Linguistics Index

  • Published on
    14-Apr-2015

  • View
    416

  • Download
    4

DESCRIPTION

KMC

Transcript

KMC Linguistics Wiki PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 21:02:26 UTC Contents Articles Linguistics Theoretical linguistics Cognitive linguistics Generative linguistics Functional theories of grammar Quantitative linguistics Phonology Morphophonology Syntax Lexis (linguistics) Semantics Pragmatics Orthography Semiotics Linguistic description Anthropological linguistics Comparative linguistics Historical linguistics Etymology Graphetics Phonetics Applied linguistics Sociolinguistics Computational linguistics Forensic linguistics Language acquisition Evolutionary linguistics Internet linguistics Language assessment Language development Language education Linguistic anthropology Neurolinguistics Psycholinguistics 1 10 13 16 17 19 23 29 32 36 40 45 53 55 66 67 69 73 77 81 82 85 88 94 101 109 118 123 136 138 144 153 158 168 History of linguistics Linguistic prescription List of linguists List of unsolved problems in linguistics Philology Outline of linguistics Index of linguistics articles Index of cognitive science articles Speech-language pathology 173 179 185 200 201 204 210 213 215 References Article Sources and Contributors Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 221 226 Article Licenses License 227 Linguistics 1 Linguistics Linguistics is the scientific study of human language.[1][2][3][4][5] Linguistics can be broadly broken into three categories or subfields of study: language form, language meaning, and language in context. The earliest known activities in descriptive linguistics have been attributed to Panini, India around 500 BCE, with his analysis of Sanskrit in Ashtadhyayi.[6] The first subfield of linguistics is the study of language structure, or grammar. This focuses on the system of rules followed by the users of a language. It includes the study of morphology (the formation and composition of words), syntax (the formation and composition of phrases and sentences from these words), and phonology (sound systems). Phonetics is a related branch of linguistics concerned with the actual properties of speech sounds and nonspeech sounds, and how they are produced and perceived. The study of language meaning is concerned with how languages employ logical structures and real-world references to convey, process, and assign meaning, as well as to manage and resolve ambiguity. This category includes the study of semantics (how meaning is inferred from words and concepts) and pragmatics (how meaning is inferred from context). Linguistics also looks at the broader context in which language is influenced by social, cultural, historical and political factors. This includes the study of evolutionary linguistics, which investigates into questions related to the origins and growth of languages; historical linguistics, which explores language change; sociolinguistics, which looks at the relation between linguistic variation and social structures; psycholinguistics, which explores the representation and function of language in the mind; neurolinguistics, which looks at language processing in the brain; language acquisition, on how children or adults acquire language; and discourse analysis, which involves the structure of texts and conversations. Although linguistics is the scientific study of language, a number of other intellectual disciplines are relevant to language and intersect with it. Semiotics, for example, is the general study of signs and symbols both within language and without. Literary theorists study the use of language in literature. Linguistics additionally draws on and informs work from such diverse fields as acoustics, anthropology, biology, computer science, human anatomy, informatics, neuroscience, philosophy, psychology, sociology, and speech-language pathology. Terminology Before the 20th century, the term philology, first attested in 1716,[7] was commonly used to refer to the science of language, which was then predominantly historical in focus.[8] Since Ferdinand de Saussure's insistence on the importance of synchronic analysis, however, this focus has shifted[9] and the term "philology" is now generally used for the "study of a language's grammar, history, and literary tradition", especially in the United States,[10] where it was never as popular as it was elsewhere (in the sense of the "science of language").[7] Although the term "linguist" in the sense of "a student of language" dates from 1641,[11] the term "linguistics" is first attested in 1847.[11] It is now the usual academic term in English for the scientific study of language. The term linguist applies within the field to someone who studies language, or specific languages. Outside the field, this term is commonly used to refer to people who speak many languages fluently.[12] Linguistics 2 Fundamental questions Linguistics concerns itself with describing and explaining the nature of human language. Fundamental questions include what is universal to language, how language can vary, and how human beings come to know languages. Linguistic research can broadly be divided into the descriptive analysis of structure and grammar on the one hand and the study of non-linguistic influences on language on the other. Formal and functional approaches One major debate in linguistics concerns how language should be defined and understood. One prominent group of linguists use the term "language" primarily to refer to a hypothesised, innate module in the human brain that allows people to undertake linguistic behaviour. This "Universal grammar" is considered to guide children when they learn languages and to constrain what sentences are considered grammatical in any language. Proponents of this view, which is predominant in those schools of linguistics that are based on the generative theory of Noam Chomsky, do not necessarily consider that language evolved for communication in particular. They consider instead that it has more to do with the process of structuring human thought (see also formal grammar). Another group of linguists, by contrast, use the term "language" to refer to a communication system that developed to support cooperative activity and extend cooperative networks. Such functional theories of grammar view language as a tool that is adapted to the communicative needs of its users, and the role of cultural evolutionary processes are often emphasised over that of biological evolution. Variation and universality While some theories on linguistics focus on the different varieties that language produces, among different sections of society, others focus on the universal properties that are common to all given languages at one given time on the planet. The theory of variation therefore would elaborate on the different usages of popular languages like French and English across the globe, as well as its smaller dialects and regional permutations within their national boundaries. The theory of variation looks at the cultural stages that a particular language undergoes, and these include the following. The first stage is pidgin, or that phase in the creation of a language's variation when new, non-native speakers undertake a mainstream language and use its phrases and words in a broken manner that often attempts to be overly literal in meaning. At this junction, many of the linguistic characteristics of the native speakers' own language or mother tongue influence their use of the mainstream language, and that is when it arrives at the stage of being called a creole. Hence, this process in the creation of dialects and varieties of languages as globally popular as English and French, as well as others like Spanish, for instance, is one that is rooted in the changing evolution and growth of each language. These variating factors are studied in order to understand the different usages and dialects that a language develops over time. Universality, on the other hand, looks at formal structures and features that are common to all languages, and the template of which pre-exists in the mind of an infant child. This idea is based on the theory of generative grammar and the formal school of linguistics, whose proponents include Noam Chomsky and those who follow his theory and work. Linguistics 3 Schools of thought Early grammarians The formal study of language began in India with Pāṇini, the 5th century BC grammarian who formulated 3,959 rules of Sanskrit morphology. Pāṇini’s systematic classification of the sounds of Sanskrit into consonants and vowels, and word classes, such as nouns and verbs, was the first known instance of its kind. In the Middle East Sibawayh (‫ )ﺳﯿﺒﻮﯾﻪ‬made a detailed description of Arabic in 760 AD in his monumental work, Al-kitab fi al-nahw (‫ ,ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻮ‬The Book on Grammar), the first known author to distinguish between sounds and phonemes (sounds as units of a linguistic system). Ancient Tamil inscription at Thanjavur Western interest in the study of languages began as early as in the East,[13] but the grammarians of the classical languages did not use the same methods or reach the same conclusions as their contemporaries in the Indic world. Early interest in language in the West was a part of philosophy, not of grammatical description. The first insights into semantic theory were made by Plato in his Cratylus dialogue, where he argues that words denote concepts that are eternal and exist in the world of ideas. This work is the first to use the word etymology to describe the history of a word's meaning. Around 280 BC one of Alexander the Great’s successors founded a university (see Musaeum) in Alexandria, where a school of philologists studied the ancient texts in and taught Greek to speakers of other languages. While this school was the first to use the word "grammar" in its modern sense, Plato had used the word in its original meaning as "téchnē grammatikḗ" (Τέχνη Γραμματική), the "art of writing," which is also the title of one of the most important works of the Alexandrine school by Dionysius Thrax.[14] Throughout the Middle Ages the study of language was subsumed under the topic of philology, the study of ancient languages and texts, practiced by such educators as Roger Ascham, Wolfgang Ratke and John Amos Comenius.[15] Historicism In the 18th century, the first use of the comparative method by William Jones sparked the rise of comparative linguistics.[16] Bloomfield attributes "the first great scientific linguistic work of the world" to Jacob Grimm, who wrote Deutsche Grammatik.[17] It was soon followed by other authors writing similar comparative studies on other language groups of Europe. The scientific study of language was broadened from Indo-European to language in general by Wilhelm von Humboldt, of whom Bloomfield asserts:[17] "This study received its foundation at the hands of the Prussian statesman and scholar Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767—1835), especially in the first volume of his work on Kavi, the literary language of Java, entitled Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluß auf die geistige Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechts (‘On the Variety of the Structure of Human Language and its Influence upon the Mental Development of the Human Race’)." Structuralism Early in the 20th century, Saussure introduced the idea of language as a static system of interconnected units, defined through the oppositions between them. By introducing a distinction between diachronic to synchronic analyses of language, he laid the foundation of the modern discipline of linguistics. Saussure also introduced several basic dimensions of linguistic analysis that are still foundational in many contemporary linguistic theories, such as the distinctions between syntagm and paradigm, and the langue- parole distinction, distinguishing language as an abstract system (langue) from language as a concrete manifestation of this system (parole).[18] Substantial additional Linguistics contributions following Saussure's definition of a structural approach to language came from The Prague school, Leonard Bloomfield, Charles F. Hockett, Louis Hjelmslev, Émile Benveniste and Roman Jakobson.[19] 4 Generativism During the last half of the 20th century, following the work of Noam Chomsky, linguistics was dominated by the generativist school. While formulated by Chomsky in part as a way to explain how human beings acquire language and the biological constraints on this acquisition, in practice it has largely been concerned with giving formal accounts of specific phenomena in natural languages. Generative theory is modularist and formalist in character. Chomsky built on earlier work of Zellig Harris to formulate the generative theory of language. According to this theory the most basic form of language is a set of syntactic rules universal for all humans and underlying the grammars of all human languages. This set of rules is called Universal Grammar, and for Chomsky describing it is the primary objective of the discipline of linguistics. For this reason the grammars of individual languages are of importance to linguistics only in so far as they allow us to discern the universal underlying rules from which the observable linguistic variability is generated. In the classic formalization of generative grammars first proposed by Noam Chomsky in the 1950s,[20][21] a grammar G consists of the following components: • A finite set N of nonterminal symbols, none of which appear in strings formed from G. • A finite set of terminal symbols that is disjoint from N. • A finite set P of production rules, that map from one string of symbols to another. A formal description of language attempts to replicate a speaker's knowledge of the rules of their language, and the aim is to produce a set of rules that is minimally sufficient to successfully model valid linguistic forms. Functionalism Functional theories of language propose that since language is fundamentally a tool, it is reasonable to assume that its structures are best analyzed and understood with reference to the functions they carry out. Functional theories of grammar differ from formal theories of grammar, in that the latter seeks to define the different elements of language and describe the way they relate to each other as systems of formal rules or operations, whereas the former defines the functions performed by language and then relates these functions to the linguistic elements that carry them out. This means that functional theories of grammar tend to pay attention to the way language is actually used, and not just to the formal relations between linguistic elements.[22] Functional theories then describe language in term of functions existing on all levels of language. • Phonological function: the function of the phoneme is to distinguish between different lexical material. • Semantic function: (Agent, Patient, Recipient, etc.), describing the role of participants in states of affairs or actions expressed. • Syntactic functions: (e.g. subject and Object), defining different perspectives in the presentation of a linguistic expression • Pragmatic functions: (Theme and Rheme, Topic and Focus, Predicate), defining the informational status of constituents, determined by the pragmatic context of the verbal interaction. Functional descriptions of grammar strive to explain how linguistic functions are performed in communication through the use of linguistic forms. Linguistics 5 Cognitive linguistics In the 1970s and 1980s, a new school of thought known as cognitive linguistics emerged as a reaction to generativist theory. Led by theorists such as Ronald Langacker and George Lakoff, linguists working within the realm of cognitive linguistics propose that language is an emergent property of basic, general-purpose cognitive processes. In contrast to the generativist school of linguistics, cognitive linguistics is non-modularist and functionalist in character. Important developments in cognitive linguistics include cognitive grammar, frame semantics, and conceptual metaphor, all of which are based on the idea that form-function correspondences based on representations derived from embodied experience constitute the basic units of language. Cognitive linguistics interprets language in terms of the concepts, sometimes universal, sometimes specific to a particular tongue, which underlie its forms. It is thus closely associated with semantics but is distinct from psycholinguistics, which draws upon empirical findings from cognitive psychology in order to explain the mental processes that underlie the acquisition, storage, production and understanding of speech and writing. Cognitive linguistics denies that there is an autonomous linguistic faculty in the mind; it understands grammar in terms of conceptualization; and it claims that knowledge of language arises out of language use.[23] Because of its conviction that knowledge of language is learned through use, cognitive linguistics is sometimes considered to be a functional approach, but it differs from other functional approaches in that it is primarily concerned with how the mind creates meaning through language, and not with the use of language as a tool of communication. Sub-disciplines Linguistic structures Linguistic structures are pairings of meaning and form. Any particular pairing of meaning and form is a Saussurean sign. For instance, the meaning "cat" is represented worldwide with a wide variety of different sound patterns (in oral languages), movements of the hands and face (in sign languages), and written symbols (in written languages). Linguists focusing on structure attempt to understand the rules regarding language use that native speakers know (not always consciously). All linguistic structures can be broken down into component parts that are combined according to (sub)conscious rules, over multiple levels of analysis. For instance, consider the structure of the word "tenth" on two different levels of analysis. On the level of internal word structure (known as morphology), the word "tenth" is made up of one linguistic form indicating a number and another form indicating ordinality. The rule governing the combination of these forms ensures that the ordinality marker "th" follows the number "ten." On the level of sound structure (known as phonology), structural analysis shows that the "n" sound in "tenth" is made differently from the "n" sound in "ten" spoken alone. Although most speakers of English are consciously aware of the rules governing internal structure of the word pieces of "tenth", they are less often aware of the rule governing its sound structure. Linguists focused on structure find and analyze rules such as these, which govern how native speakers use language. Linguistics has many sub-fields concerned with particular aspects of linguistic structure. These sub-fields range from those focused primarily on form to those focused primarily on meaning. They also run the gamut of level of analysis of language, from individual sounds, to words, to phrases, up to discourse. Sub-fields that focus on a structure-focused study of language: • Phonetics, the study of the physical properties of speech (or signed) production and perception. • Phonology, the study of sounds (or signs) as discrete, abstract elements in the speaker's mind that distinguish meaning (phonemes). • Morphology, the study of morphemes, or the internal structures of words and how they can be modified • Syntax, the study of how words combine to form grammatical sentences • Semantics, the study of the meaning of words (lexical semantics) and fixed word combinations (phraseology), and how these combine to form the meanings of sentences Linguistics • Pragmatics, the study of how utterances are used in communicative acts, and the role played by context and non-linguistic knowledge in the transmission of meaning • Discourse analysis, the analysis of language use in texts (spoken, written, or signed) • Stylistics, the study of linguistic factors (rhetoric, diction, stress) that place a discourse in context. • Semiotics, the study of signs and sign processes (semiosis), indication, designation, likeness, analogy, metaphor, symbolism, signification, and communication. Many linguists would agree that these divisions overlap considerably, and the independent significance of each of these areas is not universally acknowledged. Regardless of any particular linguist's position, each area has core concepts that foster significant scholarly inquiry and research. 6 Inter-disciplinary factors Alongside the structurally motivated domains of study, are other fields within the domain of linguistics. These fields are often distinguished by external factors that influence the study of language. • Applied linguistics, the study of language-related issues applied in everyday life, notably language policies, planning, and education. (Constructed language fits under Applied linguistics.) • Biolinguistics, the study of natural as well as human-taught communication systems in animals, compared to human language. • Clinical linguistics, the application of linguistic theory to the field of Speech-Language Pathology. • Computational linguistics, the study of linguistic issues in a way that is 'computationally responsible', i.e., taking careful note of computational consideration of algorithmic specification and computational complexity, so that the linguistic theories devised can be shown to exhibit certain desirable computational properties implementations. • Developmental linguistics, the study of the development of linguistic ability in individuals, particularly the acquisition of language in childhood. • Evolutionary linguistics, the study of the origin and subsequent development of language by the human species. • Historical linguistics or diachronic linguistics, the study of language change over time. • Language geography, the study of the geographical distribution of languages and linguistic features. • Linguistic typology, the study of the common properties of diverse unrelated languages, properties that may, given sufficient attestation, be assumed to be innate to human language capacity. • Neurolinguistics, the study of the structures in the human brain that underlie grammar and communication. • Psycholinguistics, the study of the cognitive processes and representations underlying language use. • Sociolinguistics, the study of variation in language and its relationship with social factors. Semiotics is a larger discipline that investigates the relationship between signs and what they signify more broadly. From the perspective of semiotics, language can be seen as a sign or symbol, with the world as its representation. Sub-fields Historical linguistics Historical linguists study the history of specific languages as well as general characteristics of language change. One aim of historical linguistics is to classify languages in language families descending from a common ancestor, an enterprise that relies primarily on the comparative method. This involves comparison of elements in different languages to detect possible cognates in order to be able to reconstruct how different languages have changed over time. Some historical linguists, along with non-linguists interested in language change, have also employed such tools as computational phylogenetics. The study of language change is also referred to as "diachronic linguistics", which can be distinguished from "synchronic linguistics", the study of a given language at a given moment in time without regard to its previous stages. Historical linguistics was among the first linguistic disciplines to emerge and was the most widely practised form of linguistics in the late 19th century. However, a shift in focus to the synchronic Linguistics perspective began in the early twentieth century with Saussure and became predominant in western linguistics through the work of Noam Chomsky. 7 Semiotics Semiotics is the study of sign processes (semiosis), or signification and communication, signs, and symbols, both individually and grouped into sign systems, including the study of how meaning is constructed and understood. Semioticians often do not restrict themselves to linguistic communication when studying the use of signs but extend the meaning of "sign" to cover all kinds of cultural symbols. Nonetheless, semiotic disciplines closely related to linguistics are literary studies, discourse analysis, text linguistics, and philosophy of language. Semiotics, within the linguistics paradigm, is the study of the relationship between language and culture. Historically, Edward Sapir and Ferdinand De Saussure's structuralist theories influenced the study of signs extensively until the late part of the 20th century, but later, post-modern and post-structural thought, through language philosophers including Jacques Derrida, Mikhail Bakhtin, Michel Foucault, and others, have also been a considerable influence on the discipline in the late part of the 20th century and early 21st century . These theories emphasise the role of language variation, and the idea of subjective usage, depending on external elements like social and cultural factors, rather than merely on the interplay of formal elements. Language documentation Since the inception of the discipline of linguistics, linguists have been concerned with describing and analysing previously undocumented languages. Starting with Franz Boas in the early 1900s, this became the main focus of American linguistics until the rise of formal structural linguistics in the mid-20th century. This focus on language documentation was partly motivated by a concern to document the rapidly disappearing languages of indigenous peoples. The ethnographic dimension of the Boasian approach to language description played a role in the development of disciplines such as sociolinguistics, anthropological linguistics, and linguistic anthropology, which investigate the relations between language, culture, and society. The emphasis on linguistic description and documentation has also gained prominence outside North America, with the documentation of rapidly dying indigenous languages becoming a primary focus in many university programs in linguistics. Language description is a work-intensive endeavour, usually requiring years of field work in the language concerned, so as to equip the linguist to write a sufficiently accurate reference grammar. Further, the task of documentation requires the linguist to collect a substantial corpus in the language in question, consisting of texts and recordings, both sound and video, which can be stored in an accessible format within open repositories, and used for further research.[24] Applied linguistics Linguists are largely concerned with finding and describing the generalities and varieties both within particular languages and among all languages. Applied linguistics takes the results of those findings and "applies" them to other areas. Linguistic research is commonly applied to areas such as language education, lexicography, and translation. "Applied linguistics" has been argued to be something of a misnomer, since applied linguists focus on making sense of and engineering solutions for real-world linguistic problems, not simply "applying" existing technical knowledge from linguistics; moreover, they commonly apply technical knowledge from multiple sources, such as sociology (e.g., conversation analysis) and anthropology. Today, computers are widely used in many areas of applied linguistics. Speech synthesis and speech recognition use phonetic and phonemic knowledge to provide voice interfaces to computers. Applications of computational linguistics in machine translation, computer-assisted translation, and natural language processing are areas of applied linguistics that have come to the forefront. Their influence has had an effect on theories of syntax and semantics, as modeling syntactic and semantic theories on computers constraints. Linguistics Linguistic analysis is a sub-discipline of applied linguistics used by many governments to verify the claimed nationality of people seeking asylum who do not hold the necessary documentation to prove their claim.[25] This often takes the form of an interview by personnel in an immigration department. Depending on the country, this interview is conducted either in the asylum seeker's native language through an interpreter or in an international lingua franca like English.[25] Australia uses the former method, while Germany employs the latter; the Netherlands uses either method depending on the languages involved.[25] Tape recordings of the interview then undergo language analysis, which can be done either by private contractors or within a department of the government. In this analysis, linguistic features of the asylum seeker are used by analysts to make a determination about the speaker's nationality. The reported findings of the linguistic analysis can play a critical role in the government's decision on the refugee status of the asylum seeker.[25] 8 Translation The sub-field of translation includes the translation of written and spoken texts across mediums, from digital to print and spoken. To translate literally means to transmute the meaning from one language into another. Translators are often employed by organisations, such as travel agencies as well as governmental embassies to facilitate communication between two speakers who do not know each other's language. Translators are also employed to work within computational linguistics setups like Google Translate for example, which is an automated, programmed facility to translate words and phrases between any two or more given languages. Translation is also conducted by publishing houses, who convert works of writing from one language to another in order to reach varied audiences. Description and prescription Linguistics is descriptive; linguists describe and explain features of language without making subjective judgments on whether a particular feature is "right" or "wrong". This is analogous to practice in other sciences: A zoologist studies the animal kingdom without making subjective judgments on whether a particular animal is better or worse than another. Prescription, on the other hand, is an attempt to promote particular linguistic usages over others, often favouring a particular dialect or "acrolect". This may have the aim of establishing a linguistic standard, which can aid communication over large geographical areas. It may also, however, be an attempt by speakers of one language or dialect to exert influence over speakers of other languages or dialects (see Linguistic imperialism). An extreme version of prescriptivism can be found among censors, who attempt to eradicate words and structures that they consider to be destructive to society. Speech and writing Most contemporary linguists work under the assumption that spoken language is more fundamental than written language. This is because: • Speech appears to be universal to all human beings capable of producing and hearing it, while there have been many cultures and speech communities that lack written communication • Speech evolved before human beings invented writing • People learn to speak and process spoken language more easily and much earlier than writing. Nonetheless, linguists agree that the study of written language can be worthwhile and valuable. For research that relies on corpus linguistics and computational linguistics, written language is often much more convenient for processing large amounts of linguistic data. Large corpora of spoken language are difficult to create and hard to find, and are typically transcribed and written. In addition, linguists have turned to text-based discourse occurring in various formats of computer-mediated communication as a viable site for linguistic inquiry. Linguistics The study of writing systems themselves is, in any case, considered a branch of linguistics. 9 References [1] Linguistics (http:/ / mitpress. mit. edu/ catalog/ item/ examrequest. asp?ttype=2& tid=12240) (6th ed.). The MIT Press. 2010. ISBN 0-262-51370-6. . Retrieved 25 July 2012. [2] . ISBN 0-262-51370-6. [3] Martinet, André (1960). Elements of General Linguistics. Tr. Elisabeth Palmer (Studies in General Linguistics, vol. i.). London: Faber. p. 15. [4] Halliday, Michael A. K.; Jonathan Webster (2006). On Language and Linguistics. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. vii. ISBN 0-8264-8824-2. [5] Greenberg, Joseph (1948). "Linguistics and ethnology". Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 4: 140–47. [6] Vasu, S.C. (1996). The Ashtadhyayi of Panini (2 Vols.) (http:/ / www. vedicbooks. net/ ashtadhyayi-panini-vols-p-2313. html). Vedic Books. ISBN 9788120804098. . [7] Online Etymological Dictionary: philology (http:/ / www. etymonline. com/ index. php?term=philology) [8] McMahon, A. M. S. (1994). Understanding Language Change. Cambridge University Press. p. 19. ISBN 0-521-44665-1 [9] McMahon, A. M. S. (1994). Understanding Language Change. Cambridge University Press. p. 9. ISBN 0-521-44665-1 [10] A. Morpurgo Davies Hist. Linguistics (1998) 4 I. 22. [11] Online Etymological Dictionary: linguist (http:/ / www. etymonline. com/ index. php?term=linguist) [12] "Linguist". The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 2000. ISBN 978-0-395-82517-4. [13] Bloomfield 1914, p. 307. [14] Seuren, Pieter A. M. (1998). Western linguistics: An historical introduction. Wiley-blackwell. pp. 2–24. ISBN 0-631-20891-7. [15] Bloomfield 1914, p. 308. [16] Bloomfield 1914, p. 310. [17] Bloomfield 1914, p. 311. [18] Clarke, David S. (1990). Sources of semiotic: readings with commentary from antiquity to the present. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. pp. 143–144. [19] Holquist 1981, pp. xvii-xviii. [20] Chomsky, Noam (1956). "Three Models for the Description of Language". IRE Transactions on Information Theory 2 (2): 113–123. doi:10.1109/TIT.1956.1056813. [21] Chomsky, Noam (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. [22] Nichols, Johanna (1984). "Functional Theories of Grammar". Annual Review of Anthropology 13: 97. doi:10.1146/annurev.an.13.100184.000525. "[Functional grammar] analyzes grammatical structure, as do formal and structural grammar; but it also analyzes the entire communicative situation: the purpose of the speech event, its participants, its discourse context. Functionalists maintain that the communicative situation motivates, constrains, explains, or otherwise determines grammatical structure, and that a structural or formal approaches not merely limited to an artificially restricted data base, but is inadequate ven as a structurala ccount. Functional grammar, then, differs from formala nd structural grammar in that it purports not to model but to explain; and the explanation is grounded in the communicative situation." [23] Croft, William and D. Alan Cruse (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 1. [24] Himmelman, Nikolaus Language documentation: What is it and what is it good for? in P. Gippert, Jost, Nikolaus P Himmelmann & Ulrike Mosel. (2006) Essentials of Language documentation. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin & New York. [25] Eades, Diana (2005). "Applied Linguistics and Language Analysis in Asylum Seeker Cases" (http:/ / songchau. googlepages. com/ 503. pdf). Applied Linguistics 26 (4): 503–526. doi:10.1093/applin/ami021. . Bibliography • Akmajian, Adrian; Demers, Richard; Farmer, Ann; Harnish, Robert (2010). Linguistics: An Introduction to Language and Communication. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-51370-6. External links • The Linguist List (http://linguistlist.org/), a global online linguistics community with news and information updated daily • Glossary of linguistic terms (http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/index.htm) • Language Log (http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/), a linguistics blog maintained by prominent linguists • Glottopedia (http://www.glottopedia.org), MediaWiki-based encyclopedia of linguistics, under construction Linguistics • Linguistic sub-fields (http://www.lsadc.org/info/ling-fields.cfm) – according to the Linguistic Society of America • Linguistics and language-related wiki articles on Scholarpedia (http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/ Language) and Citizendium (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Linguistics) • "Linguistics" section (http://www.unizar.es/departamentos/filologia_inglesa/garciala/bibliography.html) – A Bibliography of Literary Theory, Criticism and Philology, ed. J. A. García Landa (University of Zaragoza, Spain) • An Academic Linguistics (http://www.lingforum.com/forum) Forum • Linguistics (http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Social_Sciences/Linguistics/) at the Open Directory Project 10 Theoretical linguistics Theoretical linguistics is the branch of linguistics that is most concerned with developing models of linguistic knowledge. The fields that are generally considered the core of theoretical linguistics are syntax, phonology, morphology, and semantics. Although phonetics often informs phonology, it is often excluded from the purview of theoretical linguistics, along with psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics. Theoretical linguistics also involves the search for an explanation of linguistic universals, that is, properties all languages have in common. Major fields Phonetics Phonetics is the study of speech sounds with concentration on three main points : • Articulation : the production of speech sounds in human speech organs. • Perception : the way human ears respond to speech signals, how the human brain analyses them. • Acoustic features : physical characteristics of speech sounds such as color, loudness, amplitude, frequency etc. According to this definition, phonetics can also be called linguistic analysis of human speech at the surface level. That is one obvious difference from phonology, which concerns the structure and organisation of speech sounds in natural languages, and furthermore has a theoretical and abstract nature. One example can be made to illustrate this distinction: In English, the suffix -s can represent either /s/, /z/, or can be silent (written Ø) depending on context. Orthographic representation : S, s Phonetic features: Phonetic representations: [s], [z], Ø Perception through the ear: high frequency sounds accompanied by a hissing noise. Acoustic features: Frequency : 8000 – 11000 Hz Color : similar to the hissing noise made by snakes. Phonological characteristics : Occurrence : beginning, middle or end of words. Accompanied by vowels or consonants. Distinguishes meanings of words depending on context: s''low ≠ g''low Theoretical linguistics Articulatory phonetics The field of articulatory phonetics is a subfield of phonetics. In studying articulation, phoneticians attempt to document how humans produce speech sounds (vowels and consonants). That is, articulatory phoneticians are interested in how the different structures of the vocal tract, called the articulators (tongue, lips, jaw, palate, teeth etc.), interact to create the specific sounds. Auditory phonetics Auditory phonetics is a branch of phonetics concerned with the hearing, acquisition and comprehension of phonetic sounds of words of a language. As articulatory phonetics explores the methods of sound production, auditory phonetics explores the methods of reception—the ear to the brain, and those processes. Acoustic phonetics Acoustic phonetics is a subfield of phonetics which deals with acoustic aspects of speech sounds. Acoustic phonetics investigates properties like the mean squared amplitude of a waveform, its duration, its fundamental frequency, or other properties of its frequency spectrum, and the relationship of these properties to other branches of phonetics (e.g. articulatory or auditory phonetics), and to abstract linguistic concepts like phones, phrases, or utterances. 11 Phonology Phonology is the study of language sounds.[1] Phonology is divided into two separate studies, phonetics and phonemics. Phonetics is what depicts the sounds we hear. It calls attention to the smallest details in language sounds. There are three kinds of phonetics: acoustic phonetics, auditory phonetics, and articulatory phonetics. Acoustic phonetics deals with the physical properties of sound, what sounds exactly are coming from the person speaking. Auditory phonetics deals with how the sounds are perceived, exactly what the person hearing the sounds is perceiving. Finally, articulatory phonetics studies how the speech sounds are produced. This is what describes the actual sounds in detail. It is also known as descriptive phonetics.[2] Phonemics studies how the sounds are used. It analyzes the way sounds are arranged in languages and helps you to hear what sounds are important in a language.[3] The unit of analysis for phonemics is called phonemes. "A phoneme is a sound that functions to distinguish one word from another in a language."[4] For example, the English word 'tie' sounds different from the word 'die': the sounds that differentiate the words are [t] and [d].