard English; and the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) website at http://www.ethnologue.com/show_lan- guage.asp?code=ENG (SIL is a Christian Bible translation organization.) 2. Why are things standardized? What would the consequences be if electrical outlets were not standardized throughout the US? 3. Consider the expressions We was and We were. Which is Standard English and which is not? How do you think that one became standard while the other did not? What do YOU think about expressions such as I ain’t never been there, We was waiting for the ambulance, and the speakers who use them? Be honest. 4. Select a technical expression (from any discipline) that you believe all of your students should know and know how to use properly. Para- phrase that expression in non-technical English. Do the technical ex- pression and its non-technical paraphrase have exactly the same mean- ings? grammar You probably answered exercise 3 on page 10 by saying that “grammar” tells us which expressions are correct. You would, of course, have meant “prescrip- tive grammar.” However, linguists add at least two other interpretations to the word. First, they use it to refer to the knowledge that a speaker or writer of a language must have in order to be able to use the language at all. Second, they use it to refer to any attempt to describe that knowledge. We will return to these issues in the next chapter when we discuss prescriptive and descrip- tive approaches to language study more thoroughly. It is important, when we speak about “grammar,” that we are clear, to ourselves and our audiences, which meaning of “grammar” we intend. This first book is about the grammar of English. Some of our readers will be required to teach grammar classes per se; others will use information about English grammar while teaching composition; and still others will use it while teaching writing-intensive classes across the curriculum. It is important to note that grammar refers only to a part of language, and that these books deal with language, not just grammar. We believe that a teacher’s knowledge of language is far more broadly relevant than just knowledge of “grammar.” It is also important to recognize that teaching “grammar” is highly con- troversial. To get a sense of the arguments, we recommend that you read 12  Introduction to the Linguistic Study of Language the relevant articles in English Journal 1996: 85.7 and 2003: 92.3, as well as other NCTE publications such as Grammar Alive: A Guide for Teachers (Haussamen et al 2003) and Code Switching: Teaching Standard English in Urban Classrooms (Wheeler and Swords 2006). You might also browse Free- man and Freeman (2004) and Honegger (2005). Neither you nor we can predict what you will believe about language, grammar, and the teaching of either by the time you have read these books. However, we do know that in discussions about how to teach writing, you will hear arguments that teaching grammar “out of context” does not improve students’ writing. (Generally what is meant by “grammar” in those discussions is the set of pre- scriptive conventions for speaking and writing Standard English.) Certainly there is a large body of research going back more than a century purporting to support this position. However, we repeat, these books are not just about grammar; they are about language, including how grammar fits into lan- guage. It is as important for teachers to know about language as it is to know about their subject matter. A teacher who knows nothing about language is a cyclist without wheels. Worse, a teacher who knows nothing about lan- guage is a chemist who knows (and cares) nothing about the environmental consequences of the substances he or she creates. Our approach to the study of language is heavily influenced by the results of recent linguistic research and methods. This allows us to tie our discussion to critical thinking, literature, Writing Across the Curriculum, and composi- tion studies, as well as to philosophy and the social, psychological, neurologi- cal, and computer sciences (see Traugott and Pratt 1980 as well as journals like English Journal and Style). Most of this book deals with English grammar. Aside from the fact that the general public expects teachers to have a mastery of grammar (by which is usually meant prescriptive grammar), you will probably be expected to teach the subject in one way or another. We do not suggest that you use this book as a syllabus. It contains too much material and is not geared to a junior or senior high-school audience. Nonetheless, in spite of the amount of material it covers, it’s merely a good basis for continuing your study of language. We hope that you will find the analytic and critical methods of exploring language used in the books to be more productive and interesting than the more con- ventional handbook approach—exposition plus drill-and-practice. More importantly, we hope that you will present to your students the broader conceptions about language that are expressed in these books. These conceptions are presented initially in our chapter on Conceptions of Language, but are developed in various ways in other chapters. 13 Delahunty and Garvey ot h e r r e a sons for studying an d t e ac hi n g a b o ut l a ng uage Besides its importance in the development of critical thinking skills, there are many other reasons for studying language. You might want to know about language variation (“dialects” of various sorts), about how languages change over time, about the history of English, about the standardization of languages, about how languages are learned, about language disorders, about the relationships between language and culture or society, or about how computers are programmed to understand or produce language. These are all to one degree or another relevant to teachers and we deal with many of them in these books. Deciding what should be included in books like these is remarkably dif- ficult. We have followed the guidelines of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) and the National Council for Accreditation for Teacher Education (NCATE) about what English teachers should know, and we depended on the research on Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC). None- theless, because such a huge amount is known about language generally, and about English in particular, and because (as in any area of vigorous intellectual activity) there are many competing approaches to these topics, it would be impossible to synopsize them all here. In the first book, we pres- ent a grammar of English which addresses traditional topics and concerns, but which is influenced considerably by current grammatical and discourse research. In the second book we present a range of topics that we hope will be of interest and value to teachers across the disciplines. Fulfilling the goals of instruction becomes particularly important in a world growing in technological complexity, social diversity, and multiple “English- es.” (See the essays in Kachru 1992 and Kachru and Nelson 1996, as well as Crystal 2003; Jenkins 2003; McArthur 1998; Melchers and Shaw 2003.) Many students are passionate about their studies in literature, the physical and social sciences, business, or in other intellectual pursuits; unfortunately, however, many students and teachers see the study of language as merely the study of “correct grammar.” We have already begun to sift through the various meanings of “grammar” and will develop this discussion in later chapters. Teachers face a complex set of responsibilities. Parents, boards of educa- tion, and legislators look increasingly to school systems to prepare students for the demands of the future. Worries that American students lag behind those of other developed countries translate directly into concerns about pub- lic funding (i.e., taxes) and accountability in education, as the No Child Left Behind Act requires. These pressures appear in the form of demands for suc- cess on standardized tests, for “getting back to basics,” for public funding of 14  Introduction to the Linguistic Study of Language private education (“vouchers” and “charter schools”), for longer school years, for ongoing competency testing for teachers, and for the assessment