[4] Morphology Morphology is the study of word structure. For example, in the sentences The dog runs and The dogs run, the word forms runs and dogs have an affix -s added, distinguishing them from the base forms dog and run. Adding this suffix to a nominal stem gives plural forms, adding it to verbal stems restricts the subject to third person singular. Some morphological theories operate with two distinct suffixes -s, called allomorphs of the morphemes Plural and Third person singular, respectively. Languages differ with respect to their morphological structure. Along one axis, we may distinguish analytic languages, with few or no affixes or other morphological processes from synthetic languages with many affixes. Along another axis, we may distinguish agglutinative languages, where affixes express one grammatical property each, and are added neatly one after another, from fusional languages, with non-concatenative morphological processes (infixation, umlaut, ablaut, etc.) and/or with less clear-cut affix boundaries. Theoretical linguistics 12 Syntax Syntax is the study of language structure and phrasal hierarchies, depicted in parse tree format. It is concerned with the relationship between units at the level of words or morphology. Syntax seeks to delineate exactly all and only those sentences which make up a given language, using native speaker intuition. Syntax seeks to describe formally exactly how structural relations between elements (lexical items/words and operators) in a sentence contribute to its interpretation. Syntax uses principles of formal logic and Set Theory to formalize and represent accurately the hierarchical relationship between elements in a sentence. Abstract syntax trees are often used to illustrate the hierarchical structures that are posited. Thus, in active declarative sentences in English the subject is followed by the main verb which in turn is followed by the object (SVO). This order of elements is crucial to its correct interpretation and it is exactly this which syntacticians try to capture. They argue that there must be a formal computational component contained within the language faculty of normal speakers of a language and seek to describe it. Semantics Semantics is the study of intension, that is, the intrinsic meanings of words and phrases. Much of the work in the field of philosophy of language is concerned with the relation between meanings and the world, and this concern cross-cuts formal semantics in several ways. For example, both philosophers of language and semanticists make use of propositional, predicate and modal logics to express their ideas about word meaning; what Frege termed 'sense'. References • Ottenheimer, H.J. (2006). The Anthropology of Language: An Introduction to Linguistic Anthropology.Canada: Thomas Wadsworth. [1] [2] [3] [4] Ottenheimer, 34 Ottenheimer, 36-37 Ottenheimer, 46-47 Ottenheimer, 47 Cognitive linguistics 13 Cognitive linguistics In linguistics, cognitive linguistics (CL) refers to the branch of linguistics that interprets language in terms of the concepts, sometimes universal, sometimes specific to a particular tongue, which underlie its forms. It is thus closely associated with semantics but is distinct from psycholinguistics, which draws upon empirical findings from cognitive psychology in order to explain the mental processes that underlie the acquisition, storage, production and understanding of speech and writing. Cognitive linguistics is characterized by adherence to three central positions. First, it denies that there is an autonomous linguistic faculty in the mind; second, it understands grammar in terms of conceptualization; and third, it claims that knowledge of language arises out of language use.[1] Cognitive linguists deny that the mind has any module for language-acquisition that is unique and autonomous. This stands in contrast to the stance adopted in the field of generative grammar. Although cognitive linguists do not necessarily deny that part of the human linguistic ability is innate, they deny that it is separate from the rest of cognition. They thus reject a body of opinion in cognitive science suggesting that there is evidence for the modularity of language. They argue that knowledge of linguistic phenomena — i.e., phonemes, morphemes, and syntax — is essentially conceptual in nature. However, they assert that the storage and retrieval of linguistic data is not significantly different from the storage and retrieval of other knowledge, and that use of language in understanding employs similar cognitive abilities to those used in other non-linguistic tasks. Departing from the tradition of truth-conditional semantics, cognitive linguists view meaning in terms of conceptualization. Instead of viewing meaning in terms of models of the world, they view it in terms of mental spaces. Finally, cognitive linguistics argues that language is both embodied and situated in a specific environment. This can be considered a moderate offshoot of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, in that language and cognition mutually influence one another, and are both embedded in the experiences and environments of its users. Areas of study Cognitive linguistics is divided into three main areas of study: • Cognitive semantics, dealing mainly with lexical semantics, separating semantics (meaning) into meaning-construction and knowledge representation. • Cognitive approaches to grammar, dealing mainly with syntax, morphology and other traditionally more grammar-oriented areas. • Cognitive phonology, dealing with classification of various correspondences between morphemes and phonetic sequences. Aspects of cognition that are of interest to cognitive linguists include: • • • • • • • • Construction grammar and cognitive grammar. Conceptual metaphor and conceptual blending. Image schemas and force dynamics. Conceptual organization: Categorization, Metonymy, Frame semantics, and Iconicity. Construal and Subjectivity. Gesture and sign language. Linguistic relativity. Cultural linguistics. Related work that interfaces with many of the above themes: • Computational models of metaphor and language acquisition. Cognitive linguistics • Dynamical models of language acquisition • Conceptual semantics, pursued by generative linguist Ray Jackendoff is related because of its active psychological realism and the incorporation of prototype structure and images. Cognitive linguistics, more than generative linguistics, seeks to mesh together these findings into a coherent whole. A further complication arises because the terminology of cognitive linguistics is not entirely stable, both because it is a relatively new field and because it interfaces with a number of other disciplines. Insights and developments from cognitive linguistics are becoming accepted ways of analysing literary texts, too. Cognitive Poetics, as it has become known, has become an important part of modern stylistics. 14 Controversy There is significant peer review and debate within the field of linguistics regarding cognitive linguistics. Critics of cognitive linguistics have argued that most of the evidence from the cognitive view comes from the research in pragmatics and semantics on research into metaphor and preposition choice. They suggest that cognitive linguists should provide cognitive re-analyses of topics in syntax and phonology that are understood in terms of autonomous knowledge (Gibbs 1996). There is also controversy and debate within the field concerning the representation and status of idioms in grammar and the actual mental grammar of speakers. On one hand it is asserted that idiom variation needs to be explained with regard to general and autonomous syntactic rules. Another view says such idioms do not constitute semantic units and can be processed compositionally (Langlotz 2006). References Notes [1] Croft, William and D. Alan Cruse (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 1. General references • Evans, Vyvyan & Melanie Green (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. • Evans, Vyvyan (2007). A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. • Gibbs (1996) in Casad ED. Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods: The Expansion of a New Paradigm in Linguistics (Cognitive Linguistic Research) Mouton De Gruyter (June 1996) ISBN 9783110143584 • Langlotz, Andreas. 2006. Idiomatic Creativity: A Cognitive-linguistic Model of Idiom-representation And Idiom Variation in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Further reading • Evans, Vyvyan & Melanie Green (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. • Evans, Vyvyan (2007). A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. • Evans, Vyvyan; Benjamin Bergen & Joerg Zinken (2007). The Cognitive Linguistics Reader. London: Equinox. • Evans, Vyvyan, Benjamin K. Bergen and Jörg Zinken. The Cognitive Linguistics Enterprise: An Overview (http:/ /www.vyvevans.net/CLoverview.pdf). In Vyvyan Evans, Benjamin K. Bergen and Jörg Zinken (Eds). The Cognitive Linguistics Reader. Equinox Publishing Co. • Geeraerts, D. & H. Cuyckens, eds. (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978 0 19 514378 2. • Geeraerts, D., ed. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Cognitive linguistics • Kristiansen et al., eds. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. • Rohrer, T. Embodiment and Experientialism in Cognitive Linguistics. In the Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Dirk Geeraerts and Herbert Cuyckens, eds., Oxford University Press, forthcoming. • Gilles Fauconnier has written a brief, manifesto-like introduction to Cognitive linguistics, which compares it to mainstream, Chomsky-inspired linguistics. See "Introduction to Methods and Generalizations" in T. Janssen and G. Redeker (Eds) (1999). Scope and Foundations of Cognitive Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton De Gruyter. Cognitive Linguistics Research Series. ( on-line version (http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Fauconnier_99. html)) • Grady, Oakley, and Coulson (1999). "Blending and Metaphor". In Metaphor in cognitive linguistics, Steen and Gibbs (eds.). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ( online version (http://cogweb.ucla.edu/CogSci/Grady_99. html)) • Schmid, H. J. et al. (1996). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. New York, Longman. • Silverman, Daniel (2011). "Usage-based phonology", in Bert Botma, Nancy C. Kula, and Kuniya Nasukawa, eds., Continuum Companion to Phonology. Continuum. • Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in Thought and Language. • Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive Grammar. Oxford, Oxford University Press. • Croft, W. & D. A. Cruse (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press. • Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner (2003). The Way We Think (http://markturner.org/wwt.html). New York: Basic Books. • Lakoff, George (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0 226 46804 6. • The Cognitive Linguistics Bibliography, Wolf et al., Mouton De Gruyter, Berlin, 2006. • Conceptual semantics and Cognitive linguistics. Online Version (http://www.linglit.tu-darmstadt.de/ fileadmin/linglit/teich/lg-science/herget.pdf) • GOOSSENS, LOUIS. Oct. 2009. Metaphtonymy: the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics (includes Cognitive Linguistic Bibliography). Volume 1, Issue 3, Pages 323–342, ISSN (Online) 1613-3641, ISSN (Print) 0936-5907, DOI: 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323 • Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Lee, D.A. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction 1st ed. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2001. • Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis: Charteris-Black, J. (2004) Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Palgrave-MacMillan. ISBN 1403932921 • The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. Oct. 2009. Cognitive Linguistics (includes Cognitive Linguistic Bibliography). Volume 6, Issue 4, Pages 347–378, ISSN (Online) 1613-3641, ISSN (Print) 0936-5907 15 External links • • • • International Cognitive Linguistics Association (http://www.cogling.org) UK Cognitive Linguistics Association (http://www.uk-cla.org.uk) Annotated Cognitive Linguistics Reading List (http://www.vyvevans.net) (Vyv Evans) JohnQPublik's Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics (http://www.chrisdb.me.uk/wiki/doku. php?id=cognitive_linguistics) is an overview of the field, comparing it to traditional Chomskyan linguistics. • Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics (http://markturner.org/coglingSpring07.html) (Mark Turner). • The Gestalt Theory and Linguistics Page (http://www.gestalttheory.net/linguistics/) deals with the relationship between Gestalt theory and cognitive linguistics. Cognitive linguistics • The Center for the Cognitive Science of Metaphor Online (http://zakros.ucsd.edu/~trohrer/metaphor/ metaphor.htm) is a collection of numerous formative articles in the fields of conceptual metaphor and conceptual integration. 16 Generative linguistics Generative linguistics is a school of thought within linguistics that makes use of the concept of a generative grammar. The term "generative grammar" is used in different ways by different people, and the term "generative linguistics" therefore has a range of different, though overlapping, meanings. Formally, a generative grammar is defined as one that is fully explicit. It is a finite set of rules that can be applied to generate all those and only those sentences (often, but not necessarily, infinite in number) that are grammatical in a given language. This is the definition that is offered by Noam Chomsky, who invented the term,[1] and by most dictionaries of linguistics. Generate is being used as a technical term with a particular sense. To say that a grammar generates a sentence means that the grammar "assigns a structural description" to the sentence.[2] The term generative grammar is also used to label the approach to linguistics taken by Chomsky and his followers. Chomsky's approach is characterised by the use of transformational grammar – a theory that has changed greatly since it was first promulgated by Chomsky in his 1957 book Syntactic Structures – and by the assertion of a strong linguistic nativism (and therefore an assertion that some set of fundamental characteristics of all human languages must be the same). The term "ge(ne)rative linguistics" is often applied to the earliest version of Chomsky's transformational grammar, which was associated with a distinction between the "deep structure" and "surface structure" of sentences. References [1] Chomsky, Noam (1957,2002). Syntactic Structures. Mouton de Gruyter. p. 13. [2] Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press. Functional theories of grammar 17 Functional theories of grammar Functional theories of grammar are those approaches to the study of language, that see the functions of language and its elements to be the key to understanding linguistic processes and structures. Functional theories of language propose that since language is fundamentally a tool, it is reasonable to assume that its structures are best analyzed and understood with reference to the functions they carry out. Functional theories of grammar differ from formal theories of grammar, in that the latter seeks to define the different elements of language and describe the way they relate to each other as systems of formal rules or operations, whereas the former defines the functions performed by language and then relates these functions to the linguistic elements that carry them out. This means that functional theories of grammar tend to pay attention to the way language is actually used in communicative context, and not just to the formal relations between linguistic elements.[1] In a broad sense the theories implicit in most work within descriptive linguistics and linguistic typology fit within the category of functional linguistics.[2] Frameworks There are several distinct grammatical theories that employ a functional approach. • The structuralist functionalism of the Prague school, was the earliest functionalist framework developed in the 1920s.[3][4] • Simon Dik's Functional discourse grammar, originally developed in the 1970s and 80s, has been influential and inspired many other functional theories.[5][6] It has also been continuously developed by Linguists such as Kees Hengeveld.[7][8] • Michael Halliday's systemic functional grammar argues that the explanation of how language works "needed to be grounded in a functional analysis, since language had evolved in the process of carrying out certain critical functions as human beings interacted with their ... 'eco-social' environment".[9] [10] Halliday draws on the work of Bühler and Malinowski. • Role and reference grammar, developed by Robert Van Valin employs functional analytical framework with a somewhat formal mode of description. In RRG, the description of a sentence in a particular language is formulated in terms of its semantic structure and communicative functions, as well as the grammatical procedures used to express these meanings.[11][12] • Danish functional grammar combines Saussurean/Hjelmslevian structuralism with a focus on pragmatics and discourse.[13] • Lexical functional grammar, developed by Joan Bresnan and Ronald Kaplan in the 1970s, is a type of phrase structure grammar, as opposed to a dependency grammar. It mainly focuses on syntax, including its relation with morphology and semantics.[14][15] Dik characterises functional grammar as follows: In the functional paradigm a language is in the first place conceptualized as an instrument of social interaction among human beings, used with the intention of establishing communicative relationships. Within this paradigm one attempts to reveal the instrumentality of language with respect to what people do and achieve with it in social interaction. A natural language, in other words, is seen as an integrated part of the communicative competence of the natural language user. (2, p. 3) Because of its emphasis on usage, communicative function, and the social context of language, functional grammar differs significantly from other linguistic theories which stress purely formal approaches to grammar, notably Chomskyan generative grammar. Functional grammar is strongly associated with the school of linguistic typology that takes its lead from the work of Joseph Greenberg.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] Functional theories of grammar 18 Grammatical Functions Functions exist on all levels of grammar, and even in phonology, where the function of the phoneme is to distinguish between lexical material. 1. Semantic function: (Agent, Patient, Recipient, etc.), describing the role of participants in states of affairs or actions expressed. 2. Syntactic functions: (e.g. subject and Object), defining different perspectives in the presentation of a linguistic expression 3. Pragmatic functions: (Theme and Rheme, Topic and Focus) Predicate), defining the informational status of constituents, determined by the pragmatic context of the verbal interaction. References [1] Nichols, Johanna (1984). "Functional Theories of Grammar". Annual Review of Anthropology 13. "[Functional grammar] analyzes grammatical structure, as do formal and structural grammar; but it also analyzes the entire communicative situation: the purpose of the speech event, its participants, its discourse context. Functionalists maintain that the communicative situation motivates, constrains, explains, or otherwise determines grammatical structure, and that a structural or formal approaches not merely limited to an artificially restricted data base, but is inadequate ven as a structurala ccount. Functional grammar, then, differs from formala nd structural grammar in that it purports not to model but to explain; and the explanation is grounded in the communicative situation." [2] Dryer, Matthew S. `year=2006. "Descriptive theories, explanatory theories, and basic linguistic theory" (http:/ / linguistics. buffalo. edu/ people/ faculty/ dryer/ dryer/ desc. expl. theories. pdf). In Felix Ameka. Catching Language: Issues in Grammar Writing. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 207-234. . "This paper is primarily directed at linguists who can be construed as functionalist, using the term in a broad sense that includes most work in typology and work by descriptive linguists4. The central issue discussed in this paper is what sort of theory we need for linguistic description, if one adopts a functionalist view of language, which for the purposes of this paper can be characterized as the view that functional or grammar-external principles play a central role in explaining why languages are the way they are." [3] Newmeyer, Frederick. (2001). The Prague School and North American functionalist approaches to syntax. Journal of Linguistics vol. 37. 101 - 126 [4] Novak, P., Sgall, P. 1968. On the Prague functional approach. Trav. Ling. Prague 3:291-97. Tuscaloosa: Univ. Alabama Press [5] Dik, S. C. 1980. Studies in Functional Grammar. London: Academic [6] Dik, S. C. 1981. Functional Grammar. Dordrecht/CinnaminsonN, J: Foris. [7] Hengeveld, Kees & Mackenzie, J. Lachlan (2010), Functional Discourse Grammar. In: Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog eds, The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 367-400. [8] Hengeveld, Kees & Mackenzie, J. Lachlan (2008), Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [9] Halliday, M.A.K. forthcoming. Meaning as Choice. In Fontaine, L, Bartlett, T, and O'Grady, G. Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice. Cambridge University Press. p1. [10] Halliday, M. A. K. 1984. A Short Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold [11] Foley, W. A., Van Valin, R. D. Jr. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press [12] Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. (Ed.). (1993). Advances in Role and Reference Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [13] Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth; Michael Fortescue; Peter Harder; Lars Heltoft; Lisbeth Falster Jakobsen (eds.). (1996) Content, expression and structure: studies in Danish functional grammar. John Benjamins Publishing Company. [14] Bresnan, Joan (2001). Lexical Functional Syntax. Blackwell. ISBN 0-631-20973-5 [15] Dalrymple, Mary (2001). Lexical Functional Grammar. No. 42 in Syntax and Semantics Series. New York: Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-613534-7 [16] Bates, E., MacWhinney, B. 1982. Functionalist approaches to grammar. In Language Acquisition: The State of the Art, ed. E. Wanner, L. Gleitman, pp. 173- 218. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press [17] Dirven, R., Fried, W., eds. 1984. Functionalism in Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins [18] Heath, J. 1975. Some functional relationships in grammar. Language 51:89- 104 [19] Heath, J. 1978. Functional universals. BLS 4:86-95 [20] Langacker, R. W. 1974. Movement rules in functional perspective. Language 50(4):630-64 [21] Bybee, Joan L. (1998) A functionalist approach to grammar and its evolution. Evolution of Communication Volume: 2, Issue: 2, Pages: 249-278 [22] Newmeyer, Frederick. 1998. Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [23] Anstey, Matthew P. & Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 2005. Crucial Readings in Functional Grammar. De Gruyter - Mouton. Quantitative linguistics 19 Quantitative linguistics Quantitative linguistics is a sub-discipline of general linguistics and, more specifically, of mathematical linguistics. Quantitative Linguistics (QL) deals with language learning, language change, and application as well as structure of natural languages. QL investigates languages using statistical methods; its most demanding objective is the formulation of language laws and, ultimately, of a general theory of language in the sense of a set of interrelated languages laws[1] Synergetic linguistics was from its very beginning specifically designed for this purpose.[2] QL is empirically based on the results of language statistics, a field which can be interpreted as statistics of languages or as statistics of any linguistic object. This field is not necessarily connected to substantial theoretical ambitions. Corpus linguistics and computational linguistics are other fields which contribute important empirical evidence. History The earliest QL approaches date back in the ancient Greek and Indian world. One of the historical sources consists of applications of combinatorics to linguistic matters,[3] another one is based on elementary statistical studies, which can be found under the header colometry and stichometry.[4] Language laws in quantitative linguistics In QL, the concept of law is understood as the class of law hypotheses which have been deduced from theoretical assumptions, are mathematically formulated, are interrelated with other laws in the field, and have sufficiently and successfully been tested on empirical data, i.e. which could not be refuted in spite of much effort to do so. Köhler writes about QL laws: “Moreover, it can be shown that these properties of linguistic elements and of the relations among them abide by universal laws which can be formulated strictly mathematically in the same way as common in the natural sciences. One has to bear in mind in this context that these laws are of stochastic nature; they are not observed in every single case (this would be neither necessary nor possible); they rather determine the probabilities of the events or proportions under study. It is easy to find counterexamples to each of the above-mentioned examples; nevertheless, these cases do not violate the corresponding laws as variations around the statistical mean are not only admissible but even essential; they are themselves quantitatively exactly determined by the corresponding laws. This situation does not differ from that in the natural sciences, which have since long abandoned the old deterministic and causal views of the world and replaced them by statistical/probabilistic models.“[5] Some linguistic laws There exist quite a number of proposed language laws, among them are[6]: • Law of diversification: If linguistic categories such as parts-of-speech or inflectional endings appear in various forms it can be shown that the frequencies of their occurrences in texts are controlled by laws. • Length (or more generally, complexity) distributions. The investigation of text or dictionary frequencies of units of any kind with regard to their lengths yields regularly a number of distributions, depending on the given kind of the unit under study. By now, the following units have been studied: • • • • • Law of the distribution of morph lengths; Law of the distribution of the lengths of rhythmical units; Law of the distribution of sentence lengths; Law of the distribution of syllable lengths; Law of the distribution of word lengths; Other linguistic units which also abide by this law are e.g., letters (characters) of different complexities, the lengths of the so-called hrebs and of speech acts. The same holds for the distributions of sounds (phones) of different Quantitative linguistics durations. • Martin's law: This law concerns lexical chains which are obtained by looking up the definition of a word in a dictionary, then looking up the definition of the definition just obtained etc. Finally, all these definitions form a hierarchy of more and more general meanings, whereby the number of definitions decreases with increasing generality. Among the levels of this kind of hierarchy, there exists a number of lawful relations. • Menzerath's law (also, in particular in linguistics, Menzerath-Altmann law): This law states that the sizes of the constituents of a construction decrease with increasing size of the construction under study. The longer, e.g. a sentence (measured in terms of the number of clauses) the shorter the clauses (measured in terms of the number of words), or: the longer a word (in syllables or morphs) the shorter the syllables or words in sounds). • Rank-frequency laws: Virtually any kind of linguistic units abides by these relations. We will give here only a few illustrative examples: • The words of a text are arranged according their text frequency and assigned a rank number and the corresponding frequency. Since George Kingsley Zipf (the well-known “Zipf’s Law”), a large number of mathematical models of the relation between rank and frequency has been proposed. • A similar distribution between rank and frequency of sounds, phonemes, and letters can be observed. • Word associations: Rank and frequency of associations subjects react with on a (word) stimulus. • Law of language change: Growth processes in language such as vocabulary growth, the dispersion of foreign or loan words, changes in the inflectional system etc. abide by a law known in QL as Piotrowski law, and corresponds to growth models in other scientific disciplines. The Piotrowski law is a case of the so-called logistic model (cf. logistic equation). It was shown that it covers also languages acquisition processes (cf. language acquisition law). • Text block law: Linguistic units (e.g. words, letters, syntactic functions and constructions) show a specific frequency distribution in equally large text blocks. • Zipf's law: The frequency of words is inversely proportional to their rank in frequency lists.[7] 20 Stylistics The study of poetic and also non-poetic styles can be based on statistical methods; moreover, it is possible to conduct corresponding investigations on the basis of the specific forms (parameters) language laws take in texts of different styles. In such cases, QL supports research into stylistics: One of the overall aims is evidence as objective as possible also in at least part of the domain of stylistic phenomena by referring to language laws. One of the central assumptions of QL is that some laws (e.g. the distribution of word lengths) require different models, at least different parameter values of the laws (distributions or functions) depending on the text sort a text belongs to. If poetic texts are under study QL methods form a sub-discipline of Quantitative Study of Literature (stylometrics).[8] Important authors • • • • • • • • Gabriel Altmann (1931)[9][10] Otto Behaghel (1854-1936]; cf. Behaghel's laws Karl-Heinz Best[11][12] Sergej Grigor'evič Čebanov (1897–1966)[13] William Palin Elderton (1877–1962)[14] Sheila Embleton, Toronto[15] Gertraud Fenk-Oczlon[16] Ernst Wilhelm Förstemann (1822–1906)[17] • Wilhelm Fucks (1902–1990)[18] • Peter Grzybek[19] • Pierre Guiraud Quantitative linguistics • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Gustav Herdan (1897–1968);[20][21] Luděk Hřebíček (1934)[22] Friedrich Wilhelm Kaeding (1843–1928)[23] Reinhard Köhler[24] Werner Lehfeldt (1943) [25] Viktor Vasil'evič Levickij (1938-2012) [26] Haitao Liu[27] Helmut Meier (1897–1973) Paul Menzerath (1883–1954),[28] cf. Menzerath's law Sizuo Mizutani (1926) [29] Augustus de Morgan (1806–1871). Charles Muller, Straßburg [30] Raijmund G. Piotrowski[31][32] L.A. Sherman Juhan Tuldava (1922–2003)[33] Andrew Wilson, Lancaster[34] Albert Thumb (1865–1915)[35] 21 • George Kingsley Zipf (1902–1950); cf. Zipf's law • Eberhard Zwirner (1899–1984). Phonometry[36] References • Karl-Heinz Best: Quantitative Linguistik. Eine Annäherung. 3., stark überarbeitete und ergänzte Auflage. Peust & Gutschmidt, Göttingen 2006, ISBN 3-933043-17-4. • Reinhard Köhler with the assistance of Christiane Hoffmann: Bibliography of Quantitative Linguistics. Benjamins, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia 1995, ISBN 90-272-3751-4. • Reinhard Köhler, Gabriel Altmann, Gabriel, Rajmund G. Piotrowski (eds.): Quantitative Linguistik - Quantitative Linguistics. Ein internationales Handbuch – An International Handbook. de Gruyter, Berlin/ New York 2005, ISBN 3-11-015578-8. • Haitao Liu & Wei Huang. Quantitative Linguistics:State of the Art, Theories and Methods [37]. Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Science). 2012,43(2):178-192. in Chinese. Notes [1] Reinhard Köhler: Gegenstand und Arbeitsweise der Quantitativen Linguistik. In: Reinhard Köhler, Gabriel Altmann, Rajmund G. Piotrowski (Hrsg.): Quantitative Linguistik - Quantitative Linguistics. Ein internationales Handbuch. de Gruyter, Berlin/ New York 2005, S. 1-16. ISBN 3-11-015578-8. [2] Reinhard Köhler: Synergetic linguistics. In: Reinhard Köhler, Gabriel Altmann, Rajmund G. Piotrowski (Hrsg.): Quantitative Linguistik Quantitative Linguistics. Ein internationales Handbuch. de Gruyter, Berlin/ New York 2005, S. 760-774. ISBN 3-11-015578-8. [3] N.L. Biggs: The Roots of Combinatorics. In: Historia Mathematica 6, 1979, S. 109-136. [4] Adam Pawłowski: Prolegomena to the History of Corpus and Quantitative Linguistics. Greek Antiquity. In: Glottotheory 1, 2008, S. 48-54. [5] cf. note 1, p. 1-2. [6] cf. references: Köhler, Altmann, Piotrowski (eds.) (2005) [7] H. Guiter, M. V. Arapov (eds.): Studies on Zipf's Law. Bochum: Brockmeyer 1982. ISBN 3-88339-244-8. [8] Alexander Mehler: Eigenschaften der textuellen Einheiten und Systeme. In: Reinhard Köhler, Gabriel Altmann, Rajmund G. Piotrowski (Hrsg.): Quantitative Linguistik - Quantitative Linguistics. Ein internationales Handbuch. de Gruyter, Berlin/ New York 2005, p. 325-348, esp. Quantitative Stilistik, p. 339-340. ISBN 3-11-015578-8; Vivien Altmann, Gabriel Altmann: Anleitung zu quantitativen Textanalysen. Methoden und Anwendungen. Lüdenscheid: RAM-Verlag 2008, ISBN 978-3-9802659-5-9. [9] http:/ / de. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Gabriel_Altmann [10] Grzybek, Peter, & Köhler, Reinhard (eds.) (2007): Exact Methods in the Study of Language and Text. Dedicated to Gabriel Altmann on the Occasion of his 75th Birthday. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter; http:/ / de. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Gabriel_Altmann [11] http:/ / de. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Benutzer:Dr. _Karl-Heinz_Best Quantitative linguistics [12] http:/ / wwwuser. gwdg. de/ ~kbest/ [13] http:/ / de. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Sergei_Grigorjewitsch_Tschebanow [14] Best, Karl-Heinz (2009): William Palin Elderton (1877-1962). Glottometrics 19, p. 99-101. [15] http:/ / dlll. yorku. ca/ linguistics/ People/ sheila. html [16] http:/ / wwwu. uni-klu. ac. at/ gfenk/ [17] http:/ / de. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Ernst_F%C3%B6rstemann; Karl-Heinz Best: Ernst Wilhelm Förstemann (1822-1906). In: Glottometrics 12, 2006, p. 77-86 [18] Dieter Aichele: Das Werk von W. Fucks. In: Reinhard Köhler, Gabriel Altmann, Rajmund G. Piotrowski (Hrsg.): Quantitative Linguistik Quantitative Linguistics. Ein internationales Handbuch. de Gruyter, Berlin/ New York 2005, p. 152-158. ISBN 3-11-015578-8 [19] http:/ / www. uni-graz. at/ peter. grzybek/ site. php?show=1 [20] http:/ / de. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Gustav_Herdan [21] http:/ / lql. uni-trier. de/ index. php/ Herdan_dimension [22] http:/ / de. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Lud%C4%9Bk_H%C5%99eb%C3%AD%C4%8Dek [23] http:/ / de. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Friedrich_Wilhelm_Kaeding [24] http:/ / www. uni-trier. de/ index. php?id=11131 [25] http:/ / www. uni-goettingen. de/ de/ 51122. html [26] Festschrift on the occasion of the 70. anniversary: Problems of General, Germanic and Slavic Linguistics. Papers for 70-th Anniversary of Professor V. Levickij. Herausgegeben von Gabriel Altmann, Iryna Zadoroshna, Yuliya Matskulyak. Books, Chernivtsi 2008. (No ISBN.) Levickij dedicated: Glottometrics, Heft 16, 2008; Emmerich Kelih: Der Czernowitzer Beitrag zur Quantitativen Linguistik: Zum 70. Geburtstag von Prof. Dr. Habil. Viktor V. Levickij. In: Naukovyj Visnyk Černivec’koho Universytetu: Hermans’ka filolohija. Vypusk 407, 2008, p. 3-10. [27] http:/ / mypage. zju. edu. cn/ en/ lht [28] Karl-Heinz Best: Paul Menzerath (1883-1954). In: Glottometrics 14, 2007, p. 86-98 [29] = Shizuo Mizutani; Portrait on the occasion of his 80. anniversary in: Glottometrics 12, 2006; about Mizutani: Naoko Maruyama: Sizuo Mizutani (1926). The Founder of Japanese Quantitative Linguistics. In: Glottometrics 10, 2005, p. 99-107. [30] Charles Muller: Initiation à la statistique linguistique. Paris: Larousse 1968; German: Einführung in die Sprachstatistik. Hueber, München 1972. [31] = Rajmund G. Piotrowski, R.G. Piotrovskij; cf. Piotrowski's law: http:/ / lql. uni-trier. de/ index. php/ Change_in_language [32] http:/ / de. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Piotrowski-Gesetz [33] Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 4, Nr. 1, 1997 (= Festschrift in Honour of Juh. Tuldava) [34] http:/ / www. ling. lancs. ac. uk/ profiles/ Andrew-Wilson/ [35] http:/ / de. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Albert_Thumb [36] http:/ / de. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Eberhard_Zwirner [37] http:/ / www. journals. zju. edu. cn/ soc/ CN/ abstract/ abstract10497. shtml 22 External links • IQLA - International Quantitative Linguistics Association http://www.iqla.org/ Phonology 23 Phonology Phonology is a branch of linguistics concerned with the systematic organization of sounds in languages. It has traditionally focused largely on study of the systems of phonemes in particular languages, but it may also cover any linguistic analysis either at a level beneath the word (including syllable, onset and rhyme, articulatory gestures, articulatory features, mora, etc.) or at all levels of language where sound is considered to be structured for conveying linguistic meaning. Phonology also includes the study of equivalent organizational systems in sign languages. The word phonology (as in the phonology of English) can also refer to the phonological system (sound system) of a given language. This is one of the fundamental systems which a language is considered to comprise, like its syntax and its vocabulary. Phonology is often distinguished from phonetics. While phonetics concerns the physical production, acoustic transmission and perception of the sounds of speech,[1][2] phonology describes the way sounds function within a given language or across languages to encode meaning. In other words, phonetics belongs to descriptive linguistics, and phonology to theoretical linguistics. Note that this distinction was not always made, particularly before the development of the modern concept of phoneme in the mid 20th century. Some subfields of modern phonology have a crossover with phonetics in descriptive disciplines such as psycholinguistics and speech perception, resulting in specific areas like articulatory phonology or laboratory phonology. Derivation and definitions The word phonology comes from Greek φωνή, phōnḗ, "voice, sound", and the suffix -logy (which is from Greek λόγος, lógos, "word, speech, subject of discussion"). Definitions of the term vary. Nikolai Trubetzkoy in Grundzüge der Phonologie (1939) defines phonology as "the study of sound pertaining to the system of language", as opposed to phonetics, which is "the study of sound pertaining to the act of speech" (the distinction between language and speech being basically Saussure's distinction between langue and parole).[3] More recently, Lass (1998) writes that phonology refers broadly to the subdiscipline of linguistics concerned with the sounds of language, while in more narrow terms, "phonology proper is concerned with the function, behaviour and organization of sounds as linguistic items".[1] According to Clark et al. (2007) it means the systematic use of sound to encode meaning in any spoken human language, or the field of linguistics studying this use.[4] Development of phonology The history of phonology may be traced back to the Ashtadhyayi, the Sanskrit grammar composed by Pāṇini in the 4th century BC. In particular the Shiva Sutras, an auxiliary text to the Ashtadhyayi, introduces what can be considered a list of the phonemes of the Sanskrit language, with a notational system for them that is used throughout the main text, which deals with matters of morphology, syntax and semantics. The Polish scholar Jan Baudouin de Courtenay (together with his former student Mikołaj Kruszewski) introduced the concept of the phoneme in 1876, and his work, though often unacknowledged, is considered to be the starting point of modern phonology. He also worked on the theory of phonetic alternations (what is now called allophony and morphophonology), and had a significant influence on the work of Ferdinand de Saussure. Phonology 24 An influential school of phonology in the interwar period was the Prague School. One of its leading members was Prince Nikolai Trubetzkoy, whose Grundzüge der Phonologie (Principles of Phonology),[3] published posthumously in 1939, is among the most important works in the field from this period. Directly influenced by Baudouin de Courtenay, Trubetzkoy is considered the founder of morphophonology, although this concept had also been recognized by de Courtenay. Trubetzkoy also developed the concept of the archiphoneme. Another important figure in the Prague School was Roman Jakobson, who was one of the most prominent linguists of the 20th century. In 1968 Noam Chomsky and Morris Halle published The Sound Pattern of English (SPE), the basis for Generative Phonology. In this view, phonological representations are sequences of segments made up of distinctive features. These features were an expansion of earlier work by Nikolai Trubetzkoy, 1920s. Roman Jakobson, Gunnar Fant, and Morris Halle. The features describe aspects of articulation and perception, are from a universally fixed set, and have the binary values + or −. There are at least two levels of representation: underlying representation and surface phonetic representation. Ordered phonological rules govern how underlying representation is transformed into the actual pronunciation (the so-called surface form). An important consequence of the influence SPE had on phonological theory was the downplaying of the syllable and the emphasis on segments. Furthermore, the Generativists folded morphophonology into phonology, which both solved and created problems. Natural Phonology was a theory based on the publications of its proponent David Stampe in 1969 and (more explicitly) in 1979. In this view, phonology is based on a set of universal phonological processes which interact with one another; which ones are active and which are suppressed are language-specific. Rather than acting on segments, phonological processes act on distinctive features within prosodic groups. Prosodic groups can be as small as a part of a syllable or as large as an entire utterance. Phonological processes are unordered with respect to each other and apply simultaneously (though the output of one process may be the input to another). The second-most prominent Natural Phonologist is Stampe's wife, Patricia Donegan; there are many Natural Phonologists in Europe, though also a few others in the U.S., such as Geoffrey Nathan. The principles of Natural Phonology were extended to morphology by Wolfgang U. Dressler, who founded Natural Morphology. In 1976 John Goldsmith introduced autosegmental phonology. Phonological phenomena are no longer seen as operating on one linear sequence of segments, called phonemes or feature combinations, but rather as involving some parallel sequences of features which reside on multiple tiers. Autosegmental phonology later evolved into Feature Geometry, which became the standard theory of representation for the theories of the organization of phonology as different as Lexical Phonology and Optimality Theory. Government Phonology, which originated in the early 1980s as an attempt to unify theoretical notions of syntactic and phonological structures, is based on the notion that all languages necessarily follow a small set of principles and vary according to their selection of certain binary parameters. That is, all languages' phonological structures are essentially the same, but there is restricted variation that accounts for differences in surface realizations. Principles are held to be inviolable, though parameters may sometimes come into conflict. Prominent figures include Jonathan Kaye, Jean Lowenstamm, Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Monik Charette, John Harris, and many others. In a course at the LSA summer institute in 1991, Alan Prince and Paul Smolensky developed Optimality Theory — an overall architecture for phonology according to which languages choose a pronunciation of a word that best satisfies a list of constraints which is ordered by importance: a lower-ranked constraint can be violated when the violation is necessary in order to obey a higher-ranked constraint. The approach was soon extended to morphology by John McCarthy and Alan Prince, and has become a dominant trend in phonology. Though this usually goes Phonology unacknowledged, Optimality Theory was strongly influenced by Natural Phonology; both view phonology in terms of constraints on speakers and their production, though these constraints are formalized in very different ways. The appeal to phonetic grounding of constraints in various approaches has been criticized by proponents of 'substance-free phonology'.