and rank- ing of schools. From our perspective, teachers’ responsibility is to their students. We must meet the needs of the learner rather than simply present material on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. As a result, the learnability of classroom mate- rial becomes more important than its teachability (how easily it can be taught), or its assessability (how easily it can be assessed). Moreover, in the coming generation, the diversity of its students in US classrooms will change dramatically. The 2008 US Census Bureau projected percentages for the major racial/ethnic groups are displayed in the following chart: 2008 2050 White 66 46 Hispanic 15 30 Black 14 15 Asian 5.1 9.2 (See U.S. Census Bureau National Population Projections.) In 2005 the percentage of the US population born abroad was 12.4. These projections suggest that in addition to knowing their disciplines and how to teach them (ideally by incorporating lots of writing), teachers will also have to know about how to teach ESL (English as a Second Lan- guage). In the rest of this introduction we will explain the organization of these books and provide some hints for working successfully with them. t h e o rg a n i z at i o n o f t h e s e b o o k s The next chapter of this book (Conceptions of Language) is on the nature of language. The remaining chapters are on various aspects of the English language, including its sound system, its vocabulary, its parts of speech, word meanings, and the ways in which words are combined into phrases, clauses, and sentences—essentially the grammar of English. Book I gives you some basic information about English grammar, about how to do simple linguistic analyses, and about thinking critically about language. Because it is impossible to remember the analysis of every expres- sion you might be asked about by a student (there are far too many), our main concern is to help you become independent by providing you with the means to do linguistic analysis as you need it. 15 Delahunty and Garvey We regularly use an analytic method, in which we formulate criteria for determining how to categorize words, phrases, or sentences. For example, whenever we want to know the part of speech of a particular word, we use these criteria to test a hypothesis about the word’s part of speech. We will ask you to do similar activities in the exercises, sometimes by gathering data, sometimes by analyzing material that lies just a step beyond what is covered in the text. Book II deals with selected topics of particular importance to teachers: spo- ken and written language; spelling; variation in language; usage; punctuation; history of the English language; and language acquisition. Our presentation brings together current studies in each of these areas and prepares you to read applied studies that you will encounter in your career. These chapters can be read independently of Book I, though on occasion you will find some cross- references to chapters in Book I, along with some phonetic notation that may send you back to our chapter on Phonetics and Phonology. In many instances we will mention a topic, briefly discuss it, and return to it in greater depth later. Our hope is that this cycling will provide you with an opportunity to get an initial familiarity with a topic and then build on that familiarity later. These books are far from covering the wealth of information on topics that you might be interested in as a teacher. To survey all of these would require several more books. We encourage you to consult your instructor for further references and bibliographical resources, for example on linguistics and litera- ture, composition, or reading. h i n ts f o r s u cc e s s The study of the English language is demanding. First, you will find yourself confronting challenges to linguistic assumptions (and even prejudices) that have become ingrained in you through your education and that are widely accepted without critical examination by the majority of educated English speakers. Second, you may find yourself in a mode of analysis quite different from that of your own studies. Third, you will confront considerable lin- guistic detail and the large number of new terms required to conceptualize and describe it. While we cannot guarantee that these new ideas will be easy to master (although many people do find them so), we believe that they are worth your effort and will serve you well in your career. Because what you will learn in these pages is as much skill as informa- tion, do not expect to master this material in a single reading. The best strategy for most people is to do a preliminary reading, do the exercises, and then re- read (and reread again). Research on learning and remembering shows what 16  Introduction to the Linguistic Study of Language is perhaps obvious—the more frequently and deeply you review material the better you will remember and understand it. If you are a student, attend class and ask questions; if you are having difficulties, the chances are good that many of your classmates are too and will benefit from the instructor’s answers to your questions. Exercises are scattered throughout the book. We encourage you to tackle as many as possible. This need not involve working them out in full detail (unless your instructor requires it); you might just work out the outline of a solution. However, you cannot learn the analytic skills required to study linguistics or grammar without doing lots of hands-on work. If you have difficulties with a problem, try to identify them as specifically as possible. If you get an incorrect answer, make sure also to get an explanation of the correct one. Try to retrace the thinking that led you to miss the question. Sometimes you can learn more from mistakes than from perfection. One of our goals is to help you develop your skills in independent language analysis. Teachers are regularly called upon to answer questions whose answers can- not be found in textbooks or reference works. Doing exercises is essential for independence. Terminology is plentiful in linguistics, just as in every other discipline. Remember that technical terms usually have specific meanings so you may not be able to substitute ordinary words for them. We have provided glos- saries to help you identify definitions; you should consult them often. Be particularly careful with terms (e.g., semantics) that may have a familiar meaning in ordinary language, but a significantly different one in technical usage. Definitions should be supplemented with explanations, elaborations of the minimal statements in the glossary. Remember, though, to use precise language in defining terms. Linguists like to think of themselves as scientists and so value precision and accuracy. Explanations may be taken from the text (or from class notes, if you are a student). Try to have a specific, pro- totypical example of each term. Select an example that is clear to you and is uncontroversial, and be sure to understand just why your example exempli- fies the concept. Memorization has had a bad press, but it is necessary more often than we think (and not only for exams). We do not encourage memorization for its own sake, but rather to make your passive knowledge more active. The best time to memorize is after you have become familiar with a concept through exposure. For long lists (e.g., the prepositions of English), do not try to re- member every item; select a small number, and then only to illustrate a con- cept, and use the criteria given in the book for deciding which other items 17 Delahunty and Garvey belong to the list. As you gain experience, try to add gradually to that short list. We do not recommend that you require your students to learn lists of items, unless they are learning English as a second or foreign language (and even then only sparingly). Second opinions aren’t just good for your health. Reading other authors on the topics of these books will greatly help you to learn and remember what you study. We encourage you to seek out other books on these topics, begin- ning with those we’ve listed in the References and Resources at the end of each chapter. At the head of each chapter, we list the chapter’s key concepts. For teachers, we hope these will help you find topics you want to read about. For students, we imagine these topics serving as the focus for essays that might form a part of your course work. The internal parts of the chapters are clearly indicated by headings to allow for easy access. r e f e r e n c e s a n d r e s o u rc e s Aitchison, Jean. 1994. Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon. (2nd ed.) Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Comrie, Bernard. (ed.) 1990. The World’s Major Languages. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Crystal, David. 1987. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. _____ 1995. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. _____ 2003. English as a Global Language. (2nd ed.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Dillon, George. 1978. Language Processing and the Reading of Literature. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman. _____ 1992. Critical Language Awareness. London: Longman. Freeman, David E. and Yvonne E. Freeman. 2004. Essential Linguistics: What you Need to Know to Teach Reading, ESL, Spelling, Phonics, Grammar. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Gee, James Paul. 1992. The Social Mind: Language, Ideology, and Social Practice. New York: Bergin and Garvey. _____ 1996. Social Linguistics and Literacies. London UK: Taylor and Francis. Haussamen, Brock, Amy Benjamin, Martha Kolln, and Rebecca S. Wheeler. 2003. Grammar Alive! A Guide for Teachers. Urbana, IL: NCTE. Honegger, Mark. 2005. English Grammar for Writing. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 18  Introduction to the Linguistic Study of Language Jenkins, Jennifer. 2003. World Englishes: A Resource Book for Students. London, UK: Routledge. Kachru, Braj B. (ed.) 1992. The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. (2nd ed.) Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Kachru, Braj B. and Cecil L. Nelson. 1996: 71-102. World Englishes. In Sandra L. McKay and N. H. Hornberger. (eds.) Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kress, Gunther. 1985. Linguistic Processes in Sociocultural Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. McArthur, Tom. 1998. The English Languages. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. _____ (ed.) 1992. The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Melchers, Gunnel, and Philip Shaw. 2003. World Englishes. London, UK: Arnold. Traugott, Elizabeth, and Mary Louise Pratt. 1980. Linguistics for Students of Literature. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. Trudgill, Peter and Jean Hannah. 1994. International English: A Guide to the Varieties of Standard English. London: Arnold. U.S. Census Bureau National Population Projections website: http://www. census.gov/population/www/projections/ Wheeler, Rebecca S. and Rachel Swords. 2006. Code Switching: Teaching Standard English in Urban Classrooms. Urbana, IL: NCTE. How many words are in your vocabulary? According to Aitchison (1994: 6), “the average college student turned out to know approximately 58,000 common ‘basic words,’ 1,700 rare ‘basic words,’ and 96,000 derivatives and compounds. The total comes to over 150,000. The highest student score was almost 200,000, while even the lowest was over 100,000.” Are you sur- prised by these numbers? Other scholars suggest even higher ones. g lo s s a ry active vocabulary: those words that we have ready access to for speaking and writing. assessability: the ease or difficulty with which knowledge can be assessed. channel: the environment through which the communicative medium travels from the text’s producer to its receiver(s). 19 Delahunty and Garvey communication: activities by which one person intends to influence the mind of another person. concordancer: a computer program that allows you to search through computerized collections of linguistic data for specified expressions along with some of their context and to perform statistical operations on the data. corpus/corpora: collection(s) of linguistic data, spoken or written, which may or may not be computerized. critical thinking: the process of evaluating the validity of assertions and arguments. descriptive grammar: any attempt to describe the linguistic knowledge and behavior of individuals or communities without judging or evaluating them as “correct/incorrect” or “good/bad.” discourse: communicative activities, typically involving language, in par- ticular contexts, whose purpose is to provide audiences with clues about how we want to influence them. genre: communicative categories differing from each other in participants, forms, and purposes. grammar: the word has several meanings. (1) conventions that judge which of several expressions belongs to Standard English (see prescriptive gram- mar); (2) the knowledge that a speaker or writer of a language must have in order to be able to use that language at all (see descriptive grammar); (3) any attempt to describe that knowledge; (4) publications in which the prescriptions and descriptions are expressed (e.g., a Spanish/English/etc. grammar). hypothesis: a prediction derived from a theory that may be tested to see if it is true or false. If it is true, the theory is strengthened; if it is false the theory is weakened, perhaps disproved. ideology: “a social theory which involves generalizations (beliefs, claims) about the way(s) in which goods are distributed in society... By ‘goods’ I mean anything that the people in the society generally believe are beneficial to have or harmful not to have, whether this be life, space, time, ‘good’ schools, ‘good’ jobs, wealth, status, power, control, or whatever. By ‘society’ I mean any and all groupings of people who share beliefs about what counts as ‘goods’ (and since probably all humans share some of these, all humanity counts as one sort of society). In this sense we all belong to many societies.” (Gee, 1996: 21) language: a system that connects private thoughts with public symbols. learnability: the ease with which material can be learned by students. linguistic insecurity: the feeling or belief that one’s language is in some way deficient, for example that one’s accent is not as good as other accents. 20  Introduction to the Linguistic Study of Language medium: the sense(s) involved in communication—hearing, seeing, touch- ing, or some combination of these. ordinary language philosophy: an early to mid twentieth-century philoso- phy concerned with the meanings and uses of language. passive vocabulary: those words whose meanings we recognize when we hear them spoken or see them written but cannot easily bring to mind in speaking or writing. pragmatics: the study of contextually situated meanings. prescriptive grammar: the set of conventions that define the standard va- riety of a language; generally couched in evaluative and judgmental terms such as “correct/incorrect” and “good/bad.” semantics: (the study of ) the literal meanings of linguistic expressions. standard english: the variety of English expected in formal writing and speaking, which is codified in dictionaries and style manuals, and taught in composition classes. teachability: the ease with which material can be organized for presenta- tion in classrooms. text: the auditory, visual, and/or tactile artifacts produced by communica- tors. 21 2 Conceptions of Language and Grammar key concepts The study of language The roles of the English teacher What is a language? Competence and performance Approaches to the study of language t h e s t u d y o f l a n g uag e The study of spoken and written language occupies a significant part of contemporary primary and secondary school and university curricula. The grammars, handbooks of style, and composition texts used in these cur- ricula are based on various assumptions about language and about why it should be studied. It is important that teachers have a critical understanding of these assumptions, which in many instances are either indirectly stated or omitted entirely. These books are designed to help you to: develop the critical resources you need as a teacher to respond to many language-related issues; understand the many concepts needed to talk appropriately and accurately about language; develop skills that you will use in everyday teaching of