[5] Broadly speaking Government Phonology (or its descendant, Strict-CV Phonology) has a greater following in the United Kingdom, whereas Optimality Theory is predominant in North America. 25 Analysis of phonemes An important part of traditional, pre-generative, schools of phonology is studying which sounds can be grouped into distinctive units within a language; these units are known as phonemes. For example, in English, the "p" sound in pot is aspirated (pronounced [pʰ]), while that in spot is not aspirated (pronounced [p]). However, English speakers intuitively treat both sounds as variations (allophones) of the same phonological category, that is, of the phoneme /p/. (Traditionally, it would be argued that if a word-initial aspirated [pʰ] were interchanged with the unaspirated [p] in spot, native speakers of English would still hear the same words; that is, the two sounds are perceived as "the same" /p/.) In some other languages, however, these two sounds are perceived as different, and they are consequently assigned to different phonemes in those languages. For example, in Thai, Hindi, and Quechua, there are minimal pairs of words for which aspiration is the only contrasting feature (two words with different meanings that are identical except that one has an aspirated sound where the other has an unaspirated one). Part of the phonological study of a language therefore involves looking at data (phonetic transcriptions of the speech of native speakers) and trying to deduce what the underlying phonemes are and what the sound inventory of the language is. The presence or absence of minimal pairs, as mentioned above, is a frequently used criterion for deciding whether two sounds should be assigned to the same phoneme. However other considerations often need to be taken into account as well. The particular sounds which are phonemic in a language can change over time. At one time, [f] and [v] were allophones in English, but these later changed into separate phonemes. This is one of the main factors of historical change of languages as described in historical linguistics. The findings and insights of speech perception and articulation research complicates the traditional and somewhat intuitive idea of interchangeable allophones being perceived as the same phoneme. First, interchanged allophones of the same phoneme can result in unrecognizable words. Second, actual speech, even at a word level, is highly co-articulated, so it is problematic to expect to be able to splice words into simple segments without affecting speech perception. The vowels of modern (Standard) Arabic and (Israeli) Hebrew from the phonemic point of view. Note the intersection of the two circles—the distinction between short a, i and u is made by both speakers, but Arabic lacks the mid articulation of short vowels, while Hebrew lacks the distinction of vowel length. Phonology 26 Different linguists therefore take different approaches to the problem of assigning sounds to phonemes. For example, they differ in the extent to which they require allophones to be phonetically similar. There are also differing ideas as to whether this grouping of sounds is purely a tool for linguistic analysis, or reflects an actual process in the way the human brain processes a language. Since the early 1960s, theoretical linguists have moved away from the traditional concept of a phoneme, preferring to consider basic units at a more abstract level, as a component of morphemes; these units can be called morphophonemes, and analysis using this approach is called morphophonology. The vowels of modern (Standard) Arabic and (Israeli) Hebrew from the phonetic point of view. Note that the two circles are totally separate—none of the vowel-sounds made by speakers of one language is made by speakers of the other. One modern theory is that Israeli Hebrew's phonology reflects Yiddish elements, not Semitic ones. Other topics in phonology In addition to the minimal units that can serve the purpose of differentiating meaning (the phonemes), phonology studies how sounds alternate, i.e. replace one another in different forms of the same morpheme (allomorphs), as well as, for example, syllable structure, stress, accent, and intonation. Phonology also includes topics such as phonotactics (the phonological constraints on what sounds can appear in what positions in a given language) and phonological alternation (how the pronunciation of a sound changes through the application of phonological rules, sometimes in a given order which can be feeding or bleeding,[6]) as well as prosody, the study of suprasegmentals and topics such as stress and intonation. The principles of phonological analysis can be applied independently of modality because they are designed to serve as general analytical tools, not language-specific ones. The same principles have been applied to the analysis of sign languages (see Phonemes in sign languages), even though the sub-lexical units are not instantiated as speech sounds. Notes [1] Lass, Roger (1998. Digitized 2000). Phonology: An Introduction to Basic Concepts (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=aTsAt3D6H58C& printsec=frontcover& dq=phonology#v=onepage& q& f=false). Cambridge, UK; New York; Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press. p. 1. ISBN 0-521-23728-9. . Retrieved 8 January 2011  Paperback ISBN 0-521-28183-0 [2] Carr, Philip (2003). English Phonetics and Phonology: An Introduction (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=p5a7mmpqbt0C& printsec=frontcover& dq=introduction+ phonetics+ phonology#v=onepage& q& f=false). Massachusetts, USA; Oxford, UK; Victoria, Australia; Berlin, Germany: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0-631-19775-3. . Retrieved 8 January 2011  Paperback ISBN 0-631-19776-1 [3] Trubetzkoy N., Grundzüge der Phonologie (published 1939), translated by C. Baltaxe as Principles of Phonology (http:/ / books. google. pl/ books?id=Ej6ENdUGS-UC& dq="Grundzüge+ der+ Phonologie"& hl=pl& source=gbs_navlinks_s), University of California Press, 1969 [4] Clark, John; Yallop, Colin; Fletcher, Janet (2007). An Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=dX5P5mxtYYIC& printsec=frontcover& dq=introduction+ phonetics+ phonology#v=onepage& q& f=false) (3rd ed.). Massachusetts, USA; Oxford, UK; Victoria, Australia: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4051-3083-7. . Retrieved 8 January 2011  Alternative ISBN 1-4051-3083-0 [5] Hale, Mark; Reiss, Charles (2008). The Phonological Enterprise. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-953397-0. [6] Goldsmith 1995:1. Phonology 27 Bibliography • Anderson, John M.; and Ewen, Colin J. (1987). Principles of dependency phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Bloch, Bernard (1941). "Phonemic overlapping". American Speech 16 (4): 278–284. doi:10.2307/486567. JSTOR 486567. • Bloomfield, Leonard. (1933). Language. New York: H. Holt and Company. (Revised version of Bloomfield's 1914 An introduction to the study of language). • Brentari, Diane (1998). A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. • Chomsky, Noam. (1964). Current issues in linguistic theory. In J. A. Fodor and J. J. Katz (Eds.), The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy language (pp. 91–112). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. • Chomsky, Noam; and Halle, Morris. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row. • Clements, George N. (1985). "The geometry of phonological features". Phonology Yearbook 2: 225–252. doi:10.1017/S0952675700000440. • Clements, George N.; and Samuel J. Keyser. (1983). CV phonology: A generative theory of the syllable. Linguistic inquiry monographs (No. 9). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-53047-3 (pbk); ISBN 0-262-03098-5 (hbk). • de Lacy, Paul, ed. (2007). The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology (http://books.google.com/ ?id=7sxLaeZAhOAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Cambridge+Handbook+of+Phonology#v=onepage&q& f=false). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-84879-2 (hbk). Retrieved 8 January 2011 • Donegan, Patricia. (1985). On the Natural Phonology of Vowels. New York: Garland. ISBN 0-8240-5424-5. • Firth, J. R. (1948). "Sounds and prosodies". Transactions of the Philological Society 47 (1): 127–152. doi:10.1111/j.1467-968X.1948.tb00556.x. • Gilbers, Dicky; de Hoop, Helen (1998). "Conflicting constraints: An introduction to optimality theory". Lingua 104: 1–12. doi:10.1016/S0024-3841(97)00021-1. • Goldsmith, John A. (1979). The aims of autosegmental phonology. In D. A. Dinnsen (Ed.), Current approaches to phonological theory (pp. 202–222). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. • Goldsmith, John A. (1989). Autosegmental and metrical phonology: A new synthesis. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. • Goldsmith, John A (1995). "Phonological Theory". In John A. Goldsmith. The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. Blackwell Publishers. ISBN 1-4051-5768-2. • Gussenhoven, Carlos & Jacobs, Haike. "Understanding Phonology", Hodder & Arnold, 1998. 2nd edition 2005. • Hale, Mark; Reiss, Charles (2008). The Phonological Enterprise. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-953397-0. • Halle, Morris (1954). "The strategy of phonemics". Word 10: 197–209. • Halle, Morris. (1959). The sound pattern of Russian. The Hague: Mouton. • Harris, Zellig. (1951). Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago: Chicago University Press. • Hockett, Charles F. (1955). A manual of phonology. Indiana University publications in anthropology and linguistics, memoirs II. Baltimore: Waverley Press. • Hooper, Joan B. (1976). An introduction to natural generative phonology. New York: Academic Press. • Jakobson, Roman (1949). "On the identification of phonemic entities". Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 5: 205–213. • Jakobson, Roman; Fant, Gunnar; and Halle, Morris. (1952). Preliminaries to speech analysis: The distinctive features and their correlates. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. • Kaisse, Ellen M.; and Shaw, Patricia A. (1985). On the theory of lexical phonology. In E. Colin and J. Anderson (Eds.), Phonology Yearbook 2 (pp. 1–30). • Kenstowicz, Michael. Phonology in generative grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. • Ladefoged, Peter. (1982). A course in phonetics (2nd ed.). London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. • Martinet, André. (1949). Phonology as functional phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell. Phonology • Martinet, André. (1955). Économie des changements phonétiques: Traité de phonologie diachronique. Berne: A. Francke S.A. • Napoli, Donna Jo (1996. Linguistics: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. • Pike, Kenneth. (1947). Phonemics: A technique for reducing languages to writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. • Sandler, Wendy and Lillo-Martin, Diane. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press • Sapir, Edward (1925). "Sound patterns in language". Language 1 (2): 37–51. doi:10.2307/409004. JSTOR 409004. • Sapir, Edward (1933). "La réalité psychologique des phonémes". Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique 30: 247–265. • de Saussure, Ferdinand. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot. • Stampe, David. (1979). A dissertation on natural phonology. New York: Garland. • Swadesh, Morris (1934). "The phonemic principle". Language 10 (2): 117–129. doi:10.2307/409603. JSTOR 409603. • Trager, George L.; Bloch, Bernard (1941). "The syllabic phonemes of English". Language 17 (3): 223–246. doi:10.2307/409203. JSTOR 409203. • Trubetzkoy, Nikolai. (1939). Grundzüge der Phonologie. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 7. • Twaddell, William F. (1935). On defining the phoneme. Language monograph no. 16. Language. 28 External links • Phonetics and phonology (http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Social_Sciences/Linguistics/ Phonetics_and_Phonology//) at the Open Directory Project Morphophonology 29 Morphophonology Morphophonology (also morphophonemics, morphonology) is a branch of linguistics which studies the interaction between morphological and phonological or phonetic processes. Its chief focus is the sound changes that take place in morphemes (minimal meaningful units) when they combine to form words. Morphophonological analysis often involves an attempt to give a series of formal rules that successfully predict the regular sound changes occurring in the morphemes of a given language. Such a series of rules converts a theoretical underlying representation into a surface form that is actually heard. The units of which the underlying representations of morphemes are composed are sometimes called morphophonemes. The surface form produced by the morphophonological rules may consist of phonemes (which are then subject to ordinary phonological rules to produce speech sounds or phones), or else the morphophonological analysis may bypass the phoneme stage and produce the phones itself. Morphophonemes and morphophonological rules When morphemes combine, they influence each other's sound structure (whether analyzed at a phonetic or phonemic level), resulting in different variant pronunciations for the same morpheme. Morphophonology attempts to analyze these processes. A language's morphophonological structure is generally described with a series of rules which, ideally, can predict every morphophonological alternation that takes place in the language. An example of a morphophonological alternation in English is provided by the plural morpheme, written as "-s" or "-es". Its pronunciation alternates between [s], [z], and [ɪz], as in cats, dogs, and horses respectively. A purely phonological analysis would most likely assign to these three endings the phonemic representations /s/, /z/, /ɪz/. On a morphophonological level, however, they may all be considered to be forms of the underlying object //z//, which is a morphophoneme. The different forms it takes are dependent on the segment at the end of the morpheme to which it attaches – these dependencies are described by morphophonological rules. (The behaviour of the English past tense ending "-ed" is similar – it can be pronounced [t], [d] or [ɪd], as in hoped, bobbed and added.) Note that the plural suffix "-s" can also influence the form taken by the preceding morpheme, as in the case of the words leaf and knife, which end with [f] in the singular, but have [v] in the plural (leaves, knives). On a morphophonological level these morphemes may be analyzed as ending in a morphophoneme //F//, which becomes voiced when a voiced consonant (in this case the //z// of the plural ending) is attached to it. This rule may be written symbolically as: /F/ -> [αvoice] / __ [αvoice]. In the International Phonetic Alphabet, pipes (| |) are often used to indicate a morphophonemic rather than phonemic representation. Another common convention is double slashes (// //), as above, implying that the transcription is 'more phonemic than simply phonemic'. Other conventions sometimes seen are double pipes (|| ||) and curly brackets ({ }). Types of morphophonological changes Inflected and agglutinating languages may have extremely complicated systems of morphophonemics. Examples of complex morphophonological systems include: • Sandhi, the phenomenon behind the English examples of plural and past tense above, is found in virtually all languages to some degree. Even Mandarin, which is sometimes said to display no morphology, nonetheless displays tone sandhi, a morphophonemic alternation. • Consonant gradation, found in some Uralic languages such as Finnish, Estonian, Northern Sámi, and Nganasan. • Vowel harmony, which occurs in varying degrees in languages all around the world, notably Turkic languages. • Ablaut, found in English and other Germanic languages. Ablaut is the phenomenon wherein stem vowels change form depending on context, as in English sing, sang, sung. Morphophonology 30 Relation between phonology and morphophonology Until the 1950s, many phonologists assumed that neutralizing rules generally applied before allophonic rules. Thus phonological analysis was split into two parts: a morphophonological part, where neutralizing rules were developed to derive phonemes from morphophonemes; and a purely phonological part, where phones were derived from the phonemes. Since the 1960s (in particular with the work of the generative school, such as Chomsky and Halle's The Sound Pattern of English) many linguists have moved away from making such a split, instead regarding the surface phones as being derived from the underlying morphophonemes (which may be referred to using various terminology) through a single system of (morpho)phonological rules. The purpose of both phonemic and morphophonemic analysis is to produce simpler underlying descriptions for what appear on the surface to be complicated patterns. In purely phonemic analysis the data is just a set of words in a language, while for the purposes of morphophonemic analysis the words must be considered in grammatical paradigms to take account of the underlying morphemes. It is postulated that morphemes are recorded in the speaker's "lexicon" in an invariant (morphophonemic) form, which, in a given environment, is converted by rules into a surface form. The analyst attempts to present as completely as possible a system of underlying units (morphophonemes) and a series of rules that act on them, so as to produce surface forms consistent with the linguistic data. Isolation forms The isolation form of a morpheme is the form in which that morpheme appears in isolation (when not subject to the effects of any other morpheme). In the case of a bound morpheme, such as the English past tense ending "-ed", it will generally not be possible to identify an isolation form, since such a morpheme does not occur in isolation. It is often reasonable to assume that the isolation form of a morpheme provides its underlying representation. For example, in some American English, plant is pronounced [plænt], while planting is [ˈplænɪŋ], where the morpheme "plant-" appears in the form [plæn]. Here the underlying form can be assumed to be //plænt//, corresponding to the isolation form, since rules can be set up to derive the reduced form [plæn] from this (while it would be difficult or impossible to set up rules that would derive the isolation form [plænt] from an underlying //plæn//). This is not always the case, however; sometimes the isolation form itself is subject to neutralization that does not apply to some other instances of the morpheme. For example, the French word petit ("small") is pronounced in isolation without the final [t] sound, although in certain derived forms (such as the feminine petite) the [t] is heard. If the isolation form were adopted as the underlying form, the information that there is a final "t" would be lost, and it would be hard to explain the appearance of the "t" in the inflected forms. Rule ordering Morphophonological rules are generally considered to apply in a set order. This means that the application of one rule may sometimes either prevent or enable the application of another rule, provided the rules are appropriately ordered. If the ordering of two rules is such that the application of the first rule can have the effect of making it possible to apply the second, then the rules are said to be in feeding order. For example, if a language has an apocope rule (A) which deletes a final vowel, and a cluster reduction rule (CR) that reduces a final consonant cluster, then the rules are in feeding order if A precedes CR, since the application of A can enable application of CR (for example, a word ending /-rpa/ is not itself subject to CR, since the consonant cluster is not final, but if A is applied to it first, leaving /-rp/, then CR can apply). Here rule A is said to feed rule CR. If the rules are ordered such as to avoid possible feeding (in this case, if CR applies before A) then they are said to be in counter-feeding order. On the other hand, if rules are ordered such that the application of the first rule can have the effect of preventing application of the second, then the rules are said to be in bleeding order. For example, if a language has an Morphophonology epenthesis rule (E) that inserts a /w/ before certain vowels, and a vowel deletion rule (D) that deletes one of two consecutive vowels, then the rules are in bleeding order if E precedes D, since the application of E can prevent application of D (for example, a word containing /-iu-/ would be subject to D, but if E is applied to it first, leaving /-iwu-/, then D can no longer apply). Here rule E is said to bleed rule D. If the rules are ordered such as to avoid possible bleeding (in this case, if D applies before E) then they are said to be in counter-bleeding order. The terminology of feeding and bleeding is also applied to other linguistic rules, such as those of historical sound changes. 31 Morphophonology and orthography The principle behind alphabetic writing systems is that the letters (graphemes) represent phonemes. However in many orthographies based on such systems the correspondences between graphemes and phonemes are not exact, and it is sometimes the case that certain spellings better represent a word's morphophonological structure rather than the purely phonological. An example of this is that the English plural morpheme is written -s regardless of whether it is pronounced as /s/ or /z/; we write cats and dogs, not dogz. The above example involves active morphology (inflection), and morphophonemic spellings are common in this context in many languages. Another type of spelling that can be described as morphophonemic is the kind that reflects the etymology of words. Such spellings are particularly common in English; examples include science /saɪ/ vs. unconscious /ʃ/, prejudice /prɛ/ vs. prequel /priː/, sign /saɪn/ signature /sɪɡn/, nation /neɪ/ vs. nationalism /næ/, and special /spɛ/ vs. species /spiː/. For more detail on this topic, see Phonemic orthography, in particular the section on Morphophonemic features. References • Hayes, Bruce (2009). "Morphophonemic Analysis" Introductory Phonology, pp. 161–185. Blackwell Syntax 32 Syntax In linguistics, syntax (from Ancient Greek σύνταξις "arrangement" from σύν syn, "together", and τάξις táxis, "an ordering") is "the study of the principles and processes by which sentences are constructed in particular languages".[1] In addition to referring to the overarching discipline, the term syntax is also used to refer directly to the rules and principles that govern the sentence structure of any individual language, for example in "the syntax of Modern Irish." Modern research in syntax attempts to describe languages in terms of such rules. Many professionals in this discipline attempt to find general rules that apply to all natural languages. The term syntax is also used to refer to the rules governing the behavior of mathematical systems, such as formal languages used in logic. (See Logical syntax). Early history Works on grammar were written long before modern syntax came about; the Aṣṭādhyāyī of Pāṇini is often cited as an example of a premodern work that approaches the sophistication of a modern syntactic theory.[2] In the West, the school of thought that came to be known as "traditional grammar" began with the work of Dionysius Thrax. For centuries, work in syntax was dominated by a framework known as grammaire générale, first expounded in 1660 by Antoine Arnauld in a book of the same title. This system took as its basic premise the assumption that language is a direct reflection of thought processes and therefore there is a single, most natural way to express a thought. (That natural way, coincidentally, was exactly the way it was expressed in French.) However, in the 19th century, with the development of historical-comparative linguistics, linguists began to realize the sheer diversity of human language, and to question fundamental assumptions about the relationship between language and logic. It became apparent that there was no such thing as the most natural way to express a thought, and therefore logic could no longer be relied upon as a basis for studying the structure of language. The Port-Royal grammar modeled the study of syntax upon that of logic (indeed, large parts of the Port-Royal Logic were copied or adapted from the Grammaire générale[3]). Syntactic categories were identified with logical ones, and all sentences were analyzed in terms of "Subject – Copula – Predicate". Initially, this view was adopted even by the early comparative linguists such as Franz Bopp. The central role of syntax within theoretical linguistics became clear only in the 20th century, which could reasonably be called the "century of syntactic theory" as far as linguistics is concerned. For a detailed and critical survey of the history of syntax in the last two centuries, see the monumental work by Giorgio Graffi (2001).[4] Modern theories There are a number of theoretical approaches to the discipline of syntax. One school of thought, founded in the works of Derek Bickerton,[5] sees syntax as a branch of biology, since it conceives of syntax as the study of linguistic knowledge as embodied in the human mind. Other linguists (e.g. Gerald Gazdar) take a more Platonistic view, since they regard syntax to be the study of an abstract formal system.[6] Yet others (e.g. Joseph Greenberg) consider grammar a taxonomical device to reach broad generalizations across languages. Syntax 33 Generative grammar The hypothesis of generative grammar is that language is a structure of the human mind. The goal of generative grammar is to make a complete model of this inner language (known as i-language). This model could be used to describe all human language and to predict the grammaticality of any given utterance (that is, to predict whether the utterance would sound correct to native speakers of the language). This approach to language was pioneered by Noam Chomsky. Most generative theories (although not all of them) assume that syntax is based upon the constituent structure of sentences. Generative grammars are among the theories that focus primarily on the form of a sentence, rather than its communicative function. Among the many generative theories of linguistics, the Chomskyan theories are: • Transformational grammar (TG) (Original theory of generative syntax laid out by Chomsky in Syntactic Structures in 1957)[7] • Government and binding theory (GB) (revised theory in the tradition of TG developed mainly by Chomsky in the 1970s and 1980s)[8] • Minimalist program (MP) (a reworking of the theory out of the GB framework published by Chomsky in 1995)[9] Other theories that find their origin in the generative paradigm are: • Generative semantics (now largely out of date) • • • • • • Relational grammar (RG) (now largely out of date) Arc pair grammar Generalized phrase structure grammar (GPSG; now largely out of date) Head-driven phrase structure grammar (HPSG) Lexical functional grammar (LFG) Nanosyntax Categorial grammar Categorial grammar is an approach that attributes the syntactic structure not to rules of grammar, but to the properties of the syntactic categories themselves. For example, rather than asserting that sentences are constructed by a rule that combines a noun phrase (NP) and a verb phrase (VP) (e.g. the phrase structure rule S → NP VP), in categorial grammar, such principles are embedded in the category of the head word itself. So the syntactic category for an intransitive verb is a complex formula representing the fact that the verb acts as a function word requiring an NP as an input and produces a sentence level structure as an output. This complex category is notated as (NP\S) instead of V. NP\S is read as "a category that searches to the left (indicated by \) for a NP (the element on the left) and outputs a sentence (the element on the right)". The category of transitive verb is defined as an element that requires two NPs (its subject and its direct object) to form a sentence. This is notated as (NP/(NP\S)) which means "a category that searches to the right (indicated by /) for an NP (the object), and generates a function (equivalent to the VP) which is (NP\S), which in turn represents a function that searches to the left for an NP and produces a sentence). Tree-adjoining grammar is a categorial grammar that adds in partial tree structures to the categories. Syntax 34 Dependency grammar Dependency grammar is an approach to sentence structure where syntactic units are arranged according to the dependency relation, as opposed to the constituency relation of phrase structure grammars. Dependencies are directed links between words. The (finite) verb is seen as the root of all clause structure and all the other words in the clause are either directly or indirectly dependent on this root. Some prominent dependency-based theories of syntax: • • • • • Algebraic syntax Word grammar Operator grammar Meaning–text theory Functional generative description Lucien Tesnière (1893–1954) is widely seen as the father of modern dependency-based theories of syntax and grammar. He argued vehemently against the binary division of the clause into subject and predicate that is associated with the grammars of his day (S → NP VP) and which remains at the core of all phrase structure grammars, and in the place of this division, he positioned the verb as the root of all clause structure.[10] Stochastic/probabilistic grammars/network theories Theoretical approaches to syntax that are based upon probability theory are known as stochastic grammars. One common implementation of such an approach makes use of a neural network or connectionism. Some theories based within this approach are: • Optimality theory • Stochastic context-free grammar Functionalist grammars Functionalist theories, although focused upon form, are driven by explanation based upon the function of a sentence (i.e. its communicative function). Some typical functionalist theories include: • • • • • • • Functional discourse grammar (Dik) Prague linguistic circle Systemic functional grammar Cognitive grammar Construction grammar (CxG) Role and reference grammar (RRG) Emergent grammar Notes [1] Chomsky, Noam (2002) [1957]. Syntactic Structures. p.  11 (http:/ / books. google. co. uk/ books?id=SNeHkMXHcd8C& pg=PA11& dq="syntax+ is+ the+ study+ of+ the+ principles+ and+ processes+ by+ which+ sentences+ are+ constructed+ in+ particular+ languages"). [2] Fortson IV, Benjamin W. (2004). Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction. Blackwell. p. 186. ISBN 1-4051-0315-9 (hb); 1-4051-0316-7 (pb). "[The Aṣṭādhyāyī] is a highly precise and thorough description of the structure of Sanskrit somewhat resembling modern generative grammar…[it] remained the most advanced linguistic analysis of any kind until the twentieth century." [3] Arnauld, Antoine (1683). La logique (http:/ / visualiseur. bnf. fr/ Visualiseur?Destination=Gallica& O=NUMM-57444) (5th ed.). Paris: G. Desprez. pp. 137. . "Nous avons emprunté…ce que nous avons dit…d'un petit Livre…sous le titre de Grammaire générale." [4] Giorgio, Graffi (2001). "200 Years of Syntax: A Critical Survey" (http:/ / books. google. com/ books/ about/ 200_Years_of_Syntax. html?id=mydolrE-PPkC) (googlebook preview). John Benjamins Publishing. . [5] See Bickerton, Derek (1990). Language and Species. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-04610-9. and, for more recent advances, Derek Bickerton; Eörs Szathmáry, ed. (2009). Biological foundations and origin of syntax. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-01356-7. [6] Ted Briscoe, 2 May 2001, Interview with Gerald Gazdar (http:/ / www. informatics. susx. ac. uk/ research/ nlp/ gazdar/ briscoe/ gpsg. html#SECTION00040000000000000000). Retrieved 2008-06-04. [7] Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague/Paris: Mouton, p. 15. Syntax [8] Chomsky, Noam (1981/1993). Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Mouton de Gruyter. [9] Chomsky, Noam (1995). The Minimalist Program. MIT Press. [10] Concerning Tesnière's rejection of the binary division of the clause into subject and predicate and in favor of the verb as the root of all structure, see Tesnière (1969:103–105). 35 References • Brown, Keith; Jim Miller (eds.) (1996). Concise Encyclopedia of Syntactic Theories. New York: Elsevier Science. ISBN 0-08-042711-1. • Carnie, Andrew (2006). Syntax: A Generative Introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 1-4051-3384-8. • Freidin, Robert; Howard Lasnik (eds.) (2006). Syntax. Critical Concepts in Linguistics. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-24672-5. • Graffi, Giorgio (2001). 200 Years of Syntax. A Critical Survey. Studies in the History of the Language Sciences 98. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ISBN 90-272-4587-8. • Mieszko Talasiewicz (2009). Philosophy of Syntax—Foundational Topics. Springer. ISBN 978-90-481-3287-4. An interdisciplinary essay on the interplay between logic and linguistics on syntactic theories. • Tesnière, Lucien 1969. Éleménts de syntaxe structurale. 2nd edition. Paris: Klincksieck. Further reading • Martin Everaert, Henk Van Riemsdijk, Rob Goedemans and Bart Hollebrandse, ed. (2006). The Blackwell companion to syntax. Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-1485-1. 5 Volumes; 77 case studies of syntactic phenomena. • Brian Roark; Richard William Sproat (2007). Computational approaches to morphology and syntax. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-927477-2. part II: Computational approaches to syntax. • Isac, Daniela; Charles Reiss (2008). I-language: An Introduction to Linguistics as Cognitive Science (http:// linguistics.concordia.ca/i-language/). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-953420-3. • Edith A. Moravcsik (2006). An introduction to syntax: fundamentals of syntactic analysis. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-8264-8945-6. Attempts to be a theory-neutral introduction. The companion Edith A. Moravcsik (2006). An introduction to syntactic theory. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-8264-8943-2. surveys the major theories. Jointly reviewed in The Canadian Journal of Linguistics 54(1), March 2009, pp. 172–175 (http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/ canadian_journal_of_linguistics/v054/54.1.hewson.html) External links • The syntax of natural language: An online introduction using the Trees program (http://www.ling.upenn.edu/ ~beatrice/syntax-textbook)—Beatrice Santorini & Anthony Kroch, University of Pennsylvania, 2007 Lexis (linguistics) 36 Lexis (linguistics) In linguistics, a lexis (from the Greek: λέξις "word") is the total word-stock or lexicon having items of lexical, rather than grammatical, meaning. Lexicon In short, the lexicon is: • Formulaic: it relies on partially fixed expressions and highly probable word combinations • Idiomatic: it follows conventions and patterns for usage • Metaphoric: concepts such as time and money, business and sex, systems and water all share a large portion of the same vocabulary • Grammatical: it uses rules based on sampling of the Lexicon • Register-specific: it uses the same word differently and/or less frequently in different contexts A major area of study, psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics, involves the question of how words are retrieved from the mental lexicon in online language processing and production. For example, the cohort model seeks to describe lexical retrieval in terms of segment-by-segment activation of competing lexical entries.[1][2] Formulaic language In recent years, the compilation of language databases using real samples from speech and writing has enabled researchers to take a fresh look at the composition of languages. Among other things, statistical research methods offer reliable insight into the ways in which words interact. The most interesting findings have taken place in the dichotomy between language use (how language is used) and language usage (how language could be used). Language use shows which occurrences of words and their partners are most probable. The major finding of this research is that language users rely to a very high extent on ready-made language "lexical chunks", which can be easily combined to form sentences. This eliminates the need for the speaker to analyse each sentence grammatically, yet deals with a situation effectively. Typical examples include "I see what you mean" or "Could you please hand me the..." or "Recent research shows that..." Language usage, on the other hand, is what takes place when the ready-made chunks do not fulfill the speaker's immediate needs; in other words, a new sentence is about to be formed and must be analyzed for correctness. Grammar rules have been internalised by native speakers, allowing them to determine the viability of new sentences. Language usage might be defined as a fall-back position when all other options have been exhausted. Context and co-text When analyzing the structure of language statistically, a useful place to start is with high frequency context words, or so-called Key Word in Context (KWICs). After millions of samples of spoken and written language have been stored in a database, these KWICs can be sorted and analyzed for their co-text, or words which commonly co-occur with them. Valuable principles with which KWICs can be analyzed include: • Collocation: words and their co-occurrences (examples include "fulfill needs" and "fall-back position") • Semantic prosody: the connotation words carry ("pay attention" can be neutral or remonstrative, as when a teacher says to a pupil: "Pay attention!" (or else) • Colligation: the grammar that words use (while "I hope that suits you" sounds natural, "I hope that you are suited by that" does not). • Register: the text style in which a word is used ("President vows to support allies" is most likely found in news headlines, whereas "vows" in speech most likely refer to "marriages"; in speech, the verb "vow" is most likely Lexis (linguistics) used as "promise").[3] Once data has been collected, it can be sorted to determine the probability of co-occurrences. One common and well-known way is with a concordance: the KWIC is centered and shown with dozens of examples of it in use, as with the example for "possibility" below. 