language, literature, reading, and writing. In the pages to follow you will encounter ideas about language that may be new to you and which may contradict ideas you’ve been taught. We cannot guarantee that these new concepts will be easy to master, but we do believe that they are worth your best efforts. We will, as we said earlier, try to begin with what you know about language. For example, you have probably been taught to avoid non-standard expressions such as seen or seed instead of saw, to avoid multiple nouns as modifiers, to make sure that your subjects and verbs agree, to use parallel structures where possible, and the like. These are usage rules. They have at least two jobs to do. First, they help define the standard variety of English—recall our question in our introductory chapter that asked you to consider why anything, e.g., electrical outlets, might be standardized. You probably answered by saying that standardization allows the greatest number of people to use it for the greatest number of purposes. You might also have added that if something is standardized, then it can be maintained in that form for a long period of time. Standardizing a language 23 Delahunty and Garvey has the same goals: to allow as many people as possible to communicate ef- fectively with each other, and to allow people at any time to read texts that were written perhaps hundreds of years before they were born, much as we read the novels of Jane Austen now. And standardization allows us to write texts that will be understood by many generations to come. The usage rules help ensure that standard English is used in formal writ- ing and speaking so as to make our writings and speeches clear, efficient, and effective, given our purposes in communicating and the characteristics of our audiences. Rules that tell us which forms to choose (saw not seen or seed as past tense of see), or what syntactic patterns to avoid (multiple noun modifiers), or to use (parallel structures) are prescriptive. Ideally they prescribe what are taken to be the most generally used formal writing and speaking practices at a particular time. Usage rules are extremely important. Speakers and writers who violate them are likely to be judged harshly. It is a major part of any teacher’s job to ensure that students can write in accordance with these rules. They can be found in composition textbooks, which often devote entire sections to them; they can also be found in writers’ handbooks of usage rules, in usage dictionar- ies, or in selected entries in desk dictionaries. Unfortunately, these handbooks do not always agree with each other and do not always keep up with the ac- cepted writing practices in important genres. Moreover, the conventions differ from one discipline to another. However, for teachers to be able to teach the usage rules, they must un- derstand the concepts that underlie them and the terminology in which they are expressed. For example, they must know what nouns are, be able to recognize them in texts and to produce examples of them on demand; what “past tense” means and how it is formed; what “agreement” means and how it is expressed; which structures are parallel and which are not; and what participles are so that they will be able to recognize them when they “dangle,” or to teach them in order to expand the range of structures their students can use in their writing. And they must be aware of current usage controversies. You may know about some of these things. For example, you may know about the traditional parts of speech, about subjects and predicates, about direct and indirect objects. In this book we will develop all these and re- lated ideas by making use of the findings of modern linguistic and discourse studies. Our point of view will be descriptive rather than prescriptive. That is, rather than prescribing how someone thinks the language should be, we will attempt to describe as objectively as we can as much of modern stan- dard English as space allows. Our descriptive stance is that of linguistics in 24  Conceptions of Language and Grammar general, which tends to think of itself as scientific. We include a chapter on Usage in Book II. Exercise Many people think of dictionaries as the final arbiters of usage issues, particularly regarding words. Read the front matter (i.e., all the text before the list of words) of your dictionary and find out how its editors view usage issues. Then look up some words whose usage is controver- sial, such as hopefully as a sentence adverb, e.g., Hopefully, a solution will be found for the problems in the Middle East; unique as a gradable adjective, e.g., His writing style is very unique; demagogue as a verb, e.g., He demagogued his way into the White House; and lifestyle to mean culture, e.g., The San people of Southwest Africa enjoy a hunt- er/gatherer lifestyle. How does your dictionary treat these controver- sies? Is the treatment consistent with the editors’ front matter claims? When was your dictionary published? Do you think that the publication date might have an effect on these controversies? Our Usage chapter explores these issues in more detail. NOTE: For a fascinating story about the OED, you might read Simon Winchester’s The Professor and the Madman: A Tale of Murder, Insanity, and the Making of the Oxford English Dictionary. For an excellent his- tory of the development of the dictionary see Winchester’s The Mean- ing of Everything: The Story of the Oxford English Dictionary. t h e ro l e s o f t h e e n g l i s h t e ac h e r Standard English We recognize that teachers are caught between apparently irreconcilable forces. They must ensure that their students master the forms of English that are regarded as acceptable, correct, educated, and expected in formal communication, i.e., as standard. However, educational linguistic research demonstrates that students will not learn the conventions of standard Eng- lish unless teachers respect their native ethnic, regional, and social varieties. So how might this impasse be resolved? First, we must know what is and what is not currently acceptable. Sec- ond, we must have a framework of concepts and terminology that will allow us to understand and teach about language. Third, we should adopt the be- 25 Delahunty and Garvey lief that our only legitimate role is to add control of standard English to our students’ linguistic repertoire, not to eliminate our students’ native varieties on such unsupportable grounds as that they indicate laziness or stupidity. They don’t! These books are designed to help teachers fulfill these roles. In addition, teachers should make use of their students’ natural language learning abilities and what is known from fields such as linguistics and applied linguistics about teaching language. For example, rather than overwhelming students by red-lining every error, teachers should select those “errors” which seem amenable to correction at the time and bring the students’ attention to the similarities and differences between their own practices and the target ones. They should then focus on the target until it is well controlled. (See the work of Rebecca S. Wheeler and her collaborators, e.g., Wheeler and Swords 2004: 470-480; Wheeler 2005: 108-112.) Linguistic variation and bilingualism All languages vary. That is, there is no language whose speakers all speak in the same way in all circumstances. Groups of people may speak differently from each other and still be speaking the same language; that is, a language may exhibit dialect variation. A simple demonstration of this is to conduct an informal survey about the words people use for soft drinks, such as soda, pop, and the like, and then identify where in the country the various expressions are used. Languages vary by nation, region, ethnicity, gender, age, and almost every other grouping of people that one can imagine. Languages also vary according to their uses. An individual speaker will vary his or her style of speech according to contextual factors such as the formality of the occasion. For example, on relatively informal occasions we are likely to use abbreviations such as can’t and should’ve in our speech and writing; on more formal occasions we will use the unabbreviated forms cannot and should have. The mode or channel by which language is transmitted can affect it also. The language of a personal phone call differs from that of a face-to-face con- versation and from a radio or TV call-in program. Spoken language differs from written language, though in rather complex ways (Biber et al. 2002). Occupations may have their own special varieties of a language, that is, they differ in register. For example, the technical terms you know or will learn about linguistics and grammar belong to the linguistics register, whereas corner kick and throw-in belong to the soccer register. In addition, individuals and groups make use of various genres or text types. These are extended stretches of language, written or spoken, which have relatively stable and identifiable characteristics. Genre is a well-estab- 26  Conceptions of Language and Grammar lished notion in literature; it refers to novels, shorts stories, poems, and such sub-genres as sonnets and lyrics. More generally, text types include such cat- egories as business letters, term papers, newspaper reports, opinion pieces, and many others, which are characterized by their content, their purposes, their textual structure, their form of argumentation, and level of formality (Crystal 2003: 200-1). These are often divided into descriptive texts, which have to do with the location of entities in space; narrative texts, which have to do with situations and events in time; directive texts, which are concerned with future activity; expository texts, which explain phenomena; and argumentative texts, which attempt to confirm or change the beliefs of their readers (Gramley and Pätzold 2004: 152-5). Most communities and many individuals around the world are bi- or multi-lingual; that is, they make use of more than one language. People in the United States make use of many languages. Some languages, like Navajo and Hawaiian, are native to the US; others, like Spanish, French, German, and English, are longtime residents but were brought by colonists; and still others, such as Thai and Hmong, were brought by recent immigrants. In all communities, some varieties and languages are favored and others denigrated. Children whose native language is not respected in the commu- nity or the school are at great risk of failing in school. Because language is such an important component, not just of education, but of an individual’s personal, ethnic, and social identities, teachers must tread a fine line between their responsibility to teach the standard variety required for social mobility and respecting students’ native varieties as manifestations of their identities. Just as every child has a right to expect teachers to respect their sex, ethnicity, social class, color, and creed, so every child has the right to expect teachers to respect their language. It is a lot easier to accept linguistic variation if we understand it and understand our own attitudes toward it. We deal with this issue in more depth in our chapters on Variation and Usage in Book II. In the rest of this chapter, we will consider some of the basic ideas about language that inform this book. w h at i s a l a n g uag e ? As teachers of language (which we are, whether we teach linguistics, litera- ture, ESL, or physics), we need to have a clear notion of what it is that we teach. Surprisingly, few people have even the most rudimentary conception of what a language is, even though they use (at least) one in nearly every waking moment of their lives. Generally we can lead perfectly adequate lives without conceptions based on serious reflection on important topics. For instance, we do not need a precise understanding of physical notions such 27 Delahunty and Garvey as force, work, or energy to hit home runs or drive cars. But education aims to help us understand things that we take for granted. Language is a prime example. It is a device of mind-boggling complexity, but few people have a clear conception of its nature and use. So, what is a language? What we have in mind here is a natural (i.e., not an artificial or computer-based) system for human communication, such as English, Chinese, Swahili, or American Sign Language (ASL). In this book, we’ll assume that A language is a set of rules, unconsciously present in the mind, which enables human beings to represent and communicate meanings by producing audible, visible, or tactile symbols that these rules system- atically relate to those meanings. This definition may seem forbidding and abstract, so let’s look at it piece by piece. A language enables its users to communicate meanings by systematically relating perceptible actions and meanings. Meanings are mental states or activities, and as such cannot be directly ob- served. If we want to communicate our meanings to someone else, we must use something they can perceive with their senses—for example, noises, gestures, flag waving, or marks on paper. For any of these to communicate successfully, there must be a system that consistently relates the observable signals with the private meanings. For lots of good reasons, sound evolved as the primary mode of human communication. This issue is discussed in the next section. Most people conceive of meaning in terms of information—ideas about the external world or about our thoughts and beliefs. This is called referential (experiential, ideational) meaning. Referential meanings rep- resent events such as The US women’s soccer team won the World Cup or states such as The sun is a small star. They are descriptions of states of affairs, real or imagined. Referential meaning is probably the most com- monly communicated type of meaning. However, there are other kinds: Expressive meaning reflects the emotional state of a speaker. Ouch! has no referential status but expresses pain. Persuasive (conative) meaning refers to the intended effect of an utterance on its hearer; it attempts to get an audience to per- form an action or to believe something. Get out! is an attempt to get 28  Conceptions of Language and Grammar someone to leave; I love you. Honest, I really do! is an attempt to get someone to believe that “I” loves them. Social (phatic, interpersonal) meaning, as in expressions such as Hi! and How are you?, establishes and maintains social contact be- tween communicators. Textual meaning is communicated by utterances that constitute (part of ) a text, e.g., The dogs were very noisy. The German shep- herds were the worst. Without very noisy in the first of these two sentences, it would be impossible to interpret the worst as noisiest. This meaning derives from the assumption that the two sentences are to be interpreted as a text, that is, one or more sentences or utterances intended to be taken as a coherent whole. Some expres- sions have only textual meanings. For example, in some of its uses so indicates that the expression it introduces is to be interpreted as a conclusion drawn from a prior expression or from the context. The retort So what? is a demand to know what conclusion to draw from what a speaker has just said. Metalinguistic meaning addresses matters concerning the lan- guage itself. Definitions and word puzzles are metalinguistic, e.g., What I meant to say was..., or What English word has three double letters in a row? (See the end of this chapter for an answer.) Poetic meaning reflects nuances of interpretation created by the manner in which information is expressed. It is the aesthetic dimen- sion of language and language use. Advertisers make good use of language’s poetic possibilities. They use puns as well as rhythm and rhyme: Wendy’s restaurants advertised their extended business hours with the pun, See ya later!; a Cheyenne, WY store advertised tires with the rhyme, Great deals / On tires and wheels; local authorities attempt to draw drivers’ attention to road work with the pun Give ’em a brake! and the rhyme Cone Zone. Exercise 1. Explain how each expression below illustrates one (or more) of the meaning types just discussed: a. Don’t touch me! b. There is a bull in that field. c. Hello. Are you there? (phone conversation) d. No pun intended. e. Jeanne is wearing jeans. 29 Delahunty and Garvey f. I hate broccoli. g. Gag me with a spoon. h. I’ve typed teh and langauge again. 