37 Concordance for possibility About to be put on looks a real Hiett, says that remains a real Graham added. That's a Severe pain was always a that, when possible, every other that we can, that we use every could be let separately. Another a people reject violence and the the French vote and now enjoy the immediately investigate the Sri Lankan sources say that the Sheikhdoms too there might be the the twelve member states on the Marie had already looked into the a function of dependency, but the were almost defenceless. The oddly and are worried about the was first convened to discuss the in the mi5 line and in the reasons behind the move was the be assessed individually. The given the privilege. The other All this undermines the get. (Knowing that there is no who was openly cynical about the so that they can perceive the poisoning and fire, facing the hearing yesterday that the in 1903, and I don't foresee any a genetic factor at work here, a refused even to entertain the has a long history, there is the Police are investigating the any doctors who think there is a are in a store, there is a good living must be made. The he'd completed his account of the has been devoted to exploring the possibility. Now that Benn is no longer possibility: As part of the PLO, the PLF possibility as well," Whitlock admitted. possibility. Early in the century, both possibility, including speeches by outside possibility, including every possibility of possibility is `constructive vandalism' possibility of violence can the possibility possibility of winning two seats in the possibility of criminal charges and that her possibility of negotiating with the Tamil possibility of encouraging agitation. possibility of their threatening to possibility of persuading the [f] possibility of capitalist development, possibility of an invasion had been apparent possibility of drug use, say so. Tell them possibility of a coup d'état to return the possibility of the state being used to smear possibility of a new market. Cheap terminals possibility of genetic testing brings that possibility, of course, is that the jaunt possibility of economic reform and requires possibility of attempting coitus takes the possibility of achieving socialism 5 possibility of being citizens engaged in possibility of their own death just to be possibility of using the agency to gather possibility replacing that. The car we possibility supported by at least a few possibility that any of the nations of the possibility that the recent upsurge in possibility that she was seen a short time possibility that they may have been infected possibility that you are wearing moisturizer possibility that a young adult will be possibility that there was a drug-smuggling possibility that so-called ancient peoples Once such a concordance has been created, the co-occurrences of other words with the KWIC can be analyzed. This is done by means of a t-score. If we take for example the word "stranger" (comparative adjective and noun), a t-score Lexis (linguistics) analysis will provide us with information such as word frequency in the corpus: words such as "no" and "to" are not surprisingly very frequent; a word such as "controversy" much less. It then calculates the occurrences of that word together with the KWIC ("joint frequency") to determine if that combination is unusually common, in other words, if the word combination occurs significantly more often than would be expected by its frequency alone. If so, the collocation is considered strong, and is worth paying closer attention to. In this example, "no stranger to" is a very frequent collocation; so are words such as "mysterious", "handsome", and "dark". This comes as no surprise. More interesting, however, is "no stranger to controversy". Perhaps the most interesting example, though, is the idiomatic "perfect stranger". Such a word combination could not be predicted on its own, as it does not mean "a stranger who is perfect" as we should expect. Its unusually high frequency shows that the two words collocate strongly and as an expression are highly idiomatic. The study of corpus linguistics provides us with many insights into the real nature of language, as shown above. In essence, the lexicon seems to be built on the premise that language use is best approached as an assembly process, whereby the brain links together ready-made chunks. Intuitively this makes sense: it is a natural short-cut to alleviate the burden of having to "re-invent the wheel" every time we speak. Additionally, using well-known expressions conveys loads of information rapidly, as the listener does not need to break down an utterance into its constituent parts. In Words and Rules, Steven Pinker shows this process at work with regular and irregular verbs: we collect the former, which provide us with rules we can apply to unknown words (for example, the "‑ed" ending for past tense verbs allows us to decline the neologism "to google" into "googled"). Other patterns, the irregular verbs, we store separately as unique items to be memorized.[4] 38 Metaphor as an organizational principle for lexis Another method of effective language storage in the Lexicon includes the use of metaphor as a storage principle. ("Storage" and "files" are good examples of how human memory and computer memory have been linked to the same vocabulary; this was not always the case). George Lakoff's work is usually cited as the cornerstone to studies of metaphor in the language.[5] One example is quite common: "time is money". We can save, spend and waste both time and money. Another interesting example comes from business and sex: businesses penetrate the market, attract customers, and discuss "relationship management". Business is also war: launch an ad campaign, gain a foothold (already a climbing metaphor in military usage) in the market, suffer losses. Systems, on the other hand, are water: a flood of information, overflowing with people, flow of traffic. The NOA theory of Lexicon acquisition argues that the metaphoric sorting filter helps to simplify language storage and avoid overload. Grammar Computer research has revealed that grammar, in the sense of its ability to create entirely new language, is avoided as far as possible. Biber and his team working at the University of Arizona on the Cobuild GSWE noted an unusually high frequency of word bundles that, on their own, lack meaning. But a sample of one or two quickly suggests their function: they can be inserted as grammatical glue without any prior analysis of form. Even a cursory observation of examples reveals how commonplace they are in all forms of language use, yet we are hardly aware of their existence. Research suggests that language is heavily peppered with such bundles in all registers; two examples include "do you want me to", commonly found in speech, or "there was no significant" found in academic registers. Put together in speech, they can create comprehensible sentences, such as "I'm not sure" + "if they're" + "they're going" to form "I'm not sure if they're going". Such a sentence eases the burden on the Lexicon as it requires no grammatical analysis whatsoever.[6] Lexis (linguistics) 39 Register British linguist Michael K. Halliday proposes a useful dichotomy of spoken and written language which actually entails a shift in paradigm: while linguistic theory posits the superiority of spoken language over written language (as the former is the origin, comes naturally, and thus precedes the written language), or the written over the spoken (for the same reasons: the written language being the highest form of rudimentary speech), Halliday states they are two entirely different entities. He claims that speech is grammatically complex while writing is lexically dense.[7] In other words, a sentence such as "a cousin of mine, the one who I was talking about the other day—the one who lives in Houston, not the one in Dallas—called me up yesterday to tell me the very same story about Mary, who..." is most likely to be found in conversation, not as a newspaper headline. "Prime Minister vows conciliation", on the other hand, would be a typical news headline. One is more communicative (spoken), the other is more a recording tool (written). Halliday's work suggests something radically different: language behaves in registers. Biber et al. working on the LGSWE worked with four (these are not exhaustive, merely exemplary): conversation, literature, news, academic. These four registers clearly highlight distinctions within language use which would not be clear through a "grammatical" approach. Not surprisingly, each register favors the use of different words and structures: whereas news headline stories, for example, are grammatically simple, conversational anecdotes are full of lexical repetition. The lexis of the news, however, can be quite dense, just as the grammar of speech can be incredibly complicated. References [1] Altmann, Gerry T.M. (1997). "Words, and how we (eventually) find them." The Ascent of Babel: An Exploration of Language, Mind, and Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 65–83. [2] Packard, Jerome L (2000). "Chinese words and the lexicon". The Morphology of Chinese: A Linguistic and Cognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 284–309. [3] Lewis, M (1997). Implementing the Lexical Approach. Language Teaching Publications, Hove, England. [4] Pinker, S. (1999). Words and Rules, the Ingredients of Language and life. Basic Books. [5] Lakoff, G and Johnson, M (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press. [6] Biber, D et al., M (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Longman. [7] Halliday, M. A. K. (1987). "Spoken and Written Modes of Meaning". Media Texts: Authors and Readers. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters and Open University. Semantics 40 Semantics Semantics (from Greek: sēmantikós)[1][2] is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relation between signifiers, like words, phrases, signs, and symbols, and what they stand for, their denotata. Linguistic semantics is the study of meaning that is used for understanding human expression through language. Other forms of semantics include the semantics of programming languages, formal logics, and semiotics. The word semantics itself denotes a range of ideas, from the popular to the highly technical. It is often used in ordinary language for denoting a problem of understanding that comes down to word selection or connotation. This problem of understanding has been the subject of many formal enquiries, over a long period of time, most notably in the field of formal semantics. In linguistics, it is the study of interpretation of signs or symbols used in agents or communities within particular circumstances and contexts.[3] Within this view, sounds, facial expressions, body language, and proxemics have semantic (meaningful) content, and each comprises several branches of study. In written language, things like paragraph structure and punctuation bear semantic content; other forms of language bear other semantic content.[3] The formal study of semantics intersects with many other fields of inquiry, including lexicology, syntax, pragmatics, etymology and others, although semantics is a well-defined field in its own right, often with synthetic properties.[4] In philosophy of language, semantics and reference are closely connected. Further related fields include philology, communication, and semiotics. The formal study of semantics is therefore complex. Semantics contrasts with syntax, the study of the combinatorics of units of a language (without reference to their meaning), and pragmatics, the study of the relationships between the symbols of a language, their meaning, and the users of the language.[5] In international scientific vocabulary semantics is also called semasiology. Linguistics In linguistics, semantics is the subfield that is devoted to the study of meaning, as inherent at the levels of words, phrases, sentences, and larger units of discourse (termed texts). The basic area of study is the meaning of signs, and the study of relations between different linguistic units and compounds: homonymy, synonymy, antonymy, hypernymy, hyponymy, meronymy, metonymy, holonymy, paronyms. A key concern is how meaning attaches to larger chunks of text, possibly as a result of the composition from smaller units of meaning. Traditionally, semantics has included the study of sense and denotative reference, truth conditions, argument structure, thematic roles, discourse analysis, and the linkage of all of these to syntax. Montague grammar In the late 1960s, Richard Montague proposed a system for defining semantic entries in the lexicon in terms of the lambda calculus. In these terms, the syntactic parse of the sentence John ate every bagel would consist of a subject (John) and a predicate (ate every bagel); Montague demonstrated that the meaning of the sentence altogether could be decomposed in to the meanings of its parts and in to relatively few rules of combination. The logical predicate thus obtained would be elaborated further, e.g. using truth theory models, which ultimately relate meanings to a set of Tarskiian universals, which may lie outside the logic. The notion of such meaning atoms or primitives is basic to the language of thought hypothesis from the 1970s. Despite its elegance, Montague grammar was limited by the context-dependent variability in word sense, and led to several attempts at incorporating context, such as: • Situation semantics (1980s): truth-values are incomplete, they get assigned based on context • Generative lexicon (1990s): categories (types) are incomplete, and get assigned based on context Semantics 41 Dynamic turn in semantics In Chomskyan linguistics there was no mechanism for the learning of semantic relations, and the nativist view considered all semantic notions as inborn. Thus, even novel concepts were proposed to have been dormant in some sense. This view was also thought unable to address many issues such as metaphor or associative meanings, and semantic change, where meanings within a linguistic community change over time, and qualia or subjective experience. Another issue not addressed by the nativist model was how perceptual cues are combined in thought, e.g. in mental rotation.[6] This view of semantics, as an innate finite meaning inherent in a lexical unit that can be composed to generate meanings for larger chunks of discourse, is now being fiercely debated in the emerging domain of cognitive linguistics[7] and also in the non-Fodorian camp in philosophy of language.[8] The challenge is motivated by: • factors internal to language, such as the problem of resolving indexical or anaphora (e.g. this x, him, last week). In these situations context serves as the input, but the interpreted utterance also modifies the context, so it is also the output. Thus, the interpretation is necessarily dynamic and the meaning of sentences is viewed as context change potentials instead of propositions. • factors external to language, i.e. language is not a set of labels stuck on things, but "a toolbox, the importance of whose elements lie in the way they function rather than their attachments to things."[8] This view reflects the position of the later Wittgenstein and his famous game example, and is related to the positions of Quine, Davidson, and others. A concrete example of the latter phenomenon is semantic underspecification – meanings are not complete without some elements of context. To take an example of one word, red, its meaning in a phrase such as red book is similar to many other usages, and can be viewed as compositional.[9] However, the colours implied in phrases such as red wine (very dark), and red hair (coppery), or red soil, or red skin are very different. Indeed, these colours by themselves would not be called red by native speakers. These instances are contrastive, so red wine is so called only in comparison with the other kind of wine (which also is not white for the same reasons). This view goes back to de Saussure: Each of a set of synonyms like redouter ('to dread'), craindre ('to fear'), avoir peur ('to be afraid') has its particular value only because they stand in contrast with one another. No word has a value that can be identified independently of what else is in its vicinity.[10] and may go back to earlier Indian views on language, especially the Nyaya view of words as indicators and not carriers of meaning.[11] An attempt to defend a system based on propositional meaning for semantic underspecification can be found in the generative lexicon model of James Pustejovsky, who extends contextual operations (based on type shifting) into the lexicon. Thus meanings are generated "on the fly" (as you go), based on finite context. Prototype theory Another set of concepts related to fuzziness in semantics is based on prototypes. The work of Eleanor Rosch in the 1970s led to a view that natural categories are not characterizable in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions, but are graded (fuzzy at their boundaries) and inconsistent as to the status of their constituent members. One may compare it with Jung's archetype, though the concept of archetype sticks to static concept. Some post-structuralists are against the fixed or static meaning of the words. Derrida, following Nietzsche, talked about slippages in fixed meanings. Here are some examples from Bangla fuzzy words [12][13] Systems of categories are not objectively out there in the world but are rooted in people's experience. These categories evolve as learned concepts of the world – meaning is not an objective truth, but a subjective construct, learned from experience, and language arises out of the "grounding of our conceptual systems in shared embodiment and bodily experience".[14] A corollary of this is that the conceptual categories (i.e. the lexicon) will not be identical Semantics for different cultures, or indeed, for every individual in the same culture. This leads to another debate (see the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis or Eskimo words for snow). 42 Theories in semantics Model theoretic semantics Originates from Montague's work (see above). A highly formalized theory of natural language semantics in which expressions are assigned denotations (meanings) such as individuals, truth values, or functions from one of these to another. The truth of a sentence, and more interestingly, its logical relation to other sentences, is then evaluated relative to a model. Formal (or truth-conditional) semantics Pioneered by the philosopher Donald Davidson, another formalized theory, which aims to associate each natural language sentence with a meta-language description of the conditions under which it is true, for example: `Snow is white' is true if and only if snow is white. The challenge is to arrive at the truth conditions for any sentences from fixed meanings assigned to the individual words and fixed rules for how to combine them. In practice, truth-conditional semantics is similar to model-theoretic semantics; conceptually, however, they differ in that truth-conditional semantics seeks to connect language with statements about the real world (in the form of meta-language statements), rather than with abstract models. Lexical and conceptual semantics This theory is an effort to explain properties of argument structure. The assumption behind this theory is that syntactic properties of phrases reflect the meanings of the words that head them.[15] With this theory, linguists can better deal with the fact that subtle differences in word meaning correlate with other differences in the syntactic structure that the word appears in.[15] The way this is gone about is by looking at the internal structure of words.[16] These small parts that make up the internal structure of words are termed semantic primitives.[16] Lexical semantics A linguistic theory that investigates word meaning. This theory understands that the meaning of a word is fully reflected by its context. Here, the meaning of a word is constituted by its contextual relations.[17] Therefore, a distinction between degrees of participation as well as modes of participation are made.[17] In order to accomplish this distinction any part of a sentence that bears a meaning and combines with the meanings of other constituents is labeled as a semantic constituent. Semantic constituents that cannot be broken down into more elementary constituents are labeled minimal semantic constituents.[17] Computational semantics Computational semantics is focused on the processing of linguistic meaning. In order to do this concrete algorithms and architectures are described. Within this framework the algorithms and architectures are also analyzed in terms of decidability, time/space complexity, data structures they require and communication protocols.[18] Computer science In computer science, the term semantics refers to the meaning of languages, as opposed to their form (syntax). According to Euzenat, semantics "provides the rules for interpreting the syntax which do not provide the meaning directly but constrains the possible interpretations of what is declared."[19] In other words, semantics is about interpretation of an expression. Additionally, the term is applied to certain types of data structures specifically designed and used for representing information content. Semantics 43 Programming languages The semantics of programming languages and other languages is an important issue and area of study in computer science. Like the syntax of a language, its semantics can be defined exactly. For instance, the following statements use different syntaxes, but cause the same instructions to be executed: Statement x += y x := x + y ADD x, y LET X = X + Y x = x + y Set x = x + y ADD Y TO X GIVING X (incf x y) Programming languages C, C++, C#, Java, Perl, Python, Ruby, PHP, etc. ALGOL, BCPL, Simula, ALGOL 68, SETL, Pascal, Smalltalk, Modula-2, Ada, Standard ML, OCaml, Eiffel, Object Pascal (Delphi), Oberon, Dylan, VHDL, etc. Assembly languages: Intel 8086 BASIC: early BASIC: most dialects; Fortran, MATLAB Caché ObjectScript COBOL Common Lisp Generally these operations would all perform an arithmetical addition of 'y' to 'x' and store the result in a variable called 'x'. Various ways have been developed to describe the semantics of programming languages formally, building on mathematical logic:[20] • Operational semantics: The meaning of a construct is specified by the computation it induces when it is executed on a machine. In particular, it is of interest how the effect of a computation is produced. • Denotational semantics: Meanings are modelled by mathematical objects that represent the effect of executing the constructs. Thus only the effect is of interest, not how it is obtained. • Axiomatic semantics: Specific properties of the effect of executing the constructs are expressed as assertions. Thus there may be aspects of the executions that are ignored. Semantic models Terms such as semantic network and semantic data model are used to describe particular types of data models characterized by the use of directed graphs in which the vertices denote concepts or entities in the world, and the arcs denote relationships between them. The Semantic Web refers to the extension of the World Wide Web via embedding added semantic metadata, using semantic data modelling techniques such as Resource Description Framework (RDF) and Web Ontology Language (OWL). Psychology In psychology, semantic memory is memory for meaning – in other words, the aspect of memory that preserves only the gist, the general significance, of remembered experience – while episodic memory is memory for the ephemeral details – the individual features, or the unique particulars of experience. Word meaning is measured by the company they keep, i.e. the relationships among words themselves in a semantic network. The memories may be transferred intergenerationally or isolated in one generation due to a cultural disruption. Different generations may have different experiences at similar points in their own time-lines. This may then create a vertically heterogeneous semantic net for certain words in an otherwise homogeneous culture.[21] In a network created by people analyzing their understanding of the word (such as Wordnet) the links and decomposition structures of the network are few in Semantics number and kind, and include part of, kind of, and similar links. In automated ontologies the links are computed vectors without explicit meaning. Various automated technologies are being developed to compute the meaning of words: latent semantic indexing and support vector machines as well as natural language processing, neural networks and predicate calculus techniques. Ideasthesia is a rare psychological phenomenon that in certain individuals associates semantic and sensory representations. Activation of a concept (e.g., that of the letter A) evokes sensory-like experiences (e.g., of red color). 44 References [1] σημαντικός[[Category:Articles containing Ancient Greek language text (http:/ / www. perseus. tufts. edu/ hopper/ text?doc=Perseus:text:1999. 04. 0057:entry=shmantiko/ s)]]. Liddell, Henry George; Scott, Robert; A Greek–English Lexicon at Perseus Project [2] The word is derived from the Ancient Greek word σημαντικός (semantikos), related to meaning, significant, from σημαίνω (semaino), to signify, to indicate, which is from σῆμα (sema), sign, mark, token. The plural is used in analogy with words similar to physics, which was in the neuter plural in Ancient Greek and meant "things relating to nature". [3] Neurath, Otto; Carnap, Rudolf; Morris, Charles F. W. (Editors) (1955). International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [4] Cruse, Alan; Meaning and Language: An introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics, Chapter 1, Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics, 2004; Kearns, Kate; Semantics, Palgrave MacMillan 2000; Cruse, D. A.; Lexical Semantics, Cambridge, MA, 1986. [5] Kitcher, Philip; Salmon, Wesley C. (1989). Scientific Explanation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. p. 35. [6] [7] [8] [9] Barsalou, L.; Perceptual Symbol Systems, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 1999 Langacker, Ronald W. (1999). Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyer. ISBN 3-11-016603-8. Peregrin, Jaroslav (2003). Meaning: The Dynamic Turn. Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface. London: Elsevier. Gärdenfors, Peter (2000). Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought (http:/ / www. lucs. lu. se/ people/ Peter. Gardenfors/ Abstracts/ conceptualspaces. html). MIT Press/Bradford Books. ISBN 978-0-585-22837-2. . [10] de Saussure, Ferdinand (1916). The Course of General Linguistics (Cours de linguistique générale). [11] Matilal, Bimal Krishna (1990). The Word and the World: India's Contribution to the Study of Language. Oxford. The Nyaya and Mimamsa schools in Indian vyākaraṇa tradition conducted a centuries-long debate on whether sentence meaning arises through composition on word meanings, which are primary; or whether word meanings are obtained through analysis of sentences where they appear. (Chapter 8). [12] Bangla Numerals and Problems of Computability (http:/ / linguistlist. org/ pubs/ papers/ browse-papers-action. cfm?PaperID=7802) [13] Computational Linguistics: A Dissenter's Voice (http:/ / ssrn. com/ abstract=2015944) [14] Lakoff, George; Johnson, Mark (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. Chapter 1.. New York, NY: Basic Books. OCLC 93961754. [15] Levin, Beth; Pinker, Steven; Lexical & Conceptual Semantics, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA, 1991 [16] Jackendoff, Ray; Semantic Structures, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990 [17] Cruse, D.; Lexical Semantics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986 [18] Nerbonne, J.; The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory (ed. Lappin, S.), Blackwell Publishing, Cambridge, MA, 1996 [19] Euzenat, Jerome. Ontology Matching. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2007, p. 36 [20] Nielson, Hanne Riis; Nielson, Flemming (1995). Semantics with Applications, A Formal Introduction (1st ed.). Chicester, England: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-92980-8. [21] Giannini, A. J.; Semiotic and Semantic Implications of "Authenticity", Psychological Reports, 106(2):611–612, 2010 External links • • • • semanticsarchive.net (http://www.semanticsarchive.net/) Teaching page for A-level semantics (http://www.universalteacher.org.uk/lang/semantics.htm) Chomsky, Noam; On Referring, Harvard University, 30 October 2007 (video) (http://blip.tv/file/471951) Jackendoff, Ray; Conceptual Semantics, Harvard University, 13 November 2007(video) (http://blip.tv/file/ 509192) • Semantics: an interview with Jerry Fodor (http://www.revel.inf.br/site2007/_pdf/8/entrevistas/ revel_8_interview_jerry_fodor.pdf), ReVEL, vol. 5, n. 8, 2007 Pragmatics 45 Pragmatics Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics which studies the ways in which context contributes to meaning. Pragmatics encompasses speech act theory, conversational implicature, talk in interaction and other approaches to language behavior in philosophy, sociology, linguistics and anthropology.[1] Unlike semantics, which examines meaning that is conventional or "coded" in a given language, pragmatics studies how the transmission of meaning depends not only on structural and linguistic knowledge (e.g., grammar, lexicon, etc.) of the speaker and listener, but also on the context of the utterance, any pre-existing knowledge about those involved, the inferred intent of the speaker, and other factors.[2] In this respect, pragmatics explains how language users are able to overcome apparent ambiguity, since meaning relies on the manner, place, time etc. of an utterance.[1] The ability to understand another speaker's intended meaning is called pragmatic competence.[3][4][5] Structural ambiguity The sentence "You have a green light" is ambiguous. Without knowing the context, the identity of the speaker, and his or her intent, it is difficult to infer the meaning with confidence. For example: • It could mean that you have green ambient lighting. • • • • It could mean that you have a green light while driving your car. It could mean that you can go ahead with the project. It could mean that your body has a green glow. It could mean that you possess a light bulb that is tinted green. Similarly, the sentence "Sherlock saw the man with binoculars" could mean that Sherlock observed the man by using binoculars, or it could mean that Sherlock observed a man who was holding binoculars.[6] The meaning of the sentence depends on an understanding of the context and the speaker's intent. As defined in linguistics, a sentence is an abstract entity — a string of words divorced from non-linguistic context — as opposed to an utterance, which is a concrete example of a speech act in a specific context. The closer conscious subjects stick to common words, idioms, phrasings, and topics, the more easily others can surmise their meaning; the further they stray from common expressions and topics, the wider the variations in interpretations. This suggests that sentences do not have meaning intrinsically; there is not a meaning associated with a sentence or word, they can only symbolically represent an idea. The cat sat on the mat is a sentence in English; if you say to your sister on Tuesday afternoon, "The cat sat on the mat," this is an example of an utterance. Thus, there is no such thing as a sentence, term, expression or word symbolically representing a single true meaning; it is underspecified (which cat sat on which mat?) and potentially ambiguous. The meaning of an utterance, on the other hand, is inferred based on linguistic knowledge and knowledge of the non-linguistic context of the utterance (which may or may not be sufficient to resolve ambiguity). In mathematics with Berry's paradox there arose a systematic ambiguity with the word "definable". The ambiguity with words shows that the descriptive power of any human language is limited. Pragmatics 46 Etymology The word pragmatics derives via Latin pragmaticus from the Greek πραγματικός (pragmatikos), meaning amongst others "fit for action",[7] which comes from πρᾶγμα (pragma), "deed, act",[8] and that from πράσσω (prassō), "to pass over, to practise, to achieve".[9] Origins Pragmatics was a reaction to structuralist linguistics as outlined by Ferdinand de Saussure. In many cases, it expanded upon his idea that language has an analyzable structure, composed of parts that can be defined in relation to others. Pragmatics first engaged only in synchronic study, as opposed to examining the historical development of language. However, it rejected the notion that all meaning comes from signs existing purely in the abstract space of langue. Meanwhile, historical pragmatics has also come into being. Areas of interest • The study of the speaker's meaning, not focusing on the phonetic or grammatical form of an utterance, but instead on what the speaker's intentions and beliefs are. • The study of the meaning in context, and the influence that a given context can have on the message. It requires knowledge of the speaker's identities, and the place and time of the utterance. • Metapragmatics means to understand the context in which the speech event took place. Without the context, pure referential meanings elide the complexities of the any speech utterance. • The study of implicatures, i.e. the things that are communicated even though they are not explicitly expressed. • The study of relative distance, both social and physical, between speakers in order to understand what determines the choice of what is said and what is not said. • The study of what is not meant, as opposed to the intended meaning, i.e. that which is unsaid and unintended, or unintentional. • Information Structure, the study of how utterances are marked in order to efficiently manage the common ground of referred entities between speaker and hearer • Formal Pragmatics, the study of those aspects of meaning and use, for which context of use is an important factor, by using the methods and goals of formal semantics. Referential uses of language When we speak of the referential uses of language we are talking about how we use signs to refer to certain items. Below is an explanation of, first, what a sign is, second, how meanings are accomplished through its usage. A sign is the link or relationship between a signified and the signifier as defined by Saussure and Huguenin. The signified is some entity or concept in the world. The signifier represents the signified. An example would be: Signified: the concept cat Signifier: the word "cat" The relationship between the two gives the sign meaning. This relationship can be further explained by considering what we mean by "meaning." In pragmatics, there are two different types of meaning to consider: semantico-referential meaning and indexical meaning. Semantico-referential meaning refers to the aspect of meaning, which describes events in the world that are independent of the circumstance they are uttered in. An example would be propositions such as: "Santa Claus eats cookies." In this case, the proposition is describing that Santa Claus eats cookies. The meaning of this proposition does not rely on whether or not Santa Claus is eating cookies at the time of its utterance. Santa Claus could be eating cookies at Pragmatics any time and the meaning of the proposition would remain the same. The meaning is simply describing something that is the case in the world. In contrast, the proposition, "Santa Claus is eating a cookie right now," describes events that are happening at the time the proposition is uttered. Semantico-referential meaning is also present in meta-semantical statements such as: Tiger: omnivorous, a mammal If someone were to say that a tiger is an omnivorous animal in one context and a mammal in another, the definition of tiger would still be the same. The meaning of the sign tiger is describing some animal in the world, which does not change in either circumstance. Indexical meaning, on the other hand, is dependent on the context of the utterance and has rules of use. By rules of use, it is meant that indexicals can tell you when they are used, but not what they actually mean. Example: "I" Whom "I" refers to depends on the context and the person uttering it. As mentioned, these meanings are brought about through the relationship between the signified and the signifier. One way to define the relationship is by placing signs in two categories: referential indexical signs, also called "shifters," and pure indexical signs. Referential indexical signs are signs where the meaning shifts depending on the context hence the nickname "shifters." 'I' would be considered a referential indexical sign. The referential aspect of its meaning would be '1st person singular' while the indexical aspect would be the person who is speaking (refer above for definitions of semantico-referential and indexical meaning). Another example would be: "This" Referential: singular count Indexical: Close by A pure indexical sign does not contribute to the meaning of the propositions at all. It is an example of a ""non-referential use of language."" A second way to define the signified and signifier relationship is C.S. Peirce's Peircean Trichotomy. The components of the trichotomy are the following: 1. Icon: the signified resembles the signifier (signified: a dog's barking noise, signifier: bow-wow) 2. Index: the signified and signifier are linked by proximity or the signifier has meaning only because it is pointing to the signified 3. Symbol: the signified and signifier are arbitrarily linked (signified: a cat, signifier: the word cat) These relationships allow us to use signs to convey what we want to say. If two people were in a room and one of them wanted to refer to a characteristic of a chair in the room he would say "this chair has four legs" instead of "a chair has four legs." The former relies on context (indexical and referential meaning) by referring to a chair specifically in the room at that moment while the latter is independent of the context (semantico-referential meaning), meaning the concept chair. 47 Pragmatics 48 Non-referential uses of language Silverstein's "pure" indexes Michael Silverstein has argued that "nonreferential" or "pure" indices do not contribute to an utterance's referential meaning but instead "signal some particular value of one or more contextual variables."[10] Although nonreferential indexes are devoid of semantico-referential meaning, they do encode "pragmatic" meaning. The sorts of contexts that such indexes can mark are varied. Examples include: • Sex indexes are affixes or inflections that index the sex of the speaker, e.g. the verb forms of female Koasati speakers take the suffix "-s". • Deference indexes are words that signal social differences (usually related to status or age) between the speaker and the addressee. The most common example of a deference index is the V form in a language with a T-V distinction, the widespread phenomenon in which there are multiple second-person pronouns that correspond to the addressee's relative status or familiarity to the speaker. Honorifics are another common form of deference index and demonstrate the speaker's respect or esteem for the addressee via special forms of address and/or self-humbling first-person pronouns. • An Affinal taboo index is an example of avoidance speech that produces and reinforces sociological distance, as seen in the Aboriginal Dyirbal language of Australia. In this language and some others, there is a social taboo against the use of the everyday lexicon in the presence of certain relatives (mother-in-law, child-in-law, paternal aunt's child, and maternal uncle's child). If any of those relatives are present, a Dyirbal speaker has to switch to a completely separate lexicon reserved for that purpose. In all of these cases, the semantico-referential meaning of the utterances is unchanged from that of the other possible (but often impermissible) forms, but the pragmatic meaning is vastly different. The performative Main articles: Performative utterance, Speech act theory J.L. Austin introduced the concept of the performative, contrasted in his writing with "constative" (i.e. descriptive) utterances. According to Austin's original formulation, a performative is a type of utterance characterized by two distinctive features: • It is not truth-evaluable (i.e. it is neither true nor false) • Its uttering performs an action rather than simply describing one However, a performative utterance must also conform to a set of felicity conditions. Examples: • "I hereby pronounce you man and wife." • "I accept your apology." • "This meeting is now adjourned." Pragmatics 49 Jakobson's six functions of language Roman Jakobson, expanding on the work of Karl Bühler, described six "constitutive factors" of a speech event, each of which represents the privileging of a corresponding function, and only one of which is the referential (which corresponds to the context of the speech event). The six constitutive factors and their corresponding functions are diagrammed below. The six constitutive factors of a speech event Context Message Addresser---------------------Addressee Contact Code The six functions of language Referential Poetic Emotive-----------------------Conative Phatic Metalingual • The Referential Function corresponds to the factor of Context and describes a situation, object or mental state. The descriptive statements of the referential function can consist of both definite descriptions and deictic words, e.g. "The autumn leaves have all fallen now." • The Expressive (alternatively called "emotive" or "affective") Function relates to the Addresser and is best exemplified by interjections and other sound changes that do not alter the denotative meaning of an utterance but do add information about the Addresser's (speaker's) internal state, e.g. "Wow, what a view!" • The Conative Function engages the Addressee directly and is best illustrated by vocatives and imperatives, e.g. "Tom! Come inside and eat!" • The Poetic Function focuses on "the message for its own sake"[12] and is the operative function in poetry as well as slogans. • The Phatic Function is language for the sake of interaction and is therefore associated with the Contact factor. The Phatic Function can be observed in greetings and casual discussions of the weather, particularly with strangers. • The Metalingual (alternatively called "metalinguistic" or "reflexive") Function is the use of language (what Jakobson calls "Code") to discuss or describe itself. The six factors of an effective verbal communication. To each one corresponds a communication function (not displayed in this [11] picture). Related fields There is considerable overlap between pragmatics and sociolinguistics, since both share an interest in linguistic meaning as determined by usage in a speech community. However, sociolinguists tend to be more interested in variations in language within such communities. Pragmatics helps anthropologists relate elements of language to broader social phenomena; it thus pervades the field of linguistic anthropology. Because pragmatics describes generally the forces in play for a given utterance, it includes the study of power, gender, race, identity, and their interactions with individual speech acts. For example, the study of code switching directly relates to pragmatics, since a switch in code effects a shift in pragmatic force.