2. For each of the following types of meaning, give a brief text that illustrates it: a. persuasive (conative) meaning b. referential meaning c. social (phatic) meaning d. textual meaning e. poetic meaning f. expressive meaning g. metalinguistic meaning h. referential and conative meaning A language uses sound as its primary mode of expression In saying that sound is the “primary” mode of linguistic expression we mean that it is the principal, earliest, and most fundamental mode. Literate people who are not linguists tend to assume that writing is the most important form of language. In fact, they tend to assume that the spoken language should be modeled on its written form. For example, many people will use a word’s spelling to resolve a dispute over its pronunciation, and the pronun- ciation of some words has changed to be more consistent with their spell- ings. For instance, often has historically been pronounced offen. However, many people nowadays think that because it is written with the letter , it should be pronounced with a [t] sound. Linguists, in general, believe that sound is the primary medium of lan- guage, because it precedes writing in evolutionary and individual develop- ment; because letters represent sounds, not vice versa; and because we use spoken language more frequently in our lives, so it is arguably more im- portant to us. To support their claim, linguists point out facts such as the following: children learn to talk before they learn to read and write children learn to talk naturally, that is, without being expressly taught; reading and writing must be taught there are many languages that have no writing systems writing is a comparatively recent historical development (it has been around for only a few thousand years); spoken language is at 30  Conceptions of Language and Grammar least 60,000 years old (see Aitchison 1996, 1997 ch. 2) all writing systems are attempts to represent aspects of spoken lan- guage, generally individual consonants and vowels, less frequently syllables, less frequently still, words We do not deny the importance of other modes of expression. Written language is extremely important in modern societies, and we all spend many years mastering it. The sounds speakers produce and which are (partially) processed by hearers’ ears fade away very rapidly. Writing attempts to over- come this rapid fading. There is always a dynamic relation between spoken and written language. Each influences the other to various degrees. For example, currently we tend to allow more speech-like forms into our writing than our grandparents did, e.g., contractions such as can’t, I’ve, and she’s. Sign languages of the deaf, which use the hands to express meanings, are another important language type. But while they can express whatever a signer wishes to communicate, just as a spoken language can, they are a relatively uncommon form of language. If we group together sounds, written symbols, and manual gestures as lin- guistic forms, then we can think of a language as a system for relating forms to meanings. Exercise 1. Find and discuss three differences between spoken and written Eng- lish (or any other language that you are familiar with). For example, you might consider “tone of voice.” 2. What advantages or disadvantages do you think spoken language has over other forms of communication (such as written language, manual language, waving flags, scratching signs in dirt or rocks, etc.)? Think both in terms of our distant ancestors and of practical contemporary needs. As a concrete example, you might consider how to explain, without speaking or writing, how to bake bread, wash a car, upgrade a computer, or use a phone keypad to respond to commands from a com- pany’s computerized answering system. (Consult actual texts, such as recipe books, labels on bottles, or users’ manuals). Refer to your per- sonal experience wherever possible. (You might also look at software that turns speech into typed text, e.g., Dragon Naturally Speaking.) 31 Delahunty and Garvey The relation between meaning and sound is conventional and arbitrary According to Ferdinand de Saussure (1983 ) and accepted by the vast majority of linguists, the relation between a word’s sound and its meaning is conventional. That is, the speakers of a language tacitly agree on which mean- ings to associate with which sounds. For example, the fruit we make apple jelly from is called apple in English, pomme in French, manzana in Spanish, úll in Irish, and other names in other languages. This conventional relationship is arbitrary. That is, speakers of a language, as a group, are free to associate any sounds with any meaning. It doesn’t mat- ter which sounds they associate with which meanings. Thus the sound of the word I is arbitrarily (though not randomly, i.e., without purpose) chosen by English speakers to represent the speaker of an utterance; we could equally designate the speaker by the sounds je as in French, or yo as in Spanish, or ich as in German, or wo as in Chinese, or any other sound(s) we agreed on. From the claim that sound/meaning relationships are both conventional and arbitrary, it follows that there need not be any similarity between sound and what it refers to. The word pigeon bears no resemblance to the birds it refers to. Similarly, the words yell and whisper can be said either loudly or softly, even though they refer to loud and soft sounds. Giant and dwarf have the same number of sounds, despite the different sizes of the things they refer to. Lilliputian is a big word meaning “small,” but big is a small word meaning “large.” Finally, there is no natural or causal connection between words and their meanings. That is, words and their meanings are not connected in the way that smoke and fire, or explosions and noise, or cars and air pollution, are. We know that fires cause smoke, and so when we see smoke we can assume that there is also fire. The particular sounds of a word do not cause its meanings in this way, nor do the meanings cause the choice of word sounds. However, all languages have some expressions that are non-arbitrary. They are said to be motivated by some factor other than convention. One mo- tivation is similarity between the word sounds and sounds associated with the things the words refer to. Common examples of these are onomatopoeic words for animal noises, e.g., moo, bow-wow, and quack-quack. Note that the last two of these suggest that dogs and ducks normally make noises in pairs and that English speakers can distinguish a dog’s bow from its wow. Note however, that an Irish dog goes amh-amh and a Serbo-Croatian one goes av- av. This suggests that onomatopoeic words are not perfect imitations; at least some conventionality is at work in them. To appreciate the range of ways in which languages represent animal sounds, go to http://www.eleceng.adelaide. 32  Conceptions of Language and Grammar edu.au/personal/dabbott/animal.html Another type of motivation is sound symbolism, the relatively consistent association of certain sounds with certain meanings. For example, the [ee] vowel sounds of teeny suggests something small. We find similar uses of similar vowels in other languages. Spanish, for example, uses the suffix -ito/a to desig- nate small things and children. However, it can hardly be said that this vowel always carries this diminutive meaning. For example, no hint of smallness appears in words like beefy, treaty, keep, or heal. And similarities with other languages may be purely accidental: -chen is a diminutive suffix of German, a language more closely related to English than Spanish is. While it is true that the vast majority of words that consist of just a single meaningful part, e.g., lamp and post are arbitrarily related to their meanings, combinations of such words frequently are not. That lamppost means “lamp- post” is motivated by the fact that it consists of lamp and post. Exercise What apparent motivation occurs in the following English words? What words can you think of that don’t fit the patterns? a. slop, slime, slush b. itsy-bitsy, tinkle, twinkle c. slip, slink, slide, slither d. moo, meow, cuckoo Duality of patterning This strange phrase means that meaningful linguistic units such as words are composed of discrete units that have no meaning. For example, the word book clearly has a meaning; but just as clearly, each of its individual sounds, [b], [oo], and [k], has no meaning. Individual sounds like these can be used to create other words. So languages take one or a combination of meaning- less sounds and then assign meanings to them. The expressions of non- human animals, even those with relatively large numbers of expressions, seem not to be designed like this, with the result that their call repertoires cannot be readily expanded. Displacement Human language allows human beings to talk about anything, regardless of whether what they talk about is in the immediate context, occurred in the past, will occur in the future, or, indeed, did not, may not, or will not ever oc- cur. This freedom from the here and now is called displacement. Non-human 33 Delahunty and Garvey communication is typically tied to the time and place at which it occurs. As a result, we are far better liars than other animals. A language is distinctively human This is a remarkably controversial topic. When we speak of language in this book what we have in mind are systems such as English, French, Swahili, or Navajo. However, the word language is often used loosely to indicate any means of conveying meaning—e.g., the language of dance, the language of flowers, animal languages. The discipline of semiotics developed to study the language-like characteristics of various forms of communication. The range of semiotic (meaningful) systems is great, encompassing natural languages, ges- tures, spatial relations, animal communication, film, advertising logos, traffic signals, clothing, and many other modes of communication. Much semiotic research draws on linguistic concepts. Semiotic and other linguistic studies have demonstrated the richness of human communication, but have never uncovered any means of communi- cation superior to human language in the complexity, range, or precision of its meanings. This is not surprising. One could hardly imagine translating the Constitution of the United States into body language or the language of cloth- ing. While semiotics has dramatically enlarged our awareness of the scope of meaningful systems, it has produced no challengers to language either on quantitative or qualitative grounds. Likewise, research into animal communication has vastly improved our ap- preciation of the natural communication systems of primates, dolphins, birds, and frogs. But it has presented no rivals to human communication, again ei- ther on qualitative or quantitative grounds. A few primates have learned, usu- ally with intensive training, to communicate in language-like ways, through manual signs, plastic symbols, or computers. Their success tells us a good deal about their intelligence (especially of bonobo chimps), but their communica- tive systems are not equivalent to English or any other human language. For some people it is not at all surprising that humans have language and animals don’t. According to many religions, language was given to humans by a god. For others this topic is intensely controversial. Some claim that our closest animal relatives share some of our linguistic capacities; others insist that there is no continuity between whatever cognition and communication other primates are capable of and human language. (The following items should give you a roller-coaster ride on the research; not all are easy reads: Carstairs- McCarthy, 1999; Gardner, Gardner, and Van Cantfort 1989; Greenfield and Savage-Rumbaugh 1990; Hauser, 1996; Hawkins and Gell-Mann 1992; Hockett, 1960; Lieberman 1984, 1991; Savage-Rumbaugh 1986; Savage- 34  Conceptions of Language and Grammar Rumbaugh and Lewin 1994; Sebeok, 1981; Sebeok and Rosenthal, 1981; Terrace, 1981; Wallman 1992.) We must add here that all normal human beings can be both producers and receivers of human language, a characteristic known as reciprocity or interchangeability. In many animal communication systems one sex, usu- ally the male, produces signals while the other merely receives them. Another perspective on this issue is the relationship between intelligence and language. Assuming (controversially) that IQ provides a reliable index of intelligence, Lenneberg claimed that language abilities are not significantly absent even at dramatically low levels (though he may have overstated the case [Jackendoff 2002: 95 n.13]): Children whose I.Q. is 50 at age 12 and about 30 at age 20 are com- pletely in possession of language though their articulation may be poor and an occasional grammatical mistake may occur. (Lenneberg 1964: 41-42) A language is culturally transmitted No child comes into the world capable of learning only a specific language or set of languages. All normal children can learn any human language. All they need is appropriate learning situations. Languages are transmitted from one generation to the next by cultural transmission, not by genetic trans- mission, as is the case with many animal communication systems. Having said that, we must add that without the physiological and neu- rological bases that language depends on, children would be unable to learn any language. So learning a language depends upon having both the right biological bases and the right learning environment. Knowledge of a language is unconsciously present in the mind Consider the following questions: (1) a. Do you like duckling? b. Do you like snorkeling? c. Do you like Kipling? Without the slightest bit of thought, you know which one of these ques- tions can be answered Yes, I like to. You know that snorkel but not duckle or Kiple can occur after I like to ______. You can tell all of this without any knowledge of grammatical analysis such as that snorkel is a verb. And though you may not know terms such as morpheme and di- 35 Delahunty and Garvey minutive (-ling in (1a)), you know that duckling and snorkeling have two meaningful parts but that Kipling has only one. You also know the gram- matical form and function of snorkeling in (1b), though you might not be able to provide a technical description. (See our chapters on Phrases, Basic Clause Patterns, and Multi-clause Sentences.) Knowing a language, then, is not the same as knowing terminology or being able to articulate gram- matical descriptions. Your knowledge of language is unconscious knowl- edge. No amount of introspection, meditation, psychotherapy, or brain surgery will allow you to access it directly. The clearest sign of unconscious knowledge is the presence of linguistic intuitions—gut feelings about language that we could not have without un- conscious linguistic knowledge. These intuitions are not the product of educa- tion; totally illiterate people have them. They derive from genetic capacities specific to humans and from having acquired a language. One’s unconscious knowledge of language is called linguistic competence. We will have more to say about linguistic competence below. A language consists of rules Unfortunately, the word rule conjures up exactly the wrong image of lin- guistic knowledge, suggesting the prescriptions of right and wrong that we find in handbooks. Linguists, however, use the word to mean two related ideas. First, A rule is a part of our unconscious knowledge of our language (our linguistic competence). It is a mental pattern about a limited part of a language, e.g., pronunciation, sentence structure, or what a word means. For instance, English has a basic subject-verb-object word order: (2) a. [SubjectPatti] [Verbplays] [Objectthe cello]. b. [SubjectMichael] [Verbwrote] [Objectsome fine poetry]. When we produce sentences of this sort, we are acting as if we were following a rule that says: Put subjects before verbs and verbs before objects. If we were not following rules, our speech would be chaotic and unintelligible, not the highly patterned, communicative activity it is. Second, linguists also use the word rule to refer to their attempts to for- mulate these linguistic patterns in words, that is, to the model we build of an unconscious mental rule. Our model is not the rule itself, which remains forever inaccessible. 