[12] Pragmatics According to Charles W. Morris, pragmatics tries to understand the relationship between signs and their users, while semantics tends to focus on the actual objects or ideas to which a word refers, and syntax (or "syntactics") examines relationships among signs or symbols. Semantics is the literal meaning of an idea whereas pragmatics is the implied meaning of the given idea. Speech Act Theory, pioneered by J.L. Austin and further developed by John Searle, centers around the idea of the performative, a type of utterance that performs the very action it describes. Speech Act Theory's examination of Illocutionary Acts has many of the same goals as pragmatics, as outlined above. 50 Pragmatics in literary theory Pragmatics (more specifically, Speech Act Theory's notion of the performative) underpins Judith Butler's theory of gender performativity. In Gender Trouble, she claims that gender and sex are not natural categories, but socially constructed roles produced by "reiterative acting." In Excitable Speech she extends her theory of performativity to hate speech and censorship, arguing that censorship necessarily strengthens any discourse it tries to suppress and therefore, since the state has sole power to define hate speech legally, it is the state that makes hate speech performative. Jaques Derrida remarked that some work done under Pragmatics aligned well with the program he outlined in his book Of Grammatology. Émile Benveniste argued that the pronouns "I" and "you" are fundamentally distinct from other pronouns because of their role in creating the subject. Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari discuss linguistic pragmatics in the fourth chapter of A Thousand Plateaus ("November 20, 1923--Postulates of Linguistics"). They draw three conclusions from Austin: (1) A performative utterance does not communicate information about an act second-hand—it is the act; (2) Every aspect of language ("semantics, syntactics, or even phonematics") functionally interacts with pragmatics; (3) There is no distinction between language and speech. This last conclusion attempts to refute Saussure's division between langue and parole and Chomsky's distinction between surface structure and deep structure simultaneously. [13] Significant works • • • • • • • • J. L. Austin's How To Do Things With Words Paul Grice's cooperative principle and conversational maxims Brown & Levinson's Politeness Theory Geoffrey Leech's politeness maxims Levinson's Presumptive Meanings Jürgen Habermas's universal pragmatics Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson's relevance theory Dallin D. Oaks's Structural Ambiguity in English: An Applied Grammatical Inventory Pragmatics 51 Notes [1] Mey, Jacob L. (1993) Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell (2nd ed. 2001). [2] Shaozhong, Liu. "What is pragmatics?" (http:/ / www. gxnu. edu. cn/ Personal/ szliu/ definition. html). . Retrieved 18 March 2009. [3] Daejin Kim et al. (2002) "The Role of an Interactive Book Reading Program in the Development of Second Language Pragmatic Competence", The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 86, No. 3 (Autumn, 2002), pp. 332-348 [4] Masahiro Takimoto (2008) "The Effects of Deductive and Inductive Instruction on the Development of Language Learners' Pragmatic Competence", The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 92, No. 3 (Fall, 2008), pp. 369-386 [5] Dale April Koike (1989) "Pragmatic Competence and Adult L2 Acquisition: Speech Acts in Interlanguage", The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 73, No. 3 (Autumn, 1989), pp. 279-289 [6] http:/ / ocw. mit. edu/ OcwWeb/ Linguistics-and-Philosophy/ 24-903Spring-2005/ CourseHome/ [7] πραγματικός (http:/ / www. perseus. tufts. edu/ hopper/ text?doc=Perseus:text:1999. 04. 0057:entry=pragmatiko/ s), Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, on Perseus [8] πρᾶγμα (http:/ / www. perseus. tufts. edu/ hopper/ text?doc=Perseus:text:1999. 04. 0057:entry=pra=gma), Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, on Perseus [9] πράσσω (http:/ / www. perseus. tufts. edu/ hopper/ text?doc=Perseus:text:1999. 04. 0057:entry=pra/ ssw), Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, on Perseus [10] Silverstein 1976 [11] Middleton, Richard (1990/2002). Studying Popular Music, p. 241. Philadelphia: Open University Press. ISBN 0-335-15275-9. [12] Duranti 1997 [13] Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari (1987) [1980]. A Thousand Plateaus. University of Minnesota Press. References • Austin, J. L. (1962) How to Do Things With Words. Oxford University Press. • Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. (1978) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press. • Carston, Robyn (2002) Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. • Clark, Herbert H. (1996) "Using Language". Cambridge University Press. • Cole, Peter, ed.. (1978) Pragmatics. (Syntax and Semantics, 9). New York: Academic Press. • Dijk, Teun A. van. (1977) Text and Context. Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. London: Longman. • Grice, H. Paul. (1989) Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press. • Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward. (2005) The Handbook of Pragmatics. Blackwell. • Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. • Levinson, Stephen C. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. • Levinson, Stephen C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. MIT Press. • Lin, G. H. C., & Perkins, L. (2005). Cross-cultural discourse of giving and accepting gifts. International Journal of Communication, 16,1-2, 103-12 (ERIC Collections in ED 503685 http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ ED503685.pdf) • Lin, G. H. C. (2007). The significant of pragmatics. Mingdao Journal, Vol, 3, 91-102 ERIC Collection in ED503682 • Lin. G. H. C., Su, S. C. F., & Ho, M. M. H. (2009). Pragmatics and communicative competences. Proceedings of the景 文 科 技 大 學 應 用 英 語 系2009研 討 會, 54-60 (ERIC Collections in ED514939) • Mey, Jacob L. (1993) Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell (2nd ed. 2001). • Kepa Korta and John Perry. (2006) Pragmatics (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatics/). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy • Potts, Christopher. (2005) The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pragmatics • Robinson, Douglas. (2003). Performative Linguistics: Speaking and Translating as Doing Things With Words. London and New York: Routledge. • Robinson, Douglas. (2006). Introducing Performative Pragmatics. London and New York: Routledge. • Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre. (2005) Pragmatics (http://www.dan.sperber.com/pragmatics.htm). In F. Jackson and M. Smith (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy. OUP, Oxford, 468-501. (Also available here (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/deirdre/papers/Pragmatics2005.doc).) • Thomas, Jenny (1995) Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. Longman. • Verschueren, Jef. (1999) Understanding Pragmatics. London, New York: Arnold Publishers. • Verschueren, Jef, Jan-Ola Östman, Jan Blommaert, eds. (1995) Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. • Watzlawick, Paul, Janet Helmick Beavin and Don D. Jackson (1967) Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes. New York: Norton. • Wierzbicka, Anna (1991) Cross-cultural Pragmatics. The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. • Yule, George (1996) Pragmatics (Oxford Introductions to Language Study). Oxford University Press. • Silverstein, Michael. 1976. "Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description," in Meaning and Anthropology, Basso and Selby, eds. New York: Harper & Row • • • • Wardhaugh, Ronald. (2006). "An Introduction to Sociolinguistics". Blackwell. Duranti, Alessandro. (1997). "Linguistic Anthropology". Cambridge University Press. Carbaugh, Donal. (1990). "Cultural Communication and Intercultural Contact." LEA. Mira Ariel (2010). Defining Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-73203-1. 52 External links • Journal of Pragmatics (http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/505593/ description#description), An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language Studies • Liu, Shaozhong, "What is Pragmatics?", Eprint (http://www.gxnu.edu.cn/Personal/szliu/definition.html) • wiki project in comparative pragmatics: European Communicative Strategies (ECSTRA) (http://www1. ku-eichstaett.de/SLF/EngluVglSW/mediawiki/index.php/ELiX_Wiki:Projects/ECSTRA) (directed by Joachim Grzega) Orthography 53 Orthography An orthography is a standardized system for using a particular writing system (script) to write a particular language. It includes rules of spelling. Other elements of written language that are part of orthography include hyphenation, capitalization, word breaks, emphasis, and punctuation. Most significant languages in the modern era are written down, and for most such languages a standard orthography has developed, often based on a standard variety of the language, and thus exhibiting less dialect variation than the spoken language. Sometimes there may be variation in a language's orthography, as between American and British spelling in the case of English. If a language uses multiple writing systems, it may have distinct orthographies, as is the case with Kurdish, Uyghur, Serbian, Inuktitut and Turkish. In some cases orthography is regulated by bodies such as language academies, although for many languages (including English) there are no such authorities, and orthography develops through less formal processes. Orthography is distinct from typography, which is concerned with principles of typesetting. Etymology and meaning The English word orthography dates from the 15th century. It comes from the French orthographie, from Latin orthographia, which derives from Greek ὀρθός orthós, "correct", and γράφειν gráphein, "to write".[1] Orthography is largely concerned with matters of spelling, and in particular the relationship between phonemes and graphemes in a language.[2][3] Other elements that may be considered part of orthography include hyphenation, capitalization, word breaks, emphasis, and punctuation.[4] Orthography thus describes or defines the set of symbols used in writing a language, and the rules about how to use those symbols. Most natural languages developed as oral languages, and writing systems have usually been crafted or adapted as ways of representing the spoken language. The rules for doing this tend to become standardized for a given language, leading to the development of an orthography that is generally considered "correct". In linguistics the term orthography is often used to refer to any method of writing a language, without judgment as to right and wrong, with a scientific understanding that orthographic standardization exists on a spectrum of strength of convention. The original sense of the word, though, implies a dichotomy of correct and incorrect, and the word is still most often used to refer specifically to a thoroughly standardized, prescriptively correct, way of writing a language. A distinction may be made here between etic and emic viewpoints: the purely descriptive (etic) approach, which simply considers any system that is actually used—and the emic view, which takes account of language users' perceptions of correctness, which are analogous in some ways to a moral sense of right and wrong. Units and notation Orthographic units, such as letters of an alphabet, are technically called graphemes. These are a type of abstraction, analogous to the phonemes of spoken languages; different physical forms of written symbols are considered to represent the same grapheme if the differences between them are not significant for meaning. For example, different forms of the letter "b" are all considered to represent a single grapheme in the orthography of, say, English. Graphemes or sequences of them are sometimes placed between angle brackets, as in ⟨b⟩ or ⟨back⟩. This distinguishes them from phonemic transcription, which is placed between slashes (/b/, /bæk/), and from phonetic transcription, which is placed between square brackets ([b], [bæk]). Orthography 54 Types The writing systems on which orthographies are based can be divided into a number of types, depending on what type of unit each symbol serves to represent. The principal types are logographic (with symbols representing words or morphemes), syllabic (with symbols representing syllables), and alphabetic (with symbols roughly representing phonemes). Many writing systems combine features of more than one of these types, and a number of detailed classifications have been proposed. For a full discussion, see Writing system: Functional classification of writing systems. Correspondence with pronunciation Orthographies that use alphabets and syllabaries are based on the principle that the written symbols (graphemes) correspond to units of sound of the spoken language: phonemes in the former case, and syllables in the latter. However, in virtually all cases, this correspondence is not exact. Different languages' orthographies offer different degrees of correspondence between spelling and pronunciation. English orthography, for example, is highly irregular, whereas the orthographies of languages such as Russian, Spanish and Finnish represent pronunciation much more faithfully, although the correspondence between letters and phonemes is still not exact. Serbian orthography is remarkably consistent: approximation of the principle "one letter per sound". An orthography in which the correspondences between spelling and pronunciation are highly complex or inconsistent is called a deep orthography (or less formally, the language is said to have irregular spelling). An orthography with relatively simple and consistent correspondences is called shallow (and the language has regular spelling). One of the main reasons for which spelling and pronunciation deviate is that sound changes taking place in the spoken language are not always reflected in the orthography, and hence spellings correspond to historical rather than present-day pronunciation. One consequence of this is that many spellings come to reflect a word's morphophonemic structure rather than its purely phonemic structure (for example, the English regular past tense morpheme is consistently spelled -ed in spite of its different pronunciations in various words). This is discussed further at Phonemic orthography: Morphophonemic features. The syllabary systems of Japanese (hiragana and katakana) are examples of almost perfectly shallow orthographies – the kana correspond with almost perfect consistency to the spoken syllables, although with a few exceptions where symbols reflect historical or morphophonemic features: notably the use of ぢ ji and づ zu (rather than じ ji and ず zu, their pronunciation in standard Tokyo dialect) when the character is a voicing of an underlying ち or つ (see rendaku), and the use of は, を, and へ to represent the sounds わ, お, and え, as relics of historical kana usage. The Korean hangul system was also originally an extremely shallow orthography, but as a representation of the modern language it frequently also reflects morphophonemic features. For full discussion of degrees of correspondence between spelling and pronunciation in alphabetic orthographies, including reasons why such correspondence may break down, see Phonemic orthography. Defective orthographies In some cases an orthography based on the principle that symbols correspond to phonemes may lack characters to represent all the phonemes or all the phonemic distinctions in the language. This is called a defective orthography. An example in English is that the digraph th is required to represent two different phonemes (as in either and ether). A more systematic example is that of abjads like the Arabic and Hebrew alphabets, in which the short vowels are normally left unwritten and must be inferred by the reader. When an alphabet is borrowed to represent a language other than it did originally—as has been done with the Latin alphabet for many languages, or Japanese Katakana for non-Japanese words—it often proves defective in representing the new language's phonemes. Sometimes this problem is addressed by the use of such devices as Orthography digraphs (such as sh and ch in English, where pairs of letters represent single sounds), diacritics (like the caron on the letters š and č, which represent those same sounds in Czech), or the addition of completely new symbols (as some languages have introduced the letter w to the Latin alphabet). 55 References [1] orthography (http:/ / www. etymonline. com/ index. php?search=orthography& searchmode=none), Online Etymology Dictionary [2] Seidenberg, Mark S. 1992. "Beyond Orthographic Depth in Reading: Equitable Division of Labor." In: Ram Frost & Leonard Katz (eds.). Orthography, Phonology, Morphology, and Meaning, pp. 85–118. Amsterdam: Elsevier, p. 93. [3] Donohue, Mark. 2007. "Lexicography for Your Friends." In Terry Crowley, Jeff Siegel, & Diana Eades (eds.). Language Description, History and Development: Linguistic Indulgence in Memory of Terry Crowley. pp. 395–406. Amsterdam: Benjamins, p. 396. [4] Coulmas, Florian. 1996. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems. Oxford: Blackwell, p. 379. • Smalley, W.A. (ed.) 1964. Orthography studies: articles on new writing systems (United Bible Society, London). • Venezky, Von Richard L.; Tom Trabasso, John P. Sabatini, Dominic W. Massaro, Robert Calfee (2005). From Orthography to Pedagogy. Routledge. ISBN 0-8058-5089-9, 9780805850895. External links • Videos: The History and Impact of Writing in the West (http://www.childrenofthecode.org/Tour/index. htm#CODEPART1) • Omniglot – writing systems & languages of the world (http://www.omniglot.com) – a privately run orthography website • Phonemic awareness (http://wik.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/Phonemic_awareness) page of the CTER wiki • lonestar.texas.net/~jebbo/learn-as/ (http://lonestar.texas.net/~jebbo/learn-as/orthography.htm) orthography of Old English Semiotics Semiotics, also called semiotic studies and including (in the Saussurean tradition) semiology, is the study of signs and sign processes (semiosis), indication, designation, likeness, analogy, metaphor, symbolism, signification, and communication. Semiotics is closely related to the field of linguistics, which, for its part, studies the structure and meaning of language more specifically. However, as different from linguistics, semiotics studies also non-linguistic sign systems. Semiotics is often divided into three branches: • Semantics: Relation between signs and the things to which they refer; their denotata, or meaning • Syntactics: Relations among signs in formal structures • Pragmatics: Relation between signs and the effects they have on the people who use them Semiotics is frequently seen as having important anthropological dimensions; for example, Umberto Eco proposes that every cultural phenomenon can be studied as communication.[1] However, some semioticians focus on the logical dimensions of the science. They examine areas belonging also to the natural sciences – such as how organisms make predictions about, and adapt to, their semiotic niche in the world (see semiosis). In general, semiotic theories take signs or sign systems as their object of study: the communication of information in living organisms is covered in biosemiotics (including zoosemiotics). Chart semiotics of Social Networking Semiotics Syntactics is the branch of semiotics that deals with the formal properties of signs and symbols.[2] More precisely, syntactics deals with the "rules that govern how words are combined to form phrases and sentences."[3] Charles Morris adds that semantics deals with the relation of signs to their designata and the objects which they may or do denote; and, pragmatics deals with the biotic aspects of semiosis, that is, with all the psychological, biological, and sociological phenomena which occur in the functioning of signs. 56 Terminology The term, which was spelled semeiotics, derives from the Greek σημειωτικός, (sēmeiōtikos), "observant of signs"[4] (from σημεῖον - sēmeion, "a sign, a mark"[5]) and it was first used in English by Henry Stubbes[6] in a very precise sense to denote the branch of medical science relating to the interpretation of signs. John Locke used the terms semeiotike and semeiotics in Book 4, Chapter 21 of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690). Here he explains how science can be divided into three parts: All that can fall within the compass of human understanding, being either, first, the nature of things, as they are in themselves, their relations, and their manner of operation: or, secondly, that which man himself ought to do, as a rational and voluntary agent, for the attainment of any end, especially happiness: or, thirdly, the ways and means whereby the knowledge of both the one and the other of these is attained and communicated; I think science may be divided properly into these three sorts. —Locke, 1823/1963, p. 174 Locke then elaborates on the nature of this third category, naming it Σημειωτικη (Semeiotike) and explaining it as "the doctrine of signs" in the following terms: Nor is there any thing to be relied upon in Physick,[7] but an exact knowledge of medicinal physiology (founded on observation, not principles), semiotics, method of curing, and tried (not excogitated,[8] not commanding) medicines. —Locke, 1823/1963, 4.21.4, p. 175 In the nineteenth century, Charles Sanders Peirce defined what he termed "semiotic" (which he sometimes spelled as "semeiotic") as the "quasi-necessary, or formal doctrine of signs", which abstracts "what must be the characters of all signs used by...an intelligence capable of learning by experience",[9] and which is philosophical logic pursued in terms of signs and sign processes.[10] Charles Morris followed Peirce in using the term "semiotic" and in extending the discipline beyond human communication to animal learning and use of signals. Ferdinand de Saussure, however, founded his semiotics, which he called semiology, in the social sciences: It is... possible to conceive of a science which studies the role of signs as part of social life. It would form part of social psychology, and hence of general psychology. We shall call it semiology (from the Greek semeîon, 'sign'). It would investigate the nature of signs and the laws governing them. Since it does not yet exist, one cannot say for certain that it will exist. But it has a right to exist, a place ready for it in advance. Linguistics is only one branch of this general science. The laws which semiology will discover will be laws applicable in linguistics, and linguistics will thus be assigned to a clearly defined place in the field of human knowledge. —Cited in Chandler's "Semiotics For Beginners", Introduction. Semiotics 57 Formulations Semioticians classify signs or sign systems in relation to the way they are transmitted (see modality). This process of carrying meaning depends on the use of codes that may be the individual sounds or letters that humans use to form words, the body movements they make to show attitude or emotion, or even something as general as the clothes they wear. To coin a word to refer to a thing (see lexical words), the community must agree on a simple meaning (a denotative meaning) within their language. But that word can transmit that meaning only within the language's grammatical structures and codes (see syntax and semantics). Codes also represent the values of the culture, and are able to add new shades of connotation to every aspect of life. To explain the relationship between semiotics and communication studies, communication is defined as the process of transferring data from a source to a receiver. Hence, communication theorists construct models based on codes, media, and contexts to explain the biology, psychology, and mechanics involved. Both disciplines also recognize that the technical process cannot be separated from the fact that the receiver must decode the data, i.e., be able to distinguish the data as salient and make meaning out of it. This implies that there is a necessary overlap between semiotics and communication. Indeed, many of the concepts are shared, although in each field the emphasis is different. In Messages and Meanings: An Introduction to Semiotics, Marcel Danesi (1994) suggested that semioticians' priorities were to study signification first and communication second. A more extreme view is offered by Jean-Jacques Nattiez (1987; trans. 1990: 16), who, as a musicologist, considered the theoretical study of communication irrelevant to his application of semiotics. Semiotics differs from linguistics in that it generalizes the definition of a sign to encompass signs in any medium or sensory modality. Thus it broadens the range of sign systems and sign relations, and extends the definition of language in what amounts to its widest analogical or metaphorical sense. Peirce's definition of the term "semiotic" as the study of necessary features of signs also has the effect of distinguishing the discipline from linguistics as the study of contingent features that the world's languages happen to have acquired in the course of human evolution. Perhaps more difficult is the distinction between semiotics and the philosophy of language. In a sense, the difference lies between separate traditions rather than subjects. Different authors have called themselves "philosopher of language" or "semiotician". This difference does not match the separation between analytic and continental philosophy. On a closer look, there may be found some differences regarding subjects. Philosophy of language pays more attention to natural languages or to languages in general, while semiotics is deeply concerned about non-linguistic signification. Philosophy of language also bears a stronger connection to linguistics, while semiotics is closer to some of the humanities (including literary theory) and to cultural anthropology. Semiosis or semeiosis is the process that forms meaning from any organism's apprehension of the world through signs. Scholars who have talked about semiosis in their sub-theories of semiotics include C. S. Peirce, John Deely, and Umberto Eco. Cognitive Semiotics is combinding methods and theories developed in the disciplines of cognitive methods and theories developed in semiotics and the humanities, with providing new information into human signification and its manifestation in cultural practices. [11] The research on cognitive semiotics researcher brings together semiotics from linguistics, cognitive science, and related disciplines on a common meta-theoretical platform of concepts, methods, and shared data. Color-coding hot- and cold-water faucets is common in many cultures but, as this example shows, the coding may be rendered meaningless because of context. The two faucets were probably sold as a coded set, but the code is unusable (and ignored) as there is a single water supply. Semiotics 58 History The importance of signs and signification has been recognized throughout much of the history of philosophy, and in psychology as well. Plato and Aristotle both explored the relationship between signs and the world, and Augustine considered the nature of the sign within a conventional system. These theories have had a lasting effect in Western philosophy, especially through scholastic philosophy. More recently, Umberto Eco, in his Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language, has argued that semiotic theories are implicit in the work of most, perhaps all, major thinkers. Early theorists in this area include Charles W. Morris.[12] Max Black attributes the work of Bertrand Russell as being seminal.[13] Semiotics is usually defined as the study of signs, or more generally meaning, the polysemy and popularity of the term “cognitive”, just about any semiotic theory from those of Peirce and Saussure to those of Eco (1999) and Hoffmeyer (1996) – could qualify as a cognitive semiotics [14] In the last two decades of the century, researchers from developmental and cognitive psychology (Bates, Bruner, Tomasello) and linguistics (Langacker, Talmy, Lakoff) turned increasingly to “experiential” notions such as joint attention, metaphor, and narrative.[15] Some important semioticians • Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914), a noted logician who founded philosophical pragmatism, defined semiosis as an irreducibly triadic process wherein something, as an object, logically determines or influences something as a sign to determine or influence something as an interpretation or interpretant, itself a sign, thus leading to further interpretants.[16] Semiosis is logically structured to perpetuate itself. The object can be quality, fact, rule, or even fictional (Hamlet), and can be (1) immediate to the sign, the object as represented in the sign, or (2) dynamic, the object as it really is, on which the immediate object is founded. The interpretant can be (1) immediate to the sign, all that the sign immediately expresses, such as a word's usual meaning; or (2) dynamic, such as a state of agitation; or (3) final or normal, the ultimate ramifications of the sign about its object, to which inquiry taken far enough would be destined and with which any actual interpretant can at most coincide.[17] His semiotic[18] covered not only artificial, linguistic, and symbolic signs, but also semblances such as kindred sensible qualities, and indices such as reactions. He came circa 1903[19] to classify any sign by three interdependent trichotomies, intersecting to form ten (rather than 27) classes of sign.[20] Signs also enter into various kinds of meaningful combinations; Peirce covered both semantic and syntactical issues in his speculative grammar. He regarded formal semiotic as logic per se and part of philosophy; as also encompassing study of arguments (hypothetical, deductive, and inductive) and inquiry's methods including pragmatism; and as allied to but distinct from logic's pure mathematics. For a summary of Peirce's contributions to semiotics, see Liszka (1996) or Atkin (2006). • Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913), the "father" of modern linguistics, proposed a dualistic notion of signs, relating the signifier as the form of the word or phrase uttered, to the signified as the mental concept. It is important to note that, according to Saussure, the sign is completely arbitrary, i.e. there was no necessary connection between the sign and its meaning. This sets him apart from previous philosophers such as Plato or the Scholastics, who thought that there must be some connection between a signifier and the object it signifies. In his Course in General Linguistics, Saussure himself credits the American linguist William Dwight Whitney (1827–1894) with insisting on the arbitrary nature of the sign. Saussure's insistence on the arbitrariness of the sign has also influenced later philosophers and theorists such as Jacques Derrida, Roland Barthes, and Jean Baudrillard. Ferdinand de Saussure coined the term semiologie while teaching his landmark "Course on General Linguistics" at the University of Geneva from 1906–11. Saussure posited that no word is inherently meaningful. Rather a word is only a "signifier," i.e. the representation of something, and it must be combined in the brain with the "signified," or the thing itself, in order to form a meaning-imbued "sign." Saussure believed that dismantling signs was a real science, for in doing so we come to an empirical understanding of how humans synthesize physical stimuli into words and other abstract concepts. Semiotics • Jakob von Uexküll (1864–1944) studied the sign processes in animals. He borrowed the German word for 'environment', Umwelt, to describe the individual's subjective world, and he invented the concept of functional circle (Funktionskreis) as a general model of sign processes. In his Theory of Meaning (Bedeutungslehre, 1940), he described the semiotic approach to biology, thus establishing the field that is now called biosemiotics. • Valentin Voloshinov (1895–1936) was a Soviet/Russian linguist, whose work has been influential in the field of literary theory and Marxist theory of ideology. Written in the late 1920s in the USSR, Voloshinov's Marxism and the Philosophy of Language (tr.: Marksizm i Filosofiya Yazyka) developed a counter-Saussurean linguistics, which situated language use in social process rather than in an entirely decontexualized Saussurean langue. • Louis Hjelmslev (1899–1965) developed a formalist approach to Saussure's structuralist theories. His best known work is Prolegomena to a Theory of Language, which was expanded in Résumé of the Theory of Language, a formal development of glossematics, his scientific calculus of language. • Charles W. Morris (1901–1979). In his 1938 Foundations of the Theory of Signs, he defined semiotics as grouping the triad syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Syntax studies the interrelation of the signs, without regard to meaning. Semantics studies the relation between the signs and the objects to which they apply. Pragmatics studies the relation between the sign system and its human (or animal) user. Unlike his mentor George Herbert Mead, Morris was a behaviorist and sympathetic to the Vienna Circle positivism of his colleague Rudolf Carnap. Morris was accused by John Dewey[21] of misreading Peirce. • Thure von Uexküll (1908–2004), the "father" of modern psychosomatic medicine, developed a diagnostic method based on semiotic and biosemiotic analyses. • Roland Barthes (1915–1980) was a French literary theorist and semiotician. He would often critique pieces of cultural material to expose how bourgeois society used them to impose its values upon others. For instance, the portrayal of wine drinking in French society as a robust and healthy habit would be a bourgeois ideal perception contradicted by certain realities (i.e. that wine can be unhealthy and inebriating). He found semiotics useful in conducting these critiques. Barthes explained that these bourgeois cultural myths were second-order signs, or connotations. A picture of a full, dark bottle is a sign, a signifier relating to a signified: a fermented, alcoholic beverage – wine. However, the bourgeois take this signified and apply their own emphasis to it, making ‘wine’ a new signifier, this time relating to a new signified: the idea of healthy, robust, relaxing wine. Motivations for such manipulations vary from a desire to sell products to a simple desire to maintain the status quo. These insights brought Barthes very much in line with similar Marxist theory. • Algirdas Julien Greimas (1917–1992) developed a structural version of semiotics named generative semiotics, trying to shift the focus of discipline from signs to systems of signification. His theories develop the ideas of Saussure, Hjelmslev, Claude Lévi-Strauss, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty. • Thomas A. Sebeok (1920–2001), a student of Charles W. Morris, was a prolific and wide-ranging American semiotician. Though he insisted that animals are not capable of language, he expanded the purview of semiotics to include non-human signaling and communication Signaling and communication between the Astatotilapia systems, thus raising some of the issues addressed by burtoni philosophy of mind and coining the term zoosemiotics. Sebeok insisted that all communication was made possible by the relationship between an organism and the environment it lives in. He also posed the equation between semiosis (the activity of interpreting signs) and life – the view that has further developed by Copenhagen-Tartu biosemiotic school. • Juri Lotman (1922–1993) was the founding member of the Tartu-Estonia (or Tartu-Moscow) Semiotic School. He developed a semiotic approach to the study of culture and established a communication model for the study of 59 Semiotics text semiotics. He also introduced the concept of the semiosphere. Among his Moscow colleagues were Vladimir Toporov, Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov, and Boris Uspensky. • Umberto Eco (1932–present) made a wider audience aware of semiotics by various publications, most notably A Theory of Semiotics and his novel, The Name of the Rose, which includes applied semiotic operations. His most important contributions to the field bear on interpretation, encyclopedia, and model reader. He has also criticized in several works (A theory of semiotics, La struttura assente, Le signe, La production de signes) the "iconism" or "iconic signs" (taken from Peirce's most famous triadic relation, based on indexes, icons, and symbols), to which he purposes four modes of sign production: recognition, ostension, replica, and invention. • Eliseo Verón (1935–present) developed his "Social Discourse Theory" inspired in the Peircian conception of "Semiosis". • The Mu Group (Groupe µ) (founded 1967) developed a structural version of rhetorics, and the visual semiotics. 60 Current applications Applications of semiotics include: • It represents a methodology for the analysis of texts regardless of modality. For these purposes, "text" is any message preserved in a form whose existence is independent of both sender and receiver; • It can improve ergonomic design in situations where it is important to ensure that human beings can interact more effectively with their environments, whether it be on a large scale, as in architecture, or on a small scale, such as the configuration of instrumentation for human use. In some countries, its role is limited to literary criticism and an appreciation of audio and visual media, but this narrow focus can inhibit a more general study of the social and political forces shaping how different media are used and their dynamic status within modern culture. Issues of technological determinism in the choice of media and the design of communication strategies assume new importance in this age of mass media. The use of semiotic methods to reveal different levels of meaning and, sometimes, hidden motivations has led Yale's Harold Bloom to demonise elements of the subject as Marxist, nihilist, etc. (e.g. critical discourse analysis in Postmodernism and deconstruction in Post-structuralism). Publication of research is both in dedicated journals such as Sign Systems Studies, established by Juri Lotman and published by Tartu University Press; Semiotica, founded by Thomas A. Sebeok and published by Mouton de Gruyter; Zeitschrift für Semiotik; European Journal of Semiotics; Versus (founded and directed by Umberto Eco), et al.; The American Journal of Semiotics; and as articles accepted in periodicals of other disciplines, especially journals oriented toward philosophy and cultural criticism. The major semiotic book series "Semiotics, Communication, Cognition", published by De Gruyter Mouton (series editors Paul Cobley and Kalevi Kull) replaces the former "Approaches to Semiotics" (over 120 volumes) and "Approaches to Applied Semiotics" (series editor Thomas A. Sebeok). Since 1980 the Semiotic Society of America has produced an annual conference series: Semiotics: The Proceedings of the Semiotic Society of America. Semiotics 61 Branches Semiotics has sprouted a number of subfields, including but not limited to the following: • Biosemiotics is the study of semiotic processes at all levels of biology, or a semiotic study of living systems (e.g., Copenhagen–Tartu School). • Semiotic anthropology • Cognitive semiotics is the study of meaning-making by employing and integrating methods and theories developed in the cognitive sciences. This involves conceptual and textual analysis as well as experimental investigations. Cognitive semiotics was initially developed at the Center for Semiotics at Aarhus University (Denmark), with an important connection with the Center of Functionally Integrated Neuroscience (CFIN) at Aarhus Hospital. Amongst the prominent cognitive semioticians are Per Aage Brandt, Svend Østergaard, Peer Bundgård, Frederik Stjernfelt, Mikkel Wallentin, Kristian Tylén, Riccardo Fusaroli and Jordan Zlatev. • Computational semiotics attempts to engineer the process of semiosis, say in the study of and design for Human-Computer Interaction or to mimic aspects of human cognition through artificial intelligence and knowledge representation. • Cultural and literary semiotics examines the literary world, the visual media, the mass media, and advertising in the work of writers such as Roland Barthes, Marcel Danesi, and Juri Lotman (e.g., Tartu–Moscow Semiotic School). • Design Semiotics or Product Semiotics is the study of the use of signs in the design of physical products. Introduced by Rune Monö while teaching Industrial Design at the Institute of Design, Umeå University, Sweden. • Film Semiotics is the study of the various codes and signs of film and how they are understood. See the works of Christian Metz. • Law and Semiotics. One of the more accomplished publications in this field is the International Journal for the Semiotics of Law. • Music semiology "There are strong arguments that music inhabits a semiological realm which, on both ontogenetic and phylogenetic levels, has developmental priority over verbal language." (Middleton 1990, p. 172) See Nattiez (1976, 1987, 1989), Stefani (1973, 1986), Baroni (1983), and Semiotica (66: 1–3 (1987)). • Gregorian chant semiology is a current avenue of palaeographical research in Gregorian chant which is revising the Solesmes school of interpretation. • Organisational semiotics is the study of semiotic processes in organizations. It has strong ties to Computational semiotics and Human-Computer Interaction. • Social semiotics expands the interpretable semiotic landscape to include all cultural codes, such as in slang, fashion, and advertising. See the work of Roland Barthes, Michael Halliday, Bob Hodge, and Christian Metz. • Structuralism and post-structuralism in the work of Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Louis Hjelmslev, Roman Jakobson, Jacques Lacan, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Roland Barthes, etc. • Theatre Semiotics extends or adapts semiotics onstage. Key theoricians include Keir Elam. • Urban semiotics. • Visual semiotics – a subdomain of semiotics that analyses visual signs. See also visual rhetoric.[22] • Semiotics of Photography. [23] Pictorial semiotics Pictorial Semiotics is intimately connected to art history and theory. It has gone beyond them both in at least one fundamental way, however. While art history has limited its visual analysis to a small number of pictures which qualify as "works of art," pictorial semiotics has focused on the properties of pictures more generally. This break from traditional art history and theory—as well as from other major streams of semiotic analysis—leaves open a wide variety of possibilities for pictorial semiotics. Some influences have been drawn from phenomenological analysis, cognitive psychology, and structuralist and cognitivist linguistics, and visual anthropology/sociology. Semiotics 62 Semiotics of food Food has been one traditional topic of choice in relating semiotic theory because it is extremely accessible and easily relatable to the average individual’s life.[24] Semiotics is the study of sign processes when conducted individually or in groups and how these sign processes give insight as to how meaning is enabled and also understood.[24] Food is said to be semiotic because it transforms meaning with preparation. Food that is eaten by a wild animal raw from a carcass is obviously different in meaning when compared to a food that is prepared by humans in a kitchen to represent a cultural dish.[24] Food can also be said to be symbolic of certain social codes. “If food is treated as a code, the messages it encodes will be found in the pattern of social relations being expressed. The message is about different degrees of hierarchy, inclusion and exclusion, boundaries and transactions across boundaries”.[25] Food is a semiotic regardless of how it is prepared. Whether food is prepared with precision in a fine dining restaurant, picked from a dumpster, plucked, devoured, or even consumed by a wild animal, meaning can always be extracted from the way a certain food has been prepared and the context in which it is served. Semiotics and globalization Present research found that, as airline industry brandings grow and become more international, their logos become more symbolic and less iconic. The iconicity and symbolism of a sign depends on the cultural convention and are on that ground in relation with each other. If the cultural convention has greater influence on the sign, the signs get more symbolic value.[26] Main institutions A world organisation of semioticians – the International Association for Semiotic Studies, with its journal Semiotica – was established in 1969. The larger research centers together with extensive teaching program include the Semiotics Departments of Tartu University, Aarhus University, and Bologna University. References Bibliography • Atkin, Albert. (2006). "Peirce's Theory of Signs [27]", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. • Barthes, Roland. ([1957] 1987). Mythologies. New York: Hill & Wang. • Barthes, Roland ([1964] 1967). Elements of Semiology. (Translated by Annette Lavers & Colin Smith). London: Jonathan Cape. • Chandler, Daniel. (2001/2007). Semiotics: The Basics. London: Routledge. • Clarke, D. S. (1987). Principles of Semiotic. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. • Clarke, D. S. (2003). Sign Levels. Dordrecht: Kluwer. • Culler, Jonathan (1975). Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics and the Study of Literature. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. • Danesi, Marcel & Perron, Paul. (1999). Analyzing Cultures: An Introduction and Handbook. Bloomington: Indiana UP. • Danesi, Marcel. (1994). Messages and Meanings: An Introduction to Semiotics. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press. • Danesi, Marcel. (2002). Understanding Media Semiotics. London: Arnold; New York: Oxford UP. • Danesi, Marcel. (2007). The Quest for Meaning: A Guide to Semiotic Theory and Practice. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Semiotics • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Deely, John. (2005 [1990]). Basics of Semiotics. 4th ed. Tartu: Tartu University Press. Deely, John. (2003). The Impact on Philosophy of Semiotics. South Bend: St. Augustine Press. Deely, John. (2001). Four Ages of Understanding. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Derrida, Jacques (1981). Positions. (Translated by Alan Bass). London: Athlone Press. Eagleton, Terry. (1983). Literary Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Eco, Umberto. (1976). A Theory of Semiotics. London: Macmillan. Eco, Umberto. (1986) Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Eco, Umberto. (2000) Kant and the Platypus. New York, Harcourt Brace & Company. Eco, Umberto. (1976) A Theory of Semiotics. Indiana, Indiana University Press. Emmeche, Claus; Kull, Kalevi (eds.) (2011) Towards a Semiotic Biology: Life is the Action of Signs. London: Imperial College Press. Foucault, Michel. (1970). The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. London: Tavistock. Greimas, Algirdas. (1987). On Meaning: Selected Writings in Semiotic Theory. (Translated by Paul J Perron & Frank H Collins). London: Frances Pinter. Herlihy, David. 1988–present. "2nd year class of semiotics". CIT. Hjelmslev, Louis (1961). Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. (Translated by Francis J. Whitfield). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Hodge, Robert & Kress, Gunther. (1988). Social Semiotics. Ithaca: Cornell UP. Lacan, Jacques. (1977) Écrits: A Selection. (Translated by Alan Sheridan). New York: Norton. Lidov, David (1999) Elements of Semiotics. New York: St. Martin's Press. Liszka, J. J. (1996) A General Introduction to the Semeiotic of C.S. Peirce. Indiana University Press. Locke, John, The Works of John Locke, A New Edition, Corrected, In Ten Volumes, Vol.III, T. Tegg, (London), 1823. (facsimile reprint by Scientia, (Aalen), 1963.) Lotman, Yuri M. (1990). Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture. (Translated by Ann Shukman). London: I.B. Tauris. Morris, Charles W. (1971). Writings on the general theory of signs. The Hague: Mouton. Menchik, D., and X. Tian. (2008) "Putting Social Context into Text: The Semiotics of Email Interaction." [28] The American Journal of Sociology. 114:2 pp. 332–70. Peirce, Charles S. (1934). Collected papers: Volume V. Pragmatism and pragmaticism. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press. Petrilli, S. (2009). Semiotics as semioethics in the era of global communication. Semiotica, 173(1-4), 343-347, 353-354, 359. doi: 10.1515/SEMI.2009.015 Ponzio, Augusto & S. Petrilli (2007) Semiotics Today. From Global Semiotics to Semioethics, a Dialogic Response. New York, Ottawa, Toronto: Legas. 84 pp. ISBN 978-1-894508-98-8 Sebeok, Thomas A. (Editor) (1977). A Perfusion of Signs. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Signs and Meaning: 5 Questions, edited by Peer Bundgaard and Frederik Stjernfelt, 2009 (Automatic Press / VIP). (Includes interviews with 29 leading semioticians of the world.) Stubbe, Henry (Henry Stubbes), The Plus Ultra reduced to a Non Plus: Or, A Specimen of some Animadversions upon the Plus Ultra of Mr. Glanvill, wherein sundry Errors of some Virtuosi are discovered, the Credit of the Aristotelians in part Re-advanced; and Enquiries made...., (London), 1670. Uexküll, Thure von (1982). Semiotics and medicine. Semiotica 38-3/4:205-215 Williamson, Judith. (1978). Decoding Advertisements: Ideology and Meaning in Advertising. London: Boyars. 63 • • • Zlatev, Jordan. (2009). "The Semiotic Hierarchy: Life, Consciousness, Signs and Language, Cognitive Semiotics". Sweden: Scania. Notes [1] Caesar, Michael (1999). Umberto Eco: Philosophy, Semiotics, and the Work of Fiction. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 55. ISBN 978-0-7456-0850-1. [2] The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Syntactics (http:/ / www. thefreedictionary. com/ syntactics) Semiotics [3] Wiktionary.org (http:/ / en. wiktionary. org/ wiki/ syntax) [4] σημειωτικός (http:/ / www. perseus. tufts. edu/ hopper/ text?doc=Perseus:text:1999. 04. 0057:entry=shmeiwtiko/ s), Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, on Perseus [5] σημεῖον (http:/ / www. perseus. tufts. edu/ hopper/ text?doc=Perseus:text:1999. 04. 0057:entry=shmei=on), Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, on Perseus [6] Stubbe, H.,The Plus Ultra reduced to a Non Plus ... (London, England, 1670), page 75: "... nor is there any thing to be relied upon in Physick, but an exact knowledge of medicinal phisiology (founded on observation, not principles), semeiotics, method of curing, and tried (not excogitated, not commanding) medicines ...." [7] A now-obsolete term for the art or profession of curing disease with (herbal) medicines or (chemical) drugs; especially purgatives or cathartics. Also, it specifically refers to the treatment of humans. [8] That is, "thought out", "contrived", or "devised" (Oxford English Dictionary). [9] Peirce, C.S., Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. 2, paragraph 227. [10] Peirce, C.S. (1902), "Logic, Considered as Semeiotic", Manuscript L75, transcription (http:/ / www. cspeirce. com/ menu/ library/ bycsp/ l75/ l75. htm) at Arisbe: The Peirce Gateway, and, in particular, its "On the Definition of Logic" (Memoir 12), transcription (http:/ / www. cspeirce. com/ menu/ library/ bycsp/ l75/ ver1/ l75v1-05. htm#m12) at Arisbe. [11] (Zlatev [12] 1971, orig. 1938, Writings on the general theory of signs, Mouton, The Hague, The Netherlands [13] 1944, Black M. The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell, Library of Living Philosophers, V5 [14] Zlatev [15] Zlatev [16] For Peirce's definitions of signs and semiosis, see under " Sign (http:/ / www. helsinki. fi/ science/ commens/ terms/ sign. html)" and " Semiosis, semeiosy (http:/ / www. helsinki. fi/ science/ commens/ terms/ semiosis. html)" in the Commens Dictionary of Peirce's Terms (http:/ / www. helsinki. fi/ science/ commens/ dictionary. html); and " 76 definitions of sign by C. S. Peirce (http:/ / perso. numericable. fr/ robert. marty/ semiotique/ access. htm)" collected by Robert Marty. Peirce's " What Is a Sign (http:/ / www. iupui. edu/ ~peirce/ ep/ ep2/ ep2book/ ch02/ ep2ch2. htm)" (MS 404 of 1894, Essential Peirce v. 2, pp. 4-10) provides intuitive help. [17] See Peirce, excerpt from a letter to William James, March 14, 1909, Collected Papers v. 8, paragraph 314. Also see under relevant entries in the Commens Dictionary of Peirce's Terms (http:/ / www. helsinki. fi/ science/ commens/ dictionary. html). On coincidence of actual opinion with final opinion, see MS 218, transcription (http:/ / www. cspeirce. com/ menu/ library/ bycsp/ logic/ ms218. htm) at Arisbe, and appearing in Writings of Charles S. Peirce v. 3, p. 79. [18] He spelt it "semiotic" and "semeiotic". See under " Semeiotic (http:/ / www. helsinki. fi/ science/ commens/ terms/ semeiotic. html) [etc.] in the Commens Dictionary of Peirce's Terms. [19] Peirce, Collected Papers v. 2, paragraphs 243-63, written circa 1903. [20] He worked on but did not perfect a finer-grained system of ten trichotomies, to be combined into 66 (Tn+1) classes of sign. That raised for Peirce 59,049 classificatory questions (59,049 = 310, or 3 to the 10th power). See p. 482 in "Excerpts from Letters to Lady Welby", Essential Peirce v. 2. [21] Dewey, John, (1946, February 14), “Peirce's Theory of Linguistic Signs, Thought, and Meaning.” The Journal of Philosophy, v. 43, n. 4, pp.85-95. [22] Wikibooks.org (http:/ / en. wikibooks. org/ wiki/ Visual_Rhetoric/ Semiotics_and_Visual_Rhetoric) [23] Semiotics of Photography (http:/ / ssrn. com/ abstract=2067834) [24] Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (1993). Semiotics and communication: Signs, codes, cultures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. [25] Douglas, Mary. 1971. Deciphering a Meal. In: Clifford Geertz (ed.) Myth, Symbol and Culture. New York: Norton, pp. 61–82. [26] Thurlow, C. & Aiello, G. (2007). National pride, global capital: a social semiotic analysis of transnational visual branding in the airline industry, Visual Communication, 6(3), 305–344 [27] http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ peirce-semiotics/ [28] http:/ / menchik. com/ Menchik_Tian_AJS. pdf 64 Semiotics 65 External links Further reading • • Applied Semiotics / Sémiotique appliquée (http:/ / www. chass. utoronto. ca/ french/ as-sa/ index. html) Communicology: The link between semiotics and phenomenological manifestations (http:/ / www. communicology. org/ ) Language and the Origin of Semiosis (http:/ / www. percepp. com/ semiosis. htm) Semiotics for Beginners (http:/ / www. aber. ac. uk/ media/ Documents/ S4B/ sem02. html) Signo — www.signosemio.com — Presents semiotic theories and theories closely related to semiotics (http:/ / www. signosemio. com/ ) The Semiotics of the Web (http:/ / pauillac. inria. fr/ ~codognet/ web. html) Tartu Semiotics Department (http:/ / www. ut. ee/ SOSE/ eng. html) Peircean focus • • • • Arisbe: The Peirce Gateway (http:/ / www. cspeirce. com/ ) Minute Semeiotic (http:/ / www. minutesemeiotic. org/ ?lang=en), English, Portuguese Peirce's Theory of Semiosis: Toward a Logic of Mutual Affection (http:/ / www. chass. utoronto. ca/ epc/ srb/ cyber/ espout. html) — free online course Semiotics according to Robert Marty (http:/ / perso. numericable. fr/ robert. marty/ semiotique/ anglais. htm), with 76 definitions of the sign by C. S. Peirce (http:/ / perso. numericable. fr/ robert. marty/ semiotique/ access. htm) The Commens Dictionary of Peirce's Terms (http:/ / www. helsinki. fi/ science/ commens/ dictionary. html) • • • • • • Journals, book series — associations, centers • American Journal of Semiotics (http://secure.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/journal?openform&journal=pdc_ajs), Joseph Brent, Editor, & John Deely, Managing Editor — from the Semiotic Society of America (http://uwf.edu/ tprewitt/ssa.htm). • Applied Semiotics / Sémiotique appliquée (AS/SA) (http://french.chass.utoronto.ca/as-sa/), Peter G. Marteinson & Pascal G. Michelucci, Editors. • Approaches to Semiotics (http://www.degruyter.de/view/serial/16067) (1969–97 book series), Thomas A. Sebeok, Alain Rey, Roland Posner, et al., Editors. • Approaches to Applied Semiotics (http://www.degruyter.de/view/serial/16228) (2000–2009 book series), Thomas Sebeok et al., Editors. • Biosemiotics (http://www.springer.com/life+sciences/evolutionary+&+developmental+biology/journal/ 12304), Marcello Barbieri, Editor-in-Chief — from the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies (http:// www.biosemiotics.org/). • Center for Semiotics (http://www.hum.au.dk/semiotics/), Aarhus University, Denmark. • Cognitive Semiotics (http://www.cognitivesemiotics.com/), Per Aage Brandt & Todd Oakley, Editors-in-Chief. • Cybernetics and Human Knowing (http://www.chkjournal.org/), Søren Brier, Chief Editor. • International Journal of Signs and Semiotic Systems (IJSSS) (http://www.irma-international.org/journal/ international-journal-signs-semiotic-systems/41024/), Angelo Loula & João Queiroz, Editors. • Open Semiotics Resource Center (http://www.semioticon.com/). Journals, lecture courses, etc. • S.E.E.D. Journal (Semiotics, Evolution, Energy, and Development) (http://www.library.utoronto.ca/see/ pages/SEED_Journal.html) (2001–7), Edwina Taborsky, Editor — from SEE (http://www.library.utoronto. ca/see/index.html). • Semiotica (http://www.degruyter.de/journals/semiotica/), Marcel Danesi, Chief Editor — from the International Association for Semiotic Studies (http://iass-ais.org/). • Semiotiche (http://www.ananke-edizioni.com/ananke/?s=Semiotiche), Gian Paolo Caprettini, Managing Director; Andrea Valle & Miriam Visalli, Editors. Some articles in English. Home site seems gone from Web, old url (http://www.semiotiche.it/) no longer good, and Wayback Machine cannot retrieve. • Semiotics, Communication and Cognition (http://www.degruyter.de/view/serial/41472) (book series), Paul Cobley & Kalevi Kull, Editors. Semiotics • SemiotiX New Series: A Global Information Bulletin (http://www.semioticon.com/semiotix/), Paul Bouissac et al. • Sign Systems Studies (http://www.ut.ee/SOSE/sss/index.htm), Kalevi Kull, Kati Lindstrom, Mihhail Lotman, Timo Maran, Silvi Salupere, Peeter Torop, Editors — from the Dept. of Semiotics, U. of Tartu (http://www.ut. ee/SOSE/eng.html), Estonia. • Signs - International Journal of Semiotics (http://vip.iva.dk/signs/). Martin Thellefsen, Torkild Thellefsen, & Bent Sørensen, chief eds. • Tartu Semiotics Library (http://www.ut.ee/SOSE/tsl.html) (book series), Peeter Torop, Kalevi Kull, Silvi Salupere, Editors. • The Public Journal of Semiotics (http://semioticsonline.org/), Paul Bouissac, Editor in Chief; Alan Cienki, Associate Editor; René Jorna, Winfried Nöth. • The Semiotic Review of Books (http://projects.chass.utoronto.ca/semiotics/index.html), Gary Genosko, General Editor; Paul Bouissac, Founding Editor. • Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society (http://www.peircesociety.org/transactions.html), Cornelis de Waal, Chief Editor — from The Charles S. Peirce Society (http://www.peircesociety.org/). • Versus: Quaderni di studi semiotici (http://versus.dsc.unibo.it/), founded by Umberto Eco. 66 Linguistic description In the study of language, description, or descriptive linguistics, is the work of objectively analyzing and describing how language is spoken (or how it was spoken in the past) by a group of people in a speech community. All scholarly research in linguistics is descriptive; like all other sciences, its aim is to observe the linguistic world as it is, without the bias of preconceived ideas about how it ought to be.[1] Modern descriptive linguistics is based on a structural approach to language, as exemplified in the work of Leonard Bloomfield and others. Linguistic description is often contrasted with linguistic prescription, which is found especially in education and in publishing. Prescription seeks to define standard language forms and give advice on effective language use, and can be thought of as a presentation of the fruits of descriptive research in a learnable form, though it also draws on more subjective aspects of language aesthetics. Prescription and description are complementary, but have different priorities and sometimes are seen to be in conflict. Descriptivism is the belief that description is more significant or important to teach, study, and practice than prescription. Accurate description of real speech is a difficult problem, and linguists have often been reduced to approximations. Almost all linguistic theory has its origin in practical problems of descriptive linguistics. Phonology (and its theoretical developments, such as the phoneme) deals with the function and interpretation of sound in language. Syntax has developed to describe the rules concerning how words relate to each other in order to form sentences. Lexicology collects "words" and their derivations and transformations: it has not given rise to much generalized theory. An extreme "mentalist" viewpoint denies that the linguistic description of a language can be done by anyone but a competent speaker. Such speakers have internalized something called "linguistic competence", which gives them the ability to extrapolate correctly from their experience new but correct expressions, and to reject unacceptable expressions. A linguistic description is considered descriptively adequate if it achieves one or more of the following goals of descriptive linguistics: 1. A description of the phonology of the language in question. 2. A description of the morphology of words belonging to that language. 3. A description of the syntax of well-formed sentences of that language. 4. A description of lexical derivations. Linguistic description 5. A documentation of the vocabulary, including at least one thousand entries. 6. A reproduction of a few genuine texts. 67 References [1] Kordić, Snježana (2010) (in Serbo-Croatian). Jezik i nacionalizam [Language and Nationalism] (http:/ / www. webcitation. org/ 690BiBe4T). Rotulus Universitas. Zagreb: Durieux. p. 60. ISBN 978-953-188-311-5. LCCN 2011520778. OCLC 729837512. OL{{{1}}}. Archived from the original (http:/ / bib. irb. hr/ datoteka/ 475567. Jezik_i_nacionalizam. pdf) on 8 July 2012. . Retrieved 11 August 2012. Bibliography • Antoinette Renouf, Andrew Kehoe, The Changing Face of Corpus Linguistics (http://books.google.ca/ books?id=UBk7B4PWFmkC&pg=PA377&dq="Descriptive+linguistics"& sig=ACfU3U0Rq1iOjSsfJ-dujYRhwe70GS74BQ) – 2006 – 408 pages, p. 377 • Patrick R. Bennett, Comparative Semitic Linguistics: A Manual (http://books.google.ca/ books?id=LfruK29pVl8C&pg=PA3&dq="Descriptive+linguistics"& sig=ACfU3U3AfpGzNiZI-cdsWUctHrs9aAqGSg) – 1998 – 269 pages, p. 3 • William A. Haviland, PRINS, WALRATH, Harald E. L. Prins, Dana Walrath, Bunny McBride, Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge (http://books.google.ca/books?id=vaj33IYnl0YC&pg=PA93& dq="Descriptive+linguistics"&sig=ACfU3U0vfdMoPP_ohYtb2P_CeHfW34JhUQ) – HAVILAND – 2004 – 496 pages, p. 93 Anthropological linguistics Anthropological linguistics is the study of the relations between language and culture and the relations between human biology, cognition and language. This strongly overlaps the field of linguistic anthropology, which is the branch of anthropology that studies humans through the languages that they use. Whatever one calls it, this field has had a major impact in the studies of such areas as visual perception (especially colour) and bioregional democracy, both of which are concerned with distinctions that are made in languages about perceptions of the surroundings. Conventional linguistic anthropology also has implications for sociology and self-organization of peoples. Study of the Penan people, for instance, reveals that their language employs six different and distinct words whose best English translation is "we". Anthropological linguistics studies these distinctions, and relates them to types of societies and to actual bodily adaptation to the senses, much as it studies distinctions made in languages regarding the colours of the rainbow: seeing the tendency to increase the diversity of terms, as evidence that there are distinctions that bodies in this environment must make, leading to situated knowledge and perhaps a situated ethics, whose final evidence is the differentiated set of terms used to denote "we". Related Fields Anthropological linguistics is concerned with • Descriptive (or synchronic) linguistics: Describing dialects (forms of a language used by a specific speech community). This study includes phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and grammar. • Historical (or diachronic) linguistics: Describing changes in dialects and languages over time. This study includes the study of linguistic divergence and language families, comparative linguistics, etymology, and philology. • Ethnolinguistics: Analyzing the relationship between culture, thought, and language. Anthropological linguistics • Sociolinguistics: Analyzing the social functions of language and the social, political, and economic relationships among and between members of speech communities. 68 Recent work Mark Fettes, in Steps Towards an Ecology of Language (1996), sought "a theory of language ecology which can integrate naturalist and critical traditions"; and in An Ecological Approach to Language Renewal (1997), sought to approach a transformative ecology via a more active, perhaps designed, set of tools in language. This may cross a line between science and activism, but is within the anthropological tradition of study by the participant observer. Related to problems in critical philosophy (for instance, the question who's we, and the subject-object problem). In many respects, the scope of interest of ethnolinguistics and linguistic anthropology overlap. Both are concerned with the relationship between language and culture. Both work with the concept of worldview. But unlike linguistic anthropology which as a discipline of anthropology, focuses on man, the individual representing his culture, ethnolinguists are concerned with the way individuals express themselves and how they communicate together. Ethnolinguistics looks at the relationship between discourse and language, while linguistic anthropology tends to make more general claims about vocabulary and grammar. Anna Wierzbicka is one of the best-known exponents of ethnolinguistics in English-speaking countries. James W. Underhill redefined the term in his Ethnolinguistics and Cultural Concepts: truth, love, hate & war (Cambridge University Press 2012). See anthropology, linguistics. External links • "An Ecological Approach to Language Renewal" [1], Mark Fettes, 1997. References [1] http:/ / jan. ucc. nau. edu/ ~jar/ TIL_25. html Comparative linguistics 69 Comparative linguistics Comparative linguistics (originally comparative philology) is a branch of historical linguistics that is concerned with comparing languages to establish their historical relatedness. Genetic relatedness implies a common origin or proto-language, and comparative linguistics aims to construct language families, to reconstruct proto-languages and specify the changes that have resulted in the documented languages. To maintain a clear distinction between attested and reconstructed forms, comparative linguists prefix an asterisk to any form that is not found in surviving texts. A number of methods for carrying out language classification have been developed, ranging from simple inspection to computerised hypothesis testing. Such methods have gone through a long process of development. Methods The fundamental technique of comparative linguistics is to compare phonological systems, morphological systems, syntax and the lexicon of two or more languages using techniques such as the comparative method. In principle, every difference between two related languages should be explicable to a high degree of plausibility, and systematic changes, for example in phonological or morphological systems, are expected to be highly regular (i.e. consistent). In practice, the comparison may be more restricted, e.g. just to the lexicon. In some methods it may be possible to reconstruct an earlier proto-language. Although the proto-languages reconstructed by the comparative method are hypothetical, a reconstruction may have predictive power. The most notable example of this is Saussure's proposal that the Indo-European consonant system contained laryngeals, a type of consonant attested in no Indo-European language known at the time. The hypothesis was vindicated with the discovery of Hittite, which proved to have exactly the consonants Saussure had hypothesized in the environments he had predicted. Where languages are derived from a very distant ancestor, and are thus more distantly related, the comparative method becomes impracticable.[1] In particular, attempting to relate two reconstructed proto-languages by the comparative method has not generally produced results that have met with wide acceptance. The method has also not been very good at unambiguously identifying sub-families and different scholars have produced conflicting results, for example in Indo-European. A number of methods based on statistical analysis of vocabulary have been developed to try and overcome this limitation, such as lexicostatistics and mass comparison. The former uses lexical cognates like the comparative method but the latter uses only lexical similarity. The theoretical basis of such methods is that vocabulary items can be matched without a detailed language reconstruction and that comparing enough vocabulary items will negate individual inaccuracies. Thus they can be used to determine relatedness but not to determine the proto-language. History The earliest method of this type was the comparative method, which was developed over many years, culminating in the nineteenth century. This uses a long word list and detailed study. However, it has been criticized for example as being subjective, being informal and lacking testability.[2] The comparative method uses information from two or more languages and allows reconstruction of the ancestral language. The method of Internal reconstruction uses only a single language, with comparison of word variants, to perform the same function. Internal reconstruction is more resistant to interference but usually has a limited available base of utilizable words and is able to reconstruct only certain changes (those that have left traces as morphophonological variations). In the twentieth century an alternative method, lexicostatistics, was developed, which is mainly associated with Morris Swadesh but is based on earlier work. This uses a short word list of basic vocabulary in the various languages for comparisons. Swadesh used 100 (earlier 200) items that are assumed to be cognate (on the basis of phonetic similarity) in the languages being compared, though other lists have also been used. Distance measures are derived Comparative linguistics by examination of language pairs but such methods reduce the information. An outgrowth of lexicostatistics is glottochronology, initially developed in the 1950s, which proposed a mathematical formula for establishing the date when two languages separated, based on percentage of a core vocabulary of culturally independent words. In its simplest form a constant rate of change is assumed, though later versions allow variance but still fail to achieve reliability. Glottochronology has met with mounting scepticism, and is seldom applied today. Dating estimates can now be generated by computerised methods that have fewer restrictions, calculating rates from the data. However, no mathematical means of producing proto-language split-times on the basis of lexical retention has been proven reliable. Another controversial method, developed by Joseph Greenberg, is mass comparison.[3] The method, which disavows any ability to date developments, aims simply to show which languages are more and less close to each other. Greenberg suggested that the method is useful for preliminary grouping of languages known to be related as a first step towards more in-depth comparative analysis.[4] However, since mass comparison eschews the establishment of regular changes, it is flatly rejected by the majority of historical linguists.[5] Recently, computerised statistical hypothesis testing methods have been developed which are related to both the comparative method and lexicostatistics. Character based methods are similar to the former and distanced based methods are similar to the latter (see Quantitative comparative linguistics). The characters used can be morphological or grammatical as well as lexical.[6] Since the mid-1990s these more sophisticated tree- and network-based phylogenetic methods have been used to investigate the relationships between languages and to determine approximate dates for proto-languages. These are considered by many to show promise but are not wholly accepted by traditionalists.[7] However, they are not intended to replace older methods but to supplement them.[8] Such statistical methods cannot be used to derive the features of a proto-language, apart from the fact of the existence of shared items of the compared vocabulary. These approaches have been challenged for their methodological problems, since without a reconstruction or at least a detailed list of phonological correspondences there can be no demonstration that two words in different languages are cognate. 70 Related fields There are other branches of linguistics that involve comparing languages, which are not, however, part of comparative linguistics: • Linguistic typology compares languages to classify them by their features. Its ultimate aim is to understand the universals that govern language, and the range of types found in the world's languages is respect of any particular feature (word order or vowel system, for example). Typological similarity does not imply a historical relationship. However, typological arguments can be used in comparative linguistics: one reconstruction may be preferred to another as typologically more plausible. • Contact linguistics examines the linguistic results of contact between the speakers of different languages, particularly as evidenced in loan words. An empirical study of loans is by definition historical in focus and therefore forms part of the subject matter of historical linguistics. One of the goals of etymology is to establish which items in a language's vocabulary result from linguistic contact. This is also an important issue both for the comparative method and for the lexical comparison methods, since failure to recognize a loan may distort the findings. • Contrastive linguistics compares languages usually with the aim of assisting language learning by identifying important differences between the learner's native and target languages. Contrastive linguistics deals solely with present-day languages. Comparative linguistics 71 Pseudolinguistic comparisons Comparative linguistics includes the study of the historical relationships of languages using the comparative method to search for regular (i.e. recurring) correspondences between the languages' phonology, grammar and core vocabulary, and through hypothesis testing; some persons with little or no specialization in the field sometimes attempt to establish historical associations between languages by noting similarities between them, in a way that is considered pseudoscientific by specialists (e.g. African/Egyptian comparisons[9]). The most common method applied in pseudoscientific language comparisons is to search two or more languages for words that seem similar in their sound and meaning. While similarities of this kind often seem convincing to laypersons, linguistic scientists consider this kind of comparison to be unreliable for two primary reasons. First, the method applied is not well-defined: the criterion of similarity is subjective and thus not subject to verification or falsification, which is contrary to the principles of the scientific method. Second, the large size of all languages' vocabulary and a relatively limited inventory of articulated sounds used by most languages makes it easy to find coincidentally similar words between languages. There are sometimes political or religious reasons for associating languages in ways that some linguists would dispute. For example, it has been suggested that the Turanian or Ural–Altaic language group, which relates Sami and other languages to the Mongolian language, was used to justify racism towards the Sami in particular.[10] There are also strong, albeit areal not genetic, similarities between the Uralic and Altaic languages which provided an innocent basis for this theory. Some believers in Abrahamic religions try to derive their native languages from Classical Hebrew, as Herbert W. Armstrong, a proponent of British Israelism, who said that the word 'British' comes from Hebrew brit meaning 'covenant' and ish meaning 'man', supposedly proving that the British people are the 'covenant people' of God. And Lithuanian-American archaeologist Marija Gimbutas argued during the mid-1900s that Basque is clearly related to the extinct Pictish and Etruscan languages, in attempt to show that Basque was a remnant of an "Old European culture".[11] In the Dissertatio de origine gentium Americanarum (1625), the Dutch lawyer Hugo Grotius proves that the American Indians (Mohawks) speak a language (lingua Maquaasiorum) derived from Scandinavian languages (Grotius was on Sweden's payroll), supporting Swedish colonial pretensions in America. Hilaire de Barenton proved that Turkish is the mother of languages (Sun Language Theory), in support of Kemal Atatürk's nationalism. The Dutch doctor Johannes Goropius Becanus, in his Orgines Antverpiana (1580) admits Quis est enim qui non amet patrium sermonem (who does not love his fathers' tongue ?), whilst asserting that Hebrew is derived from Dutch - a claim considered so ridiculous that Leibniz coined the term "goropism" to mean "absurd etymology". A French Éloi Johanneau claim in 1818 (Mélanges d'origines étymologiques et de questions grammaticales) that the Celtic language is the oldest, and the mother of all others. In 1759, Joseph de Guignes theorized(Mémoire dans lequel on prouve que les Chinois sont une colonie égyptienne) that Chinese and Egyptian were related. In 1885, Edward Tregear (the Aryan Maori) compared Maori and Aryan languages. Also related (according to Jean Prat, in his 1941 Les langues Nitales) are the Bantu languages of Africa and Latin. Just like frogs' quacking, which, compared to French, provided - according to Jean-Pierre Brisset (La Grande Nouvelle, around 1900) the assertion that humans descended from the frog, by linguistic means. Comparative linguistics 72 References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Ringe, D. A. (1995). "'Nostratic' and the factor of chance". Diachronica 12 (1): 55–74. doi:10.1075/dia.l2.1.04rin. See for example "Language Classification by Numbers" by April McMahon and Robert McMahon Campbell, Lyle (2004). Historical Linguistics: An Introduction (2nd ed.). Cambridge: The MIT Press Greenberg, J H. (2001). The methods and purposes of linguistic genetic classification. Language and Linguistics 2: 111-135. Ringe, Don. (1993). "A reply to Professor Greenberg". Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 137, 1:91-109. doi:10.1007/s101209900033. e.g. Greenhill, S J, Q D Atkinson, A Meade, and R D Gray. (2010). " The shape and tempo of language evolution (http:/ / simon. net. nz/ files/ 2010/ 04/ Greenhill_et_al2010-preprint. pdf)". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 277, no. 1693: 2443-50. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.0051. See for example the criticisms of Gray and Atkinson's work in Language Log, 10 December 2003 Greenhill, S J, and R D Gray. 2009. " Austronesian language phylogenies: Myths and misconceptions about Bayesian computational methods (http:/ / simon. net. nz/ files/ 2009/ 09/ Greenhill_and_Gray2009. pdf)". In Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history: a festschrift for Robert Blust, ed. K A Adelaar and A Pawley, 375-397. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Russell G. Schuh (1997) "The Use and Misuse of language in the study of African history" Ufahamu 25(1):36-81 [7] [8] [9] [10] (Swedish) Niclas Wahlgren. Något om rastänkandet i Sverige. (http:/ / www. student. nada. kth. se/ ~d95-nwa/ rasII. html) [11] See Gimbutas, Marija, The Living Goddesses pp. 122 and 171-175 ISBN 0-520-22915-0 Bibliography • August Schleicher: Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. (Kurzer Abriss der indogermanischen Ursprache, des Altindischen, Altiranischen, Altgriechischen, Altitalischen, Altkeltischen, Altslawischen, Litauischen und Altdeutschen.) (2 vols.) Weimar, H. Boehlau (1861/62); reprinted by Minerva GmbH, Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, ISBN 3-8102-1071-4 • Karl Brugmann, Berthold Delbrück, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen (1886–1916). • Raimo Anttila, Historical and Comparative Linguistics (Benjamins, 1989) ISBN 90-272-3557-0 • Theodora Bynon, Historical Linguistics (Cambridge University Press, 1977) ISBN 0-521-29188-7 • Richard D. Janda and Brian D. Joseph (Eds), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics (Blackwell, 2004) ISBN 1-4051-2747-3 • Roger Lass, Historical linguistics and language change. (Cambridge University Press, 1997) ISBN 0-521-45924-9 • Winfred P. Lehmann, Historical Linguistics: An Introduction (Holt, 1962) ISBN 0-03-011430-6 • R.L. Trask (ed.), Dictionary of Historical and Comparative Linguistics (Fitzroy Dearborn, 2001) ISBN 1-57958-218-4 Historical linguistics 73 Historical linguistics Historical linguistics (also called diachronic linguistics) is the study of language change. It has five main concerns: • to describe and account for observed changes in particular languages • to reconstruct the pre-history of languages and determine their relatedness, grouping them into language families (comparative linguistics) • to develop general theories about how and why language changes • to describe the history of speech communities • to study the history of words, i.e. etymology. History and development Modern historical linguistics dates from the late 18th century. It grew out of the earlier discipline of philology, the study of ancient texts and documents dating back to antiquity. At first, historical linguistics was comparative linguistics. Scholars were concerned chiefly with establishing language families and reconstructing prehistoric proto-languages, using the comparative method and internal reconstruction. The focus was initially on the well-known Indo-European languages, many of which had long written histories; the scholars also studied the Uralic languages, another European language family for which less early written material exists. Since then, there has been significant comparative linguistic work expanding outside of European languages as well, such as on the Austronesian languages and various families of Native American languages, among many others. Comparative linguistics is now, however, only a part of a more broadly conceived discipline of historical linguistics. For the Indo-European languages, comparative study is now a highly specialised field. Most research is being carried out on the subsequent development of these languages, in particular, the development of the modern standard varieties. Some scholars have undertaken studies attempting to establish super-families, linking, for example, Indo-European, Uralic, and other families into Nostratic. These attempts have not been accepted widely. The information necessary to establish relatedness becomes less available as the time depth is increased. The time-depth of linguistic methods is limited due to chance word resemblances and variations between language groups, but a limit of around 10,000 years is often assumed. The dating of the various proto-languages is also difficult; several methods are available for dating, but only approximate results can be obtained. Evolution into other fields Initially, all modern linguistics was historical in orientation, even the study of modern dialects involved looking at their origins. Ferdinand de Saussure's distinction between synchronic and diachronic linguistics is fundamental to the present day organization of the discipline. Primacy is accorded to synchronic linguistics, and diachronic linguistics is defined as the study of successive synchronic stages. Saussure's clear demarcation, however, is now seen to be idealised. In practice, a purely synchronic linguistics is not possible for any period before the invention of the gramophone, as written records always lag behind speech in reflecting linguistic developments. Written records are difficult to date accurately before the development of the modern title page. Also, the work of sociolinguists on linguistic variation has shown synchronic states are not uniform: the speech habits of older and younger speakers differ in ways that point to language change. Synchronic variation is linguistic change in progress. The biological origin of language is in principle a concern of historical linguistics, but most linguists regard it as too remote to be reliably established by standard techniques of historical linguistics, such as the comparative method. Less-standard techniques, such as mass lexical comparison, are used by some linguists to overcome the limitations of the comparative method, but most linguists regard them as unreliable. Historical linguistics The findings of historical linguistics are often used as a basis for hypotheses about the groupings and movements of peoples, particularly in the prehistoric period. In practice, however, it is often unclear how to integrate the linguistic evidence with the archaeological or genetic evidence. For example, there are numerous theories concerning the homeland and early movements of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, each with its own interpretation of the archaeological record. 74 Sub-fields of study Comparative linguistics Comparative linguistics (originally comparative philology) is a branch of historical linguistics that is concerned with comparing languages in order to establish their historical relatedness. Languages may be related by convergence through borrowing or by genetic descent, thus languages can change and are also able to cross-relate. Genetic relatedness implies a common origin or proto-language. Comparative linguistics has the goal of constructing language families, reconstructing proto-languages, and specifying the changes that have resulted in the documented languages. To maintain a clear distinction between attested language and reconstructed forms, comparative linguists prefix an asterisk to any form that is not found in surviving texts. Etymology Etymology is the study of the history of words — when they entered a language, from what source, and how their form and meaning have changed over time. A word may enter a language as a loanword (i.e., as a word from one language adopted by speakers of another language), through derivational morphology by combining pre-existing elements in the language, by a hybrid of these two processes called phono-semantic matching, or in several other minor ways. In languages with a long and detailed history, etymology makes use of philology, the study of how words change from culture to culture over time. Etymologists also apply the methods of comparative linguistics to reconstruct information about languages that are too old for any direct information (such as writing) to be known. By analyzing related languages with a technique known as the comparative method, linguists can make inferences, about their shared parent language and its vocabulary. In this way, word roots that can be traced all the way back to the origin of, for instance, the Indo-European language family have been found. Although originating in the philological tradition, much current etymological research is done in language families for which little or no early documentation is available, such as Uralic and Austronesian. Dialectology Dialectology is the scientific study of linguistic dialect, the varieties of a language that are characteristic of particular groups, based primarily on geographic distribution and their associated features. This is in contrast to variations based on social factors, which are studied in sociolinguistics, or variations based on time, which are studied in historical linguistics. Dialectology treats such topics as divergence of two local dialects from a common ancestor and synchronic variation. Dialectologists are concerned with grammatical features that correspond to regional areas. Thus, they are usually dealing with populations living in specific locales for generations without moving, but also with immigrant groups bringing their languages to new settlements. Historical linguistics 75 Phonology Phonology is a sub-field of linguistics which studies the sound system of a specific language or set of languages. Whereas phonetics is about the physical production and perception of the sounds of speech, phonology describes the way sounds function within a given language or across languages. An important part of phonology is studying which sounds are distinctive units within a language. For example, the "p" in "pin" is aspirated while the "p" in "spin" is not. In English these two sounds are used in complementary distribution and are therefore not used to differentiate words and so are considered allophones of the same phoneme. In some other languages, for example Thai and Quechua, this same difference of aspiration or non-aspiration does differentiate words and these two sounds phones are therefore considered phonemes. In addition to the minimal meaningful sounds (the phonemes), phonology studies how sounds alternate, such as the /p/ in English, and topics such as syllable structure, stress, accent, and intonation. The principles of phonological theory have also been applied to the analysis of sign languages, although the phonological units do not consist of sounds. The principles of phonological analysis can be applied independently of modality because they are designed to serve as general analytical tools, not language-specific ones. Morphology Morphology is the study of the formal means of expression in a language; in the context of historical linguistics, how the formal means of expression change over time; for instance, languages with complex inflectional systems tend to be subject to a simplification process. This field studies the internal structure of words as a formal means of expression.[1] Words as units in the lexicon are the subject matter of lexicology. While words are generally accepted as being (with clitics) the smallest units of syntax, it is clear that, in most (if not all) languages, words can be related to other words by rules. The rules understood by the speaker reflect specific patterns (or regularities) in the way words are formed from smaller units and how those smaller units interact in speech. In this way, morphology is the branch of linguistics that studies patterns of word-formation within and across languages, and attempts to formulate rules that model the knowledge of the speakers of those languages, in the context of historical linguistics, how the means of expression change over time. See grammaticalisation. Syntax Syntax is the study of the principles and rules for constructing sentences in natural languages. The term syntax is used to refer directly to the rules and principles that govern the sentence structure of any individual language, as in "the syntax of Modern Irish". Modern researchers in syntax attempt to describe languages in terms of such rules. Many professionals in this discipline attempt to find general rules that apply to all natural languages in the context of historical linguistics, how characteristics of sentence structure in related languages changed over time. See grammaticalisation. Historical linguistics 76 Conservative, innovative, archaic The terms "conservative" and "innovative" are often used in historical linguistics to characterize the extent of change occurring in a particular language or dialect as compared with related varieties. In particular, a conservative variety has changed relatively less than an innovative variety. These descriptive terms carry no value judgment. A particularly conservative variety that preserves features that have long since vanished elsewhere is sometimes said to be "archaic". Citations and notes [1] A formal language is a set of words, i.e. finite strings of letters or symbols. The inventory from which these letters are taken is the alphabet through which the language is defined. A formal language is often defined by means of a formal grammar, but it does not describe their semantics (i.e., what they mean) References • Bernd Kortmann: English Linguistics: Essentials, Anglistik-Amerikanistik, Cornlesen, p. 37-49 Recommended readings • Karl Brugmann, Berthold Delbrück, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen (1886–1916). • Theodora Bynon, Historical Linguistics (Cambridge University Press, 1977) ISBN 0-521-29188-7 • Henry M. Hoenigswald, Language change and linguistic reconstruction (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press 1960). • Richard D. Janda and Brian D. Joseph (Eds), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics (Blackwell, 2004) ISBN 1-4051-2747-3 • Roger Lass, Historical linguistics and language change. (Cambridge University Press, 1997) ISBN 0-521-45924-9 • Winfred P. Lehmann, Historical Linguistics: An Introduction (Second Edition) (Holt, 1973) ISBN 0-03-078370-4 • April McMahon, Understanding Language Change (Cambridge University Press, 1994) ISBN 0-521-44665-1 • James Milroy, Linguistic Variation and Change (Blackwell, 1992) ISBN 0-631-14367-X • M.L. Samuels, Linguistic Evolution (Cambridge University Press, 1972) ISBN 0-521-29188-7 • R.L. Trask,(ed.) Dictionary of Historical and Comparative Linguistics (Fitzroy Dearborn, 2001) ISBN 1-57958-218-4 • August Schleicher: Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. (Kurzer Abriss der indogermanischen Ursprache, des Altindischen, Altiranischen, Altgriechischen, Altitalischen, Altkeltischen, Altslawischen, Litauischen und Altdeutschen.) (2 vols.) Weimar, H. Boehlau (1861/62); reprinted by Minerva GmbH, Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, ISBN 3-8102-1071-4 • Zuckermann, Ghil'ad (2003). Language Contact and Lexical Enrichment in Israeli Hebrew. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 1-4039-1723-X. Etymology 77 Etymology Etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and how their form and meaning have changed over time. By an extension, the term "etymology (of a word)" means the origin of a particular word. For languages with a long written history, etymologists make use of texts in these languages and texts about the languages to gather knowledge about how words were used during earlier periods of their history and when they entered the languages in question. Etymologists also apply the methods of comparative linguistics to reconstruct information about languages that are too old for any direct information to be available. A map demonstrating the supposed evolution of the word "mother", by Hendrik Willem van Loon. By analyzing related languages with a technique known as the comparative method, linguists can make inferences about their shared parent language and its vocabulary. In this way, word roots have been found that can be traced all the way back to the origin of, for instance, the Indo-European language family. Even though etymological research originally grew from the philological tradition, currently much etymological research is done on language families where little or no early documentation is available, such as Uralic and Austronesian. Etymology The word Etymology is derived from the Greek etymon, meaning true sense and the suffix -logia, denoting the study of.[1] Methods Etymologists apply a number of methods to study the origins of words, some of which are: • Philological research. Changes in the form and meaning of the word can be traced with the aid of older texts, if such are available. • Making use of dialectological data. The form or meaning of the word might show variations between dialects, which may yield clues about its earlier history. • The comparative method. By a systematic comparison of related languages, etymologists may often be able to detect which words derive from their common ancestor language and which were instead later borrowed from another language. • The study of semantic change. Etymologists must often make hypotheses about changes in the meaning of particular words. Such hypotheses are tested against the general knowledge of semantic shifts. For example, the assumption of a particular change of meaning may be substantiated by showing that the same type of change has Etymology occurred in other languages as well. 78 Types of word origins Etymological theory recognizes that words originate through a limited number of basic mechanisms, the most important of which are borrowing (i.e., the adoption of "loanwords" from other languages); word formation such as derivation and compounding; and onomatopoeia and sound symbolism, (i.e., the creation of imitative words such as "click"). While the origin of newly emerged words is often more or less transparent, it tends to become obscured through time due to sound change or semantic change. Due to sound change, it is not readily obvious that the English word set is related to the word sit (the former is originally a causative formation of the latter). It is even less obvious that bless is related to blood (the former was originally a derivative with the meaning "to mark with blood"). Semantic change may also occur. For example, the English word bead originally meant "prayer". It acquired its modern meaning through the practice of counting the recitation of prayers by using beads. English language English derives from Old English (sometimes referred to as Anglo-Saxon), a West Germanic variety, although its current vocabulary includes words from many languages.[2] The Old English roots may be seen in the similarity of numbers in English and German, particularly seven/sieben, eight/acht, nine/neun, and ten/zehn. Pronouns are also cognate: I/mine/me ich/mein/mich; thou/thine/thee and du/dein/dich; we/wir us/uns; she/sie. However, language change has eroded many grammatical elements, such as the noun case system, which is greatly simplified in modern English, and certain elements of vocabulary, some of which are borrowed from French. Although many of the words in the English lexicon come from Romance languages, most of the common words used in English are of Germanic origin. When the Normans conquered England in 1066 (see Norman Conquest), they brought their Norman language with them. During the Anglo-Norman period, which united insular and continental territories, the ruling class spoke Anglo-Norman, while the peasants spoke the vernacular English of the time. Anglo-Norman was the conduit for the introduction of French into England, aided by the circulation of Langue d'oïl literature from France. This led to many paired words of French and English origin. For example, beef is related, through borrowing, to modern French bœuf, veal to veau, pork to porc, and poultry to poulet. All these words, French and English, refer to the meat rather than to the animal. Words that refer to farm animals, on the other hand, tend to be cognates of words in other Germanic languages. For example swine/Schwein, cow/Kuh, calf/Kalb, and sheep/Schaf. The variant usage has been explained by the proposition that it was the Norman rulers who mostly ate meat (an expensive commodity) and the Anglo-Saxons who farmed the animals. This explanation has passed into common folklore but has been disputed. Assimilation of foreign words English has proved accommodating to words from many languages. Scientific terminology, for example, relies heavily on words of Latin and Greek origin, but there are a great many non-scientific examples. Spanish has contributed many words, particularly in the southwestern United States. Examples include buckaroo, alligator, rodeo, savvy, and states' names such as Colorado and Florida. Albino, palaver, lingo, verandah, and coconut from Portuguese; diva, prima donna, pasta, pizza, paparazzi, and umbrella from Italian. Smorgasbord, slalom, and ombudsman are from Swedish, Danish and Norwegian; sauna from Finnish; adobe, alcohol, algebra, algorithm, apricot, assassin, caliber, cotton, hazard, jacket, jar, julep, mosque, Muslim, orange, safari, sofa, and zero from Arabic (often via other languages); behemoth, hallelujah, Satan, jubilee, and rabbi from Hebrew; taiga, steppe, bolshevik, and sputnik from Russian; brahman, guru, karma, and pundit from Sanskrit; Etymology honcho, sushi, and tsunami from Japanese; dim sum, gung ho, kowtow, kumquat, ketchup, and typhoon from Cantonese. Kampong and amok are from Malay; and boondocks from the Tagalog word, bundok. Surprisingly few loanwords, however, come from other languages native to the British Isles. Those that exist include coracle, cromlech, Eisteddfod and (probably) flannel, gull and penguin from Welsh; galore and whisky from Scottish Gaelic; phoney, trousers, and Tory from Irish; and eerie and canny from Scots (or related Northern English dialects). (See also "loanword.") 79 History The search for meaningful origins for familiar or strange words is far older than the modern understanding of linguistic evolution and the relationships of languages, which began no earlier than the 18th century. From Antiquity through the 17th century, from Pāṇini to Pindar to Sir Thomas Browne, etymology had been a form of witty wordplay, in which the supposed origins of words were changed to satisfy contemporary requirements. The Greek poet Pindar (born in approximately 522 BCE) employed creative etymologies to flatter his patrons. Plutarch employed etymologies insecurely based on fancied resemblances in sounds. Isidore of Seville's Etymologiae was an encyclopedic tracing of "first things" that remained uncritically in use in Europe until the sixteenth century. Etymologicum genuinum is a grammatical encyclopedia edited at Constantinople in the ninth century, one of several similar Byzantine works. The fourteenth-century Legenda Aurea begins each vita of a saint with a fanciful excursus in the form of an etymology. Ancient Sanskrit The Sanskrit linguists and grammarians of ancient India were the first to make a comprehensive analysis of linguistics and etymology. The study of Sanskrit etymology has provided Western scholars with the basis of historical linguistics and modern etymology. Four of the most famous Sanskrit linguists are: • • • • Yaska (c. 6th-5th centuries BCE) Pāṇini (c. 520-460 BCE) Kātyāyana (2nd century BCE) Patañjali (2nd century BCE) These linguists were not the earliest Sanskrit grammarians, however. They followed a line of ancient grammarians of Sanskrit who lived several centuries earlier like Sakatayana of whom very little is known. The earliest of attested etymologies can be found in Vedic literature in the philosophical explanations of the Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanishads. The analyses of Sanskrit grammar done by the previously mentioned linguists involved extensive studies on the etymology (called Nirukta or Vyutpatti in Sanskrit) of Sanskrit words, because the ancient Indo-Aryans considered sound and speech itself to be sacred and, for them, the words of the sacred Vedas contained deep encoding of the mysteries of the soul and God. Etymology 80 Ancient Greco-Roman One of the earliest philosophical texts of the Classical Greek period to address etymology was the Socratic dialogue Cratylus (c. 360 BCE) by Plato. During much of the dialogue, Socrates makes guesses as to the origins of many words, including the names of the gods. In his Odes Pindar spins complimentary etymologies to flatter his patrons. Plutarch (Life of Numa Pompilius) spins an etymology for pontifex ("bridge-builder"): the priests, called Pontifices.... have the name of Pontifices from potens, powerful, because they attend the service of the gods, who have power and command over all. Others make the word refer to exceptions of impossible cases; the priests were to perform all the duties possible to them; if any thing lay beyond their power, the exception was not to be cavilled at. The most common opinion is the most absurd, which derives this word from pons, and assigns the priests the title of bridge-makers. The sacrifices performed on the bridge were amongst the most sacred and ancient, and the keeping and repairing of the bridge attached, like any other public sacred office, to the priesthood. Medieval Isidore of Seville compiled a volume of etymologies to illuminate the triumph of religion. Each saint's legend in Jacob de Voragine's Legenda Aurea begins with an etymological discourse on the saint's name: Lucy is said of light, and light is beauty in beholding, after that S. Ambrose saith: The nature of light is such, she is gracious in beholding, she spreadeth over all without lying down, she passeth in going right without crooking by right long line; and it is without dilation of tarrying, and therefore it is showed the blessed Lucy hath beauty of virginity without any corruption; essence of charity without disordinate love; rightful going and devotion to God, without squaring out of the way; right long line by continual work without negligence of slothful tarrying. In Lucy is said, the way of light.[3] Modern era Etymology in the modern sense emerged in the late 18th century European academia, within the context of the wider "Age of Enlightenment," although preceded by 17th century pioneers such as Marcus Zuerius van Boxhorn, Vossius, Stephen Skinner, Elisha Coles, and William Wotton. The first known systematic attempt to prove the relationship between two languages on the basis of similarity of grammar and lexicon was made in 1770 by the Hungarian, János Sajnovics, when he attempted to demonstrate the relationship between Sami and Hungarian (work that was later extended to the whole Finno-Ugric language family in 1799 by his fellow countryman, Samuel Gyarmathi).[4] The origin of modern historical linguistics is often traced back to Sir William Jones, an English philologist living in India, who in 1782 observed the genetic relationship between Sanskrit, Greek and Latin. Jones published his The Sanscrit Language in 1786, laying the foundation for the field of Indo-European linguistics.[5] The study of etymology in Germanic philology was introduced by Rasmus Christian Rask in the early 19th century and elevated to a high standard with the German Dictionary of the Brothers Grimm. The successes of the comparative approach culminated in the Neogrammarian school of the late 19th century. Still in the 19th century, the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche used etymological strategies (principally and most famously in On the Genealogy of Morals, but also elsewhere) to argue that moral values have definite historical (specifically, cultural) origins where modulations in meaning regarding certain concepts (such as "good" and "evil") show how these ideas had changed over time—according to which value-system appropriated them. This strategy gained popularity in the 20th century, and philosophers, such as Jacques Derrida, have used etymologies to indicate former meanings of words to de-center the "violent hierarchies" of Western metaphysics. Etymology 81 References [1] (http:/ / www. etymonline. com/ index. php?term=etymology& allowed_in_frame=0) Online Etymology Dictionary [2] The American educator: a library of universal knowledge ..., Volume 3 By Charles Smith Morris, Amos Emerson Dolbear [3] Medieval Sourcebook: The Golden Legend: Volume 2 (full text) (http:/ / www. fordham. edu/ halsall/ basis/ goldenlegend/ GoldenLegend-Volume2. htm#Lucy) [4] Szemerényi 1996:6 [5] "Sir William Jones, British philologist" (http:/ / www. sciencephoto. com/ media/ 226197/ view). . • Skeat, Walter W. (2000). The Concise Dictionary of English Etymology, repr ed., Diane. (ISBN 0-7881-9161-6) • Skeat, Walter W. (1963). An Etymological Dictionary of the English Language. (ISBN 0-19-863104-9) • Snoj, Marko (2005). Etymology. In: Strazny, Philipp (ed.). Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York: Fitzroy Dearborn, vol. 1: A–L, pages 304–306. • C. T. Onions, G. W. S. Friedrichsen, R. W. Burchfield, (1966, reprinted 1992, 1994). Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. (ISBN 0-19-861112-9) • Liberman, Anatoly (2005). "Word Origins...and How We Know Them: Etymology for Everyone." (ISBN 0-19-516147-5) • Zuckermann, Ghil'ad (2003). Language Contact and Lexical Enrichment in Israeli Hebrew. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 1-4039-1723-X. External links • Etymology (http://www.dmoz.org/Reference/Dictionaries/Etymology//) at the Open Directory Project Graphetics Graphetics (sometimes known as graphics) is a branch of linguistics concerned with the analysis of the physical properties of shapes used in writing.[1][2] It is an etic study, meaning that it has an outsider's perspective and is not concerned with any particular writing system. It is contrasted with the related emic field of graphemics, the study of the relation between different shapes in particular writing systems.[1] Graphetics is analogous to phonetics; graphetics is to the study of writing as phonetics is to the study of spoken language. As such, it can be divided into two areas, visual graphetics and mechanical graphetics, which are analogous to auditory and articulatory phonetics, respectively.[2] Both printed and handwritten language can be the subject of graphetic study.[3] References [1] Crystal, David (2003). "Graphetics" (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=3JtAOHLtlHoC& pg=PA210#v=onepage& q& f=false). Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. The Language Library (5th ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-22663-5. . Retrieved October 10, 2011. [2] Coulmas, Florian, ed. (1999). "Graphetics" (http:/ / www. blackwellreference. com/ public/ tocnode?id=g9780631214816_chunk_g97806312148169_ss1-18). The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems. Blackwell Reference Online: Blackwell. . Retrieved October 10, 2011. [3] Hartmann, R. R. K.; James, Gregory (1998). "Graphetics" (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=49NZ12icE-QC& pg=PA65#v=onepage& q& f=false). Dictionary of Lexicography. London, New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-14143-7. . Retrieved October 10, 2011. Phonetics 82 Phonetics Phonetics (pronounced /fəˈnɛtɪks/, from the Greek: φωνή, phōnē, 'sound, voice') is a branch of linguistics that comprises the study of the sounds of human speech, or—in the case of sign languages—the equivalent aspects of sign.[1] It is concerned with the physical properties of speech sounds or signs (phones): their physiological production, acoustic properties, auditory perception, and neurophysiological status. Phonology, on the other hand, is concerned with the abstract, grammatical characterization of systems of sounds or signs. The field of phonetics is a multiple layered subject of linguistics that focuses on speech. In the case of oral languages there are three basic areas of study: • Articulatory phonetics: the study of the production of speech sounds by the articulatory and vocal tract by the speaker • Acoustic phonetics: the study of the physical transmission of speech sounds from the speaker to the listener • Auditory phonetics: the study of the reception and perception of speech sounds by the listener These areas are inter-connected through the common mechanism of sound, such as wavelength (pitch), amplitude, and harmonics. History Phonetics was studied as early as 500 BC in ancient India, with Pāṇini's account of the place and manner of articulation of consonants in his 5th century BC treatise on Sanskrit. The major Indic alphabets today order their consonants according to Pāṇini's classification. The Ancient Greeks are credited as the first to base a writing system on a phonetic alphabet. Modern phonetics begins with attempts — such as those of Joshua Steele (in Prosodia Rationalis, 1779) and Alexander Melville Bell (in Visible Speech, 1867) — to introduce systems of precise notation for speech sounds.[2][3] Phonetic transcription The International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) is used as the basis for the phonetic transcription of speech. It is based on the Latin alphabet and is able to transcribe most features of speech such as consonants, vowels, and suprasegmental features. Every documented phoneme available within the known languages in the world is assigned its own corresponding symbol. The difference between phonetics and phonology Phonology concerns itself with systems of phonemes, abstract cognitive units of speech sound or sign which distinguish the words of a language. Phonetics, on the other hand, concerns itself with the production, transmission, and perception of the physical phenomena which are abstracted in the mind to constitute these speech sounds or signs. Using an Edison phonograph, Ludimar Hermann investigated the spectral properties of vowels and consonants. It was in these papers that the term formant was first introduced. Hermann also played back vowel recordings made with the Edison phonograph at different speeds in order to test Willis' and Wheatstone's theories of vowel production. Phonetics 83 Relation to phonology In contrast to phonetics, phonology is the study of how sounds and gestures pattern in and across languages, relating such concerns with other levels and aspects of language. Phonetics deals with the articulatory and acoustic properties of speech sounds, how they are produced, and how they are perceived. As part of this investigation, phoneticians may concern themselves with the physical properties of meaningful sound contrasts or the social meaning encoded in the speech signal (socio-phonetics) (e.g. gender, sexuality, ethnicity, etc.). However, a substantial portion of research in phonetics is not concerned with the meaningful elements in the speech signal. While it is widely agreed that phonology is grounded in phonetics, phonology is a distinct branch of linguistics, concerned with sounds and gestures as abstract units (e.g., distinctive features, phonemes, mora, syllables, etc.) and their conditioned variation (via, e.g., allophonic rules, constraints, or derivational rules).[4] Phonology relates to phonetics via the set of distinctive features, which map the abstract representations of speech units to articulatory gestures, acoustic signals, and/or perceptual representations.[5][6][7] Subfields Phonetics as a research discipline has three main branches: • articulatory phonetics is concerned with the articulation of speech: The position, shape, and movement of articulators or speech organs, such as the lips, tongue, and vocal folds. • acoustic phonetics is concerned with acoustics of speech: The spectro-temporal properties of the sound waves produced by speech, such as their frequency, amplitude, and harmonic structure. • auditory phonetics is concerned with speech perception: the perception, categorization, and recognition of speech sounds and the role of the auditory system and the brain in the same. Transcription Phonetic transcription is a system for transcribing sounds that occur in a language, whether oral or sign. The most widely known system of phonetic transcription, the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), provides a standardized set of symbols for oral phones.[8][9] The standardized nature of the IPA enables its users to transcribe accurately and consistently the phones of different languages, dialects, and idiolects.[8][10][11] The IPA is a useful tool not only for the study of phonetics, but also for language teaching, professional acting, and speech pathology.[10] Applications Application of phonetics include: • forensic phonetics: the use of phonetics (the science of speech) for forensic (legal) purposes. • Speech Recognition: the analysis and transcription of recorded speech by a computer system. Notes [1] O'Grady (2005) p.15 [2] T.V.F. Brogan: English Versification, 1570–1980 (http:/ / www. arsversificandi. net/ resources/ evrg/ index. html). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981. E394. [3] Alexander Melville Bell 1819-1905 (http:/ / www. acsu. buffalo. edu/ ~duchan/ new_history/ hist19c/ subpages/ mbell. html). University at Buffalo, The State University of New York. [4] Kingston, John. 2007. The Phonetics-Phonology Interface, in The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology (ed. Paul DeLacy), Cambridge University Press. [5] Halle, Morris. 1983. On Distinctive Features and their articulatory implementation, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, p. 91 - 105 [6] Jakobson, Roman, Gunnar Fant, and Morris Halle. 1976. Preliminaries to Speech Analysis: The Distinctive Features and their Correlates, MIT Press. [7] Hall, T. Allen. 2001. Phonological representations and phonetic implementation of distinctive features, Mouton de Gruyter. Phonetics [8] O'Grady (2005) p.17 [9] International Phonetic Association (1999) Handbook of the International Phonetic Association. Cambridge University Press. [10] Ladefoged, Peter (1975) A Course in Phonetics. Orlando: Harcourt Brace. 5th ed. Boston: Thomson/Wadsworth 2006. [11] Ladefoged, Peter & Ian Maddieson (1996) The Sounds of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Blackwell. 84 References • O'Grady, William, et al. (2005). Contemporary Linguistics: An Introduction (5th ed.). Bedford/St. Martin's. ISBN 0-312-41936-8. External links • the Web Site of the Phonetic Sciences Laboratory of the Université de Montréal. (http://www.phonetique.info) • The International Society of Phonetic Sciences (ISPhS) (http://www.isphs.org/main.htm) • A little encyclopedia of phonetics (http://www.cambridge.org/elt/peterroach/resources/Glossary.pdf), Peter Roach, Professor of Phonetics, University of Reading, UK. (pdf) • The sounds and sound patterns of language (http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Summer_2004/ling001/ lecture2.html) U Penn • UCLA lab data (http://hctv.humnet.ucla.edu/departments/linguistics/VowelsandConsonants/) • UCLA Phonetics Lab Archive (http://archive.phonetics.ucla.edu/) • EGG and Voice Quality (http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/phonetik/EGG/page1.htm) (electroglottography, phonation, etc.) • IPA handbook (http://web.uvic.ca/ling/resources/ipa/handbook.htm) • IPA-SAM Phonetic Fonts (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/fonts.htm) • Speech Analysis Tutorial (http://www.ling.lu.se/research/speechtutorial/tutorial.html) • Lecture materials in German on phonetics & phonology, university of Erfurt (http://www.uni-erfurt.de/ sprachwissenschaft/personal/lehmann/CL_Lehr/PhonPhon/Phon_Index.html) • Real-time MRI video of the articulation of speech sounds, from the USC Speech Articulation and kNowledge (SPAN) Group (http://sail.usc.edu/span/video.php) • Beginner's course in phonetics, with some exercises (http://www.ic.arizona.edu/~lsp/Phonetics.html) • Praat - Phonetic analysis software (http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/) • SID- Speech Internet Dictionary (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/johnm/sid/sidhome.htm) • Extensive collection of phonetics resources on the Web (http://www.unc.edu/~jlsmith/pht-url.html) (University of North Carolina) • Phonetics and Phonology (http://www.elloandfriends.uni-osnabrueck.de/wikis/1/ show?n=PhoneticsandPhonology.PhoneticsandPhonology) (University of Osnabrueck) Applied linguistics 85 Applied linguistics Applied linguistics is an interdisciplinary field of study that identifies, investigates, and offers solutions to language-related real-life problems. Some of the academic fields related to applied linguistics are education, linguistics, psychology, computer science, anthropology, and sociology. Domain Applied linguistics is an interdisciplinary field. Major branches of applied linguistics include bilingualism and multilingualism, computer-mediated communication (CMC), conversation analysis, contrastive linguistics, sign linguistics, language assessment, literacies, discourse analysis, language pedagogy, second language acquisition, lexicography, language planning and policy, interlinguistics, stylistics, pragmatics, forensic linguistics and translation. Major journals of the field include Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, Applied Linguistics, International Review of Applied Linguistics, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, Issues in Applied Linguistics, and Language Learning. History The tradition of applied linguistics established itself in part as a response to the narrowing of focus in linguistics with the advent in the late 1950s of generative linguistics, and has always maintained a socially accountable role, demonstrated by its central interest in language problems.[1] Although the field of applied linguistics started from Europe and the United States, the field rapidly flourished in the international context. Applied linguistics first concerned itself with principles and practices on the basis of linguistics. In the early days, applied linguistics was thought as “linguistics-applied” at least from the outside of the field. In the 1960s, however, applied linguistics was expanded to include language assessment, language policy, and second language acquisition. As early as the 1970s, applied linguistics became a problem-driven field rather than theoretical linguistics. Applied linguistics also included solution of language-related problems in the real world. By the 1990s, applied linguistics has broadened including critical studies and multilingualism. Research of applied linguistics was shifted to "the theoretical and empirical investigation of real world problems in which language is a central issue."[2] United States In the United States, applied linguistics also began narrowly as the application of insights from structural linguistics—first to the teaching of English in schools and subsequently to second and foreign language teaching. The linguistics applied approach to language teaching was promulgated most strenuously by Leonard Bloomfield, who developed the foundation for the Army Specialized Training Program, and by Charles C. Fries, who established the English Language Institute (ELI) at the University of Michigan in 1941. In 1948, the Research Club at Michigan established Language Learning: A Journal of Applied Linguistics, the first journal to bear the term applied linguistics. In the late 1960s, applied linguistics began to establish its own identity as an interdisciplinary field concerned with real-world language issues. The new identity was solidified by the creation of the American Association for Applied Linguistics in 1977.[3] United Kingdom The British Association for Applied Linguistics (BAAL) was established in 1967. Its mission is "the advancement of education by fostering and promoting, by any lawful charitable means, the study of language use, language acquisition and language teaching and the fostering of interdisciplinary collaboration in this study [...]"[4] Australia Applied linguistics Australian applied linguistics took as its target the applied linguistics of mother tongue teaching and teaching English to immigrants. The Australia tradition shows a strong influence of continental Europe and of the USA, rather than of Britain.[5] Applied Linguistics Association of Australia (ALAA) was established at a national congress of applied linguists held in August 1976.[6] Japan In 1982, the Japan Association of Applied Linguistics (JAAL) was established in the Japan Association of College English Teachers (JACET) in order to engage in activities on a more international scale. In 1984, JAAL became an affiliate of the International Association of Applied Linguistics (AILA).[7] 86 Societies • International Association of Applied Linguistics (http://www.aila.info/) America • American Association for Applied Linguistics (http://www.aaal.org/) • Asociación Mexicana de Lingüística Aplicada (http://www.cele.unam.mx/amla/) • Asociación de Lingüística y Filología de América Latina/Associação de Lingüística e Filologia da América Latina (http://www.mundoalfal.org/) • Associação de Linguística Aplicada do Brasil (http://www.alab.org.br/) • Center for Applied Linguistics (http://www.cal.org/) • Canadian Association of Applied Linguistics (http://www.aclacaal.org/) Europe • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Association Belge de Linguistique Appliquée (http://www.abla.be/) Asociación Española de Lingüística Aplicada (http://www.aesla.uji.es/) Association Finlandaise de Linguistique Appliquée (http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~kmantyla/afinla/!index.html) Association Française de Linguistique Appliquée (http://www.afla-asso.org/) Associazione Italiana di Linguistica Applicata (http://www.aitla.it/) Association Néerlandaise de Linguistique Appliquée (http://www.aila.info/about/org/ic.htm#SG) Association Norvegienne de Linguistique Appliquée (http://www.hf.ntnu.no/anla/) Association Suédoise de Linguistique Appliquée (http://www.nordiska.su.se/asla/) Association Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée (http://www.vals-asla.ch/cms/) British Association for Applied Linguistics (http://www.baal.org.uk/) Estonian Association of Applied Linguistics (http://www.eki.ee/rakenduslingvistika/) Gesellschaft für Angewandte Linguistik (http://www.gal-ev.de/) Greek Applied Linguistics Association (http://www.enl.auth.gr/gala/) Irish Association for Applied Linguistics (http://www.iraal.ie/) Polish Association of Applied Linguistics Oceania • Applied Linguistics Association of New Zealand (http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/about/alanz/alanz.html) • Applied Linguistics Association of Australia (http://www.latrobe.edu.au/alaa/) Asia • Asian Association of TEFL (Asia TEFL) (http://www.asiatefl.org/) • Applied Linguistics Association of Korea (http://www.alak.or.kr/) • China English Language Education Association (http://www.celea.org.cn/) • Hong Kong Association for Applied Linguistics (http://www.haal.hk/) • Japan Association of College English Teachers (http://www.jacet.org/index.html) • Japan Association of Language Teachers (http://www.jalt.org/) Applied linguistics • Linguistic Society of the Philippines (http://www.dlsu.edu.ph/inside/organizations/lsp/default.asp) • Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics (http://www.saal.org.sg/) Others • Israel Association of Applied Linguistics (http://www.tau.ac.il/~ilash/) • Southern African Applied Linguistics Association (http://www.saala.org.za/) 87 Further reading • Berns, M., & Matsuda, P. K. (2006). Applied linguistics: Overview and history. In K. Brown (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed.; pp. 394–405). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. • Cook, G. (2003) Applied Linguistics (in the series Oxford Introduction to Language Study), Oxford: Oxford University Press. • Davies, A. & Elder, C. (eds.) (2004) Handbook of Applied Linguistics, Oxford/Malden, MA: Blackwell. • Hall, C. J., Smith, P. H. & Wicaksono, R. (2011). Mapping Applied Linguistics. A Guide for Students and Practitioners. London: Routledge. • Johnson, Keith & Johnson, Helen (1999) Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, Oxford/Malden, MA: Blackwell. • McCarthy, Michael (2001) Issues in Applied Linguistics, Cambridge University Press. • Pennycook, Alastair (2001) Critical Applied Linguistics: A Critical Introduction, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. • Schmitt, Norbert (2002) An Introduction to Applied Linguistics, London: Arnold. References [1] Alan Davies & Catherine Elder.(Eds.). 2004. Handbook of Applied Linguistics. 1 [2] Christopher Brumfit. How applied linguistics is the same as any other science, "International Journal of Applied Linguistics", 7(1), 86-94. [3] Margie Berns and Paul Kei Matsuda. 2006. Applied linguistics: Overview and history. In K. Brown (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed.), 398-401. [4] "British Association for Applied Linguistics constitution" (http:/ / www. baal. org. uk/ constitution. pdf). Public Documents. British Association for Applied Linguistics. September 2011. Paragraph 3: "Objects". . Retrieved 19 March 2012. [5] Alan Davies & Catherine Elder.(Eds.). 2004. Handbook of Applied Linguistics. 6 [6] "Applied Linguistics Association of Australia (home page)" (http:/ / www. alaa. org. au/ ). Applied Linguistics Association of Australia. September 2011. . Retrieved 19 March 2012. [7] http:/ / www. jacet. org/ about-e. html External links • mappling.com Applied Linguistics community website (http://www.mappling.com/) • Applied Linguistics information and resources (USA and Canada) (http://www.appliedlinguistics.org/index. html) Sociolinguistics 88 Sociolinguistics Sociolinguistics is the descriptive study of the effect of any and all aspects of society, including cultural norms, expectations, and context, on the way language is used, and the effects of language use on society. Sociolinguistics differs from sociology of language in that the focus of sociolinguistics is the effect of the society on the language, while the sociology of language focuses on language's effect on the society. Sociolinguistics overlaps to a considerable degree with pragmatics. It is historically closely related to linguistic anthropology and the distinction between the two fields has even been questioned recently.[1] It also studies how language varieties differ between groups separated by certain social variables, e.g., ethnicity, religion, status, gender, level of education, age, etc., and how creation and adherence to these rules is used to categorize individuals in social or socioeconomic classes. As the usage of a language varies from place to place, language usage also varies among social classes, and it is these sociolects that sociolinguistics studies. The social aspects of language were in the modern sense first studied by Indian and Japanese linguists in the 1930s, and also by Louis Gauchat in Switzerland in the early 1900s, but none received much attention in the West until much later. The study of the social motivation of language change, on the other hand, has its foundation in the wave model of the late 19th century. The first attested use of the term sociolinguistics was by Thomas Callan Hodson in the title of a 1939 paper.[2] Sociolinguistics in the West first appeared in the 1960s and was pioneered by linguists such as William Labov in the US and Basil Bernstein in the UK. In the 1960s, William Stewart[3] and Heinz Kloss introduced the basic concepts for the sociolinguistic theory of pluricentric languages, which describes how standard language varieties differ between nations (e.g. American/British/Canadian/Australian English;[4] Austrian/German/Swiss German;[5] Bosnian/Croatian/Montenegrin/Serbian Serbo-Croatian[6]). Applications of sociolinguistics For example, a sociolinguist might determine through study of social attitudes that a particular vernacular would not be considered appropriate language use in a business or professional setting. Sociolinguists might also study the grammar, phonetics, vocabulary, and other aspects of this sociolect much as dialectologists would study the same for a regional dialect. The study of language variation is concerned with social constraints determining language in its contextual environment. Code-switching is the term given to the use of different varieties of language in different social situations. William Labov is often regarded as the founder of the study of sociolinguistics. He is especially noted for introducing the quantitative study of language variation and change,[7] making the sociology of language into a scientific discipline. Traditional sociolinguistic interview Sociolinguistic interviews are an integral part of collecting data for sociolinguistic studies. There is an interviewer, who is conducting the study, and a subject, or informant, who is the interviewee. In order to get a grasp on a specific linguistic form and how it is used in the dialect of the subject, a variety of methods are used to elicit certain registers of speech. There are five different styles, ranging from formal to casual. The most formal style would be elicited by having the subject read a list of minimal pairs (MP). Minimal pairs are pairs of words that differ in only one phoneme, such as cat and bat. Having the subject read a word list (WL) will elicit a formal register, but generally not as formal as MP. The reading passage (RP) style is next down on the formal register, and the interview style (IS) is when an interviewer can finally get into eliciting a more casual speech from the subject. During the IS the interviewer can converse with the subject and try to draw out of them an even more casual sort of speech by asking him to recall childhood memories or maybe a near death experience, in which case the subject will get deeply Sociolinguistics involved with the story since strong emotions are often attached to these memories. Of course, the most sought after type of speech is the casual style (CS). This type of speech is difficult if not impossible to elicit because of the Observer's Paradox. The closest one might come to CS in an interview is when the subject is interrupted by a close friend or family member, or perhaps must answer the phone. CS is used in a completely unmonitored environment where the subject feels most comfortable and will use their natural vernacular without overtly thinking about it. 89 Fundamental concepts in sociolinguistics While the study of sociolinguistics is very broad, there are a few fundamental concepts on which many sociolinguistic inquiries depend. Speech community Speech community is a concept in sociolinguistics that describes a more or less discrete group of people who use language in a unique and mutually accepted way among themselves. This is sometimes referred to as a Sprechbund. Speech communities can be members of a profession with a specialized jargon, distinct social groups like high school students or hip hop fans, or even tight-knit groups like families and friends. Members of speech communities will often develop slang or jargon to serve the group's special purposes and priorities. High prestige and low prestige varieties Crucial to sociolinguistic analysis is the concept of prestige; certain speech habits are assigned a positive or a negative value, which is then applied to the speaker. This can operate on many levels. It can be realised on the level of the individual sound/phoneme, as Labov discovered in investigating pronunciation of the post-vocalic /r/ in the North-Eastern USA, or on the macro scale of language choice, as realised in the various diglossias that exist throughout the world, where Swiss-German/High German is perhaps most well known. An important implication of sociolinguistic theory is that speakers 'choose' a variety when making a speech act, whether consciously or subconsciously. Social network Understanding language in society means that one also has to understand the social networks in which language is embedded. A social network is another way of describing a particular speech community in terms of relations between individual members in a community. A network could be loose or tight depending on how members interact with each other.[8] For instance, an office or factory may be considered a tight community because all members interact with each other. A large course with 100+ students would be a looser community because students may only interact with the instructor and maybe 1–2 other students. A multiplex community is one in which members have multiple relationships with each other.[8] For instance, in some neighborhoods, members may live on the same street, work for the same employer and even intermarry. The looseness or tightness of a social network may affect speech patterns adopted by a speaker. For instance, Sylvie Dubois and Barbara Horvath found that speakers in one Cajun Louisiana community were more likely to pronounce English "th" [θ] as [t] (or [ð] as [d]) if they participated in a relatively dense social network (i.e. had strong local ties and interacted with many other speakers in the community), and less likely if their networks were looser (i.e. fewer local ties).[9] A social network may apply to the macro level of a country or a city, but also to the inter-personal level of neighborhoods or a single family. Recently, social networks have been formed by the Internet, through chat rooms, MySpace groups, organizations, and online dating services. Sociolinguistics 90 Internal vs. external language In Chomskyan linguistics, a distinction is drawn between I-language (internal language) and E-language (external language). In this context, internal language is linguistic knowledge that a native speaker of language has. It applies to the study of syntax and semantics on the abstract level. External language applies to language in social contexts, i.e. behavioral habits shared by a community. Internal language analyses operate on the assumption that all native speakers of a language are quite homogeneous in how they process and perceive language. External language fields, such as sociolinguistics, attempt to explain why this is in fact not the case. Many sociolinguists reject the distinction between I- and E-language on the grounds that it is based on a mentalist view of language. On this view, grammar is first and foremost an interactional (social) phenomenon (e.g. Elinor Ochs, Emanuel Schegloff, Sandra Thompson). Differences according to class Sociolinguistics as a field distinct from dialectology was pioneered through the study of language variation in urban areas. Whereas dialectology studies the geographic distribution of language variation, sociolinguistics focuses on other sources of variation, among them class. Class and occupation are among the most important linguistic markers found in society. One of the fundamental findings of sociolinguistics, which has been hard to disprove, is that class and language variety are related. Members of the working class tend to speak less standard language, while the lower, middle, and upper middle class will in turn speak closer to the standard. However, the upper class, even members of the upper middle class, may often speak 'less' standard than the middle class. The looseness or tightness of a social network may affect speech patterns adopted by a speaker. For instance, Sylvie Dubois and Barbara Horvath found that speakers in one Cajun Louisiana community were more likely to pronounce English "th" [θ] as [t] (or [ð] as [d]) if they participated in a relatively dense social network (i.e. had strong local ties and interacted with many other speakers in the community), and less likely if their networks were looser (i.e. fewer local ties) This is because not only class, but class aspirations, are important. Class aspiration Studies, such as those by William Labov in the 1960s, have shown that social aspirations influence speech patterns. This is also true of class aspirations. In the process of wishing to be associated with a certain class (usually the upper class and upper middle class) people who are moving in that direction socio-economically will adjust their speech patterns to sound like them. However, not being native upper class speakers, they often hypercorrect, which involves overcorrecting their speech to the point of introducing new errors. The same is true for individuals moving down in socio-economic status. Social language codes Basil Bernstein, a well-known British socio-linguist, devised in his book, 'Elaborated and restricted codes: their social origins and some consequences,' a social code system he used to classify the various speech patterns for different social classes. He claimed that members of the middle class have ways of organizing their speech that are fundamentally very different from the ways adopted by the working class. Restricted code In Basil Bernstein's theory, the restricted code was an example of the speech patterns used by the working class. He stated that this type of code allows strong bonds between group members, who tend to behave largely on the basis of distinctions such as 'male', 'female', 'older', and 'younger'. This social group also uses language in a way that brings unity between people, and members often do not need to be explicit about meaning, as their shared knowledge and common understanding often bring them together in a way that other social language groups do not experience. The difference with the restricted code is the emphasis on 'we' as a social group, which fosters greater solidarity than an emphasis on 'I'. The time when "restricted-code" matters is the day when children start school where the standard Sociolinguistics variety of language is used. Moreover, the written form of a language is already very different from the everyday form. Children with restricted-code, therefore, struggle at school more than those who speak an "elaborated-code". The type of communication used by the working class reminds Paivio's dual code theory. According to Paivio, there are two types of codes; verbal and non-verbal. The dual coding theory proposed by Paivio attempts to give equal weight to verbal and non-verbal processing. Paivio (1986) states: "Human cognition is unique in that it has become specialized for dealing simultaneously with language and with nonverbal objects and events. Moreover, the language system is peculiar in that it deals directly with linguistic input and output (in the form of speech or writing) while at the same time serving a symbolic function with respect to nonverbal objects, events, and behaviors. Any representational theory must accommodate this dual functionality." (p. 53). The use of context by members of working class to imply what they mean, therefore, may be a "non-verbal code". However, this type of communicative skills may not be understood by other children who belong to other classes. What's more, children with restricted-code may have difficulty in understanding the teacher, the only source of information for them at school. Therefore, it is suggested that working-class children should have pre-school training within their early childhood period. Early schooling may provide them with opportunities to acquire the way of speaking valid at school. Elaborated code Basil Bernstein also studied what he named the 'elaborated code' explaining that in this type of speech pattern the middle and upper classes use this language style to gain access to education and career advancement. Bonds within this social group are not as well defined and people achieve their social identity largely on the basis of individual disposition and temperament. There is no obvious division of tasks according to sex or age and generally, within this social formation members negotiate and achieve their roles, rather than have them there ready-made in advance. Due to the lack of solidarity the elaborated social language code requires individual intentions and viewpoints to be made explicit as the 'I' has a greater emphasis with this social group than the working class. 91 Deviation from standard language varieties The existence of differences in language between social classes can be illustrated by the following table: A diagram showing variation in the English language by region (the bottom axis) and by social class (the side axis). The higher the social class, the less variation. Sociolinguistics 92 Bristolian Dialect (lower class) ... Standard English (higher class) I ain't done nothing I done it yesterday It weren't me that done it ... I haven't done anything ... I did it yesterday ... I didn't do it Any native speaker of English would immediately be able to guess that speaker 1 was likely of a different social class than speaker 2, namely from a lower social class, probably from a working class pedigree. The differences in grammar between the two examples of speech is referred to as differences between social class dialects or sociolects. It is also notable that, at least in England and Australia, the closer to standard English a dialect gets, the less the lexicon varies by region, and vice versa. Covert prestige It is generally assumed that non-standard language is low-prestige language. However, in certain groups, such as traditional working-class neighborhoods, standard language may be considered undesirable in many contexts. This is because the working class dialect is a powerful in-group marker, and especially for non-mobile individuals, the use of non-standard varieties (even exaggeratedly so) expresses neighborhood pride and group and class solidarity. There will thus be a considerable difference in use of non-standard varieties when going to the pub or having a neighborhood barbecue (high), and going to the bank (lower) for the same individual. Sociolinguistic variables Studies in the field of sociolinguistics typically take a sample population and interview them, assessing the realisation of certain sociolinguistic variables. A commonly studied source of variation is regional dialects. Dialectology studies variations in language based primarily on geographic distribution and their associated features. Sociolinguists concerned with grammatical and phonological features that correspond to regional areas are often called dialectologists. There are several different types of age-based variation one may see within a population. They are: vernacular of a subgroup with membership typically characterized by a specific age range, age-graded variation, and indications of linguistic change in progress. Variation may also be associated with gender. Men and women, on average, tend to use slightly different language styles. These differences tend to be quantitative rather than qualitative. That is, to say that women use a particular speaking style more than men do is akin to saying that men are taller than women (i.e., men are on average taller than women, but some women are taller than some men). References [1] John J. Gumperz and Jenny Cook-Gumperz, "Studying language, culture, and society: Sociolinguistics or linguistic anthropology?". (http:/ / doi. wiley. com/ 10. 1111/ j. 1467-9841. 2008. 00378. x) Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(4), 2008: 532–545. [2] T. C. Hodson and the Origins of British Socio-linguistics by John E. Joseph (http:/ / www. ncl. ac. uk/ ss15/ papers/ paper_details. php?id=304) Sociolinguistics Symposium 15, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, April 2004 [3] Stewart, William A (1968). "A Sociolinguistic Typology for Describing National Multilingualism". In Fishman, Joshua A. Readings in the Sociology of Language. The Hague, Paris: Mouton. p. 534. OCLC 306499. [4] Kloss, Heinz (1976). "Abstandsprachen und Ausbausprachen [Abstand-languages and Ausbau-languages]". In Göschel, Joachim; Nail, Norbert; van der Els, Gaston. Zur Theorie des Dialekts: Aufsätze aus 100 Jahren Forschung. Zeitschrift fur Dialektologie and Linguistik, Beihefte, n.F., Heft 16. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner. p. 310. OCLC 2598722. [5] Ammon, Ulrich (1995) (in German). Die deutsche Sprache in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz: das Problem der nationalen Varietäten [German Language in Germany, Austria and Switzerland: The Problem of National Varieties]. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. pp. 1–11. OCLC 33981055. Sociolinguistics [6] Kordić, Snježana (2010) (in Serbo-Croatian). Jezik i nacionalizam [Language and Nationalism] (http:/ / www. webcitation. org/ 690BiBe4T). Rotulus Universitas. Zagreb: Durieux. pp. 77–90. ISBN 978-953-188-311-5. LCCN 2011520778. OCLC 729837512. OL{{{1}}}. Archived from the original (http:/ / bib. irb. hr/ datoteka/ 475567. Jezik_i_nacionalizam. pdf) on 8 July 2012. . Retrieved 17 July 2012. [7] Paolillo, John C. Analyzing Linguistic Variation: Statistical Models and Methods CSLI Press 2001, Tagliamonte, Sali Analysing Sociolinguistic Variation Cambridge, 2006 [8] Wardhaugh, Ronald (2006), An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, New York: Wiley-Blackwell [9] Dubois, Sylvie and Horvath, Barbara. (1998). "Let's tink about dat: Interdental Fricatives in Cajun English." Language Variation and Change 10 (3), pp 245–61. 93 Further reading • Chambers, J.K. (2010). Sociolinguistic Theory. Linguistic Variation and its Social Significance. Malden, Ma: Blackwell Publishers. (A very elaborate book that brings the reader a detailed overview of the most important investigations that have been done in sociolinguistics, their results and the tendencies that can be derived from those. It also offers an overview of the structure vs. variability debate.) • Kordić, Snježana (2009). "Plurizentrische Sprachen, Ausbausprachen, Abstandsprachen und die Serbokroatistik [Pluricentric languages, Ausbau languages, Abstand languages and the Serbo-Croatistics]" (http://www. webcitation.org/69f5bCgpH) (in German). Zeitschrift für Balkanologie (http://www. zeitschrift-fuer-balkanologie.de/index.php/zfb/index) 45 (2): 210–215. ISSN 0044-2356. Archived from the original (http://www.zeitschrift-fuer-balkanologie.de/index.php/zfb/article/view/203/203) on 4 August 2012. Retrieved 31 August 2012. • Labov, W. (2001). Principles of Linguistic Changes: Social Factors. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. • Lakoff, Robin T. (2000). The Language War. Berkely, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-21666-0 • Meyerhoff, Miriam. (2006). Introducing Sociolinguistics. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-39948-3 • Milroy, Lesley and Gordon. Matthew. (2003) Sociolinguistics: Method and Interpretation London: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0-631-22225-1. (More advanced, but has lots of good examples and describes research methodologies to use.) • Paulston, Christina Bratt and G. Richard Tucker, editors. 1997. The early days of sociolinguistics: memories and reflections. (Publications in Sociolinguistics, 2.) Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. • Tagliamonte, S. (2006). Analysing Sociolinguistic Variation.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (An entry-level introduction to sociolinguistics that features a practical how-to guide for setting up an investigation.) • Trudgill, Peter. (2000). Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society(4th Ed.). London: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-028921-6 This book is a very readable, if Anglo-centric, introduction for the non-linguist. • Watts, Richard J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-79406-0. A sociolinguistics book specializing in the research in politeness. It's a little tough at times, but very helpful and informational. External links • Applied Linguistics (http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Social_Sciences/Linguistics/Applied_Linguistics/) at the Open Directory Project • http://www.ncsu.edu/linguistics/ncllp/aboutfieldwork.php About sociolinguistic fieldwork • Sociolinguistics: an interview with William Labov (http://www.revel.inf.br/site2007/_pdf/9/entrevistas/ revel_9_interview_labov.pdf) ReVEL, vol. 5, n. 9, 2007. Computational linguistics 94 Computational linguistics Computational linguistics is an interdisciplinary field dealing with the statistical or rule-based modeling of natural language from a computational perspective. Traditionally, computational linguistics was usually performed by computer scientists who had specialized in the application of computers to the processing of a natural language. Computational linguists often work as members of interdisciplinary teams, including linguists (specifically trained in linguistics), language experts (persons with some level of ability in the languages relevant to a given project), and computer scientists. In general, computational linguistics draws upon the involvement of linguists, computer scientists, experts in artificial intelligence, mathematicians, logicians, philosophers, cognitive scientists, cognitive psychologists, psycholinguists, anthropologists and neuroscientists, among others. Computational linguistics has theoretical and applied components, where theoretical computational linguistics takes up issues in theoretical linguistics and cognitive science, and applied computational linguistics focuses on the practical outcome of modelling human language use.[1] Origins Computational linguistics as a field predates artificial intelligence, a field under which it is often grouped. Computational linguistics originated with efforts in the United States in the 1950s to use computers to automatically translate texts from foreign languages, particularly Russian scientific journals, into English.[2] Since computers can make arithmetic calculations much faster and more accurately than humans, it was thought to be only a short matter of time before the technical details could be taken care of that would allow them the same remarkable capacity to process language.[3] When machine translation (also known as mechanical translation) failed to yield accurate translations right away, automated processing of human languages was recognized as far more complex than had originally been assumed. Computational linguistics was born as the name of the new field of study devoted to developing algorithms and software for intelligently processing language data. When artificial intelligence came into existence in the 1960s, the field of computational linguistics became that sub-division of artificial intelligence dealing with human-level comprehension and production of natural languages. In order to translate one language into another, it was observed that one had to understand the grammar of both languages, including both morphology (the grammar of word forms) and syntax (the grammar of sentence structure). In order to understand syntax, one had to also understand the semantics and the lexicon (or 'vocabulary'), and even to understand something of the pragmatics of language use. Thus, what started as an effort to translate between languages evolved into an entire discipline devoted to understanding how to represent and process natural languages using computers.[4] Nowadays research within the scope of computational linguistics is done at computational linguistics departments,[5] computational linguistics laboratories,[6] computer science departments,[7] and linguistics departments.[8][9] Computational linguistics 95 Approaches Just as computational linguistics can be performed by experts in a variety of fields, and through a plethora of departments, so too can the research fields broach a diverse range of topics. The following sections discuss some of the literature available across the entire field broken into four main area of discourse: developmental linguistics, structural linguistics, linguistic production, and linguistic comprehension. Developmental Approaches Language is a skill which develops throughout the life of an individual. This developmental process has been examined using a number of techniques, and a computational approach is one of them. Human language development does provide some constraints which make it feasible to apply a computational method to understanding it. For instance, during language acquisition, human children are largely only exposed to positive evidence.[10] This means that during the linguistic development of an individual, only evidence for what is a correct form is provided, and not evidence for what is not correct. This is insufficient information for a simple hypothesis testing procedure for information as complex as language,[11] and so provides certain boundaries for a computational approach to modeling language development and acquisition in an individual. Attempts have been made to model the developmental process of language acquisition in children from a computational angle. Work in this realm has also been proposed as a method to explain the evolution of language through history. Using models, it has been shown that languages can be learned most efficiently with a combination of simple input at first presented incrementally and the child develops better memory and longer attention span.[12] This was simultaneously posed as a reason for the long developmental period of human children.[12] Both conclusions were drawn because of the strength of the neural network which the project created. The ability of infants to develop language has also been modeled using robots[13] in order to test linguistic theories. Enabled to learn as children might, a model was created based on an affordance model in which mappings between actions, perceptions, and effects were created and linked to spoken words. Crucially, these robots were able to acquire functioning word-to-meaning mappings without needing grammatical structure, vastly simplifying the learning process and shedding light on information which furthers the current understanding of linguistic development. It is important to note that this information could only have been empirically tested using a computational approach. As our understanding of the linguistic development of an individual within a lifetime is continually improved using neural networks and learning robotic systems, it is also important to keep in mind that languages themselves change and develop through time. Computational approaches to understanding this phenomenon have unearthed very interesting information. Using the Price Equation and Pólya urn dynamics, researchers have created a system which not only predicts future linguistic evolution, but also gives insight into the evolutionary history of modern day languages.[14] This modeling effort achieved through computational linguistics what would have otherwise been impossible. It is clear that the understanding of linguistic development in humans as well as throughout evolutionary time has been fantastically improved because of advances in computational linguistics. The ability to model and modify systems at will affords science an ethical method of testing hypotheses that would otherwise be intractable. Structural Approaches In order to create better computational models of language, an understanding of language’s structure is crucial. To this end, the English language has been meticulously studied using computational approaches to better understand how the language works on a structural level. One of the most important pieces of being able to study linguistic structure is the availability of large linguistic corpora. This grants computational linguists the raw data necessary to run their models and gain a better understanding of the underlying structures present in the vast amount of data Computational linguistics which is contained in any single language. One of the most cited English linguistic corpora is the Penn Treebank.[15] Containing over 4.5 million words of American English, this corpus has been annotated for part-of-speech information. This type of annotated corpus allows other researchers to apply hypotheses and measures that would otherwise be impossible to perform. Theoretical approaches to the structure of languages have also been submitted. These works allow computational linguistics to have a framework within which to work out hypotheses that will further the understanding of the language in a myriad of ways. One of the original theoretical theses on internalization of grammar and structure of language proposed two types of models.[11] In these models, rules or patterns learned increase in strength with the frequency of their encounter.[11] The work also created a question for computational linguists to answer: how does an infant learn a specific and non-normal grammar (Chomsky Normal Form) without learning an overgeneralized version and getting stuck[11]? Theoretical efforts like these set the direction for research to go early in the lifetime of a field of study, and are crucial to the growth of the field. Structural information about languages allows for the discovery and implementation of similarity recognition between pairs of text utterances.[16] For instance, it has recently been proven that based on the structural information present in patterns of human discourse, conceptual recurrence plots can be used to model and visualize trends in data and create reliable measures of similarity between natural textual utterances.[16] This technique is a strong tool for further probing the structure of human discourse. Without the computational approach to this question, the vastly complex information present in discourse data would have remained inaccessible to scientists. Information regarding the structural data of a language is not simply available for English, but can also be found in other languages, such as Japanese.[17] Using computational methods, Japanese sentence corpora were analyzed and a pattern of log-normality was found in relation to sentence length.[17] Though the exact cause of this lognormality remains unknown, it is precisely this sort of intriguing information which computational linguistics is designed to uncover. This information could lead to further important discoveries regarding the underlying structure of Japanese, and could have any number of effects on the understanding of Japanese as a language. Computational linguistics allows for very exciting additions to the scientific knowledge base to happen quickly and with very little room for doubt. Without a computational approach to the structure of linguistic data, much of the information that is available now would still be hidden under the vastness of data within any single language. Computational linguistics allows scientists to parse huge amounts of data reliably and efficiently, creating the possibility for discoveries unlike any seen in most other approaches. 96 Production Approaches The production of language is equally as complex in the information it provides and the necessary skills which a fluent producer must have. That is to say, comprehension is only half the battle of communication. The other half is how a system produces language, and computational linguistics has made some very interesting discoveries in this area. In a now famous paper published in 1950 Alan Turing proposed the possibility that machines might one day have the ability to "think". As a thought experiment for what might define the concept of thought in machines, he proposed an "imitation test" in which a human subject has two text-only conversations, one with a fellow human and another with a machine attempting to respond like a human. Turing proposes that if the subject cannot tell the difference between the human and the machine, it may be concluded that the machine is capable of thought.[18] Today this test is known as the Turing test and it remains an influential idea in the area of artificial intelligence. One of the earliest and best known examples of a computer program designed to converse naturally with humans is the ELIZA program developed by Joseph Weizenbaum at MIT in 1966. The program emulated a Rogerian psychotherapist when responding to written statements and questions posed by a user. It appeared capable of understanding what was said to it and responding intelligently, but in truth it simply followed a pattern matching Computational linguistics routine that relied on only understanding a few keywords in each sentence. Its responses were generated by recombining the unknown parts of the sentence around properly translated versions of the known words. For example in the phrase "It seems that you hate me" ELIZA understands "you" and "me" which matches the general pattern "you [some words] me", allowing ELIZA to update the words "you" and "me" to "I" and "you" and replying "What makes you think I hate you?". In this example ELIZA has no understanding of the word "hate", but it is not required for a logical response in the context of this type of psychotherapy.[19] Some projects are still trying to solve the problem which first started computational linguistics off as its own field in the first place. However, the methods have become more refined and clever, and consequently the results generated by computational linguists have become more enlightening. In an effort to improve computer translation, several models have been compared, including hidden Markov models, smoothing techniques, and the specific refinements of those to apply them to verb translation.[20] The model which was found to produce the most natural translations of German and French words was a refined alignment model with a first-order dependence and a fertility model[16]. They also provide efficient training algorithms for the models presented, which can give other scientists the ability to improve further on their results. This type of work is specific to computational linguistics, and has applications which could vastly improve understanding of how language is produced and comprehended by computers. Work has also been done in making computers produce language in a more naturalistic manner. Using linguistic input from humans, algorithms have been constructed which are able to modify a system’s style of production based on a factor such as linguistic input from a human, or more abstract factors like politeness or any of the five main dimensions of personality.[21] This work takes a computational approach via parameter estimation models to categorize the vast array of linguistic styles we see across individuals and simplify it for a computer to work in the same way[11], making human-computer interaction much more natural. 97 Comprehension Approaches Much of the focus of modern computational linguistics is on comprehension. WIth the proliferation of the internet and the abundance of easily accessible written human language, the ability to create a program capable of understanding human language would have many broad and exciting possibilities, including improved search engines, automated customer service, and online education. Early work in comprehension included applying Bayesian statistics to the task of optical character recognition, as illustrated by Bledsoe and Browing in 1959 in which a large dictionary of possible letters were generated by "learning" from example letters and then the probability that any one of those learned examples matched the new input was combined to make a final decision.[22] Other attempts at applying Bayesian statistics to language analysis included the work of Mosteller and Wallace (1963) in which an analysis of the words used in the Federalist papers was used to attempt to determine their authorship (concluding that Madison most likely authored the majority of the papers).[23] In 1979 Terry Winograd developed an early natural language processing engine capable of interpreting naturally written commands within a simple rule governed environment. The primary language parsing program in this project was called SHRDLU, which was capable of carrying out a somewhat natural conversation with the user giving it commands, but only within the scope of the toy environment designed for the task. This environment consisted of different shaped and colored blocks, and SHRDLU was capable of interpreting commands such as "Find a block which is taller than the one you are holding and put it into the box." and asking questions such as "I don't understand which pyramid you mean." in response to the user's input.[24] While impressive, this kind of natural language processing has proven much more difficult outside the limited scope of the toy environment. Similarly a project developed by NASA called LUNAR was designed to provide answers to naturally written questions about the geological analysis of lunar rocks returned by the Apollo missions.[25] These kinds of problems are referred to as question answering. Computational linguistics Initial attempts at understanding spoken language were based on work done in the 1960s and 70s in signal modeling where an unknown signal is analyzed to look for patterns and to make predictions based on its history. An initial and somewhat successful