36  Conceptions of Language and Grammar Exercise 1. What rule would you formulate that would allow English speakers to say that sentences a, b, and c are OK, but that d is not? (The symbol * means ungrammatical, i.e., not in conformity with the rules of compe- tence.) Feel free to make use of grammatical terminology and also of terms for meanings. a. John looked the address up. b. John looked it up. c. John looked up the address. d. *John looked up it. 2. And what rule would you formulate to explain why (a-c) below are grammatical, but (d) is not? a. Harry sent a present to Mary. b. Harry sent Mary a present. c. Harry sent a package to Boston. d. *Harry sent Boston a package. (Can you think of a context or a meaning in which this sentence can be grammatical?) A language is a system Rules are not distributed randomly in the mind like potatoes in a sack. Rather, they are systematically related to one another. It is easiest to envision this con- ception with an analogy. A computer system has a set of components (central processing unit, monitor, keyboard, speakers, drives of various types) whose overall function is to process information. The components interact with each other; you can, for instance, play a CD while reading your email. The com- ponents also contain smaller parts, all of which interact in precise, though limited, ways with each other and with parts of other components. Language systems likewise have components. The most commonly cited ones are: phonetics/phonology morphology vocabulary orthography/spelling/writing syntax semantics pragmatics discourse 37 Delahunty and Garvey Phonetics and phonology are concerned with the sounds of language, mor- phology with the structure of words, vocabulary with our store of words, orthography with the spelling system, syntax with the principles of sentence structure, semantics with the literal meanings of words and sentences, prag- matics with the meanings that arise when expressions are used in specific contexts, and discourse with the linguistic and rhetorical patterns in texts of various kinds. As we proceed, you will learn the intricate ways in which the system operates. For the moment, let us look at one concrete example of how the system creates interdependencies among its rules and components. The syntactic rule for yes/no questions is connected to the rules of pronunciation, specifically the rules for intonation, the musical pattern of speech. Listen to the rise and fall of your voice as you say (3a) as a statement of fact and (3b) as a question: (3) a. They’re leaving at 6:00. b. They’re leaving at 6:00? The order of words stays the same, but the intonation pattern indicates whether the sentence is to be interpreted as a statement or as a question. In this book, we will begin our discussion with a skeletal overview of English grammar, beginning with the largest grammatical units (sentences) and working down to the smallest (sounds and letters). This is the opposite of our presentation of the grammar in the following chapters. There we be- gin with the smallest units and work our way up to the largest. We hope that by spiraling in this way, readers who have no background in language study will get an initial orientation, and those who have had some background will get a quick refresher before venturing into greater depth. co m pe t e n c e a n d pe r f o r m a n c e As we mentioned, modern linguists distinguish between the knowledge that speakers of a language must have in order to be able to use that language, and the actual use they make of that knowledge to speak, understand, read, or write. Linguists call our unconscious knowledge of the rules that constitute the language competence, and our linguistic activities that make use of that knowledge, performance. Performance provides ample evidence of competence. We can use our abil- ity to specify what is and what is not grammatical (i.e., consistent with the unconscious rules of our language). Consider the following: (4) *The blocking the entrance protester was arrested. 38  Conceptions of Language and Grammar Though we can certainly make sense of the sentence, we know that it isn’t natural English. (The German translation would be grammatical with this word order.) Of course, we may not be able to articulate exactly what makes the sentence unnatural; nor is it likely that we have been taught anything ex- plicitly about sentences like this. Likewise, you can determine hidden grammatical relations, that is, im- plicit subjects, objects, and the like: (5) a. Joan is eager to please. b. Joan is easy to please. In (5a), Joan will do the pleasing; in (5b) someone else will please Joan. Such “understood” relations are very common in language. Finally, you can also perceive ambiguity (two or more distinct interpreta- tions): (6) Molly told Angela about herself. Here Molly is talking either about Molly or about Angela. Exercise Advertisers often make use of ambiguity, for example, GE’s We bring good things to life. Find 4-5 other examples of ambiguity in advertis- ing. Express their ambiguous meanings in non-ambiguous sentences. Why do you think advertisers might like ambiguity? How about poets? You might mull over the last line of Dylan Thomas’ poem “A refusal to mourn the death, by fire, of a child in London”: After the first death, there is no other. The idea of competence depends on certain idealizations. Many linguists, though by no means all, assume that all speakers of a language have the same set of rules in their competence. This is a deliberate simplification, made with full awareness of the variety inherent in natural language. It is done to allow linguists to develop models of competence without being distracted by phenomena that do not appear to affect the model’s basic principles. This assumption is not uncontroversial. It has been viewed as an attempt to ignore the social, discourse, and textual functions of language, which some linguists believe to be crucial in understanding language structure. It 39 Delahunty and Garvey has also been viewed, because the majority of linguists are white, male, and middle class, as a thinly disguised attempt to define their variety of English as the basis for the grammatical theory for all languages and all varieties, much as Latin grammar was until recently (and in many situations still is) the model for the grammars of many European languages. While neither criticism is justified in its extreme version, both point to limitations of the language‑as‑competence approach. They also point to the need to understand language as a social artifact used by social beings in social contexts for social purposes. We deal with such considerations in our chapters on Variation and Usage in Book II. A language is acquired Because many modern theoretical linguists begin from the assumption that what they are modeling is knowledge, it follows that their theories have implications for psychology and ultimately for biology. Many believe that language is a very specialized, perhaps unique, kind of knowledge. They believe that an individual’s primary form of language is not acquired in the ways that other kinds of knowledge are acquired, such as writing or arithme- tic. In support of this belief, they point out that children learn the language (or languages) of their environments without any instruction or correction from parents or peers. All they need to acquire language is someone to com- municate with them. Moreover, they learn a vastly complex system in a very short time, and all create very similar grammars of a given language regard- less of the differences in what they hear about them, and (up to a point) regardless of their differences in intelligence. Most tellingly, linguists point out that when we know a language we know far more than we could have gleaned just from the language we heard around us. Our linguistic competence is far richer in its “depth, variety, and intricacy” (Smith 1999: 41) than the evidence that we used to acquire our languages. For example, English speakers know that sentences like (7a) are ungrammatical while (7b) is fine: (7) a. *She sang beautifully the song. b. She sang the song beautifully. No child learning English (as opposed to French or Italian) as their native lan- guage has to be taught (indeed, no child can be taught) that sentences such as (7a) are ungrammatical. (How would you articulate the rule that (7a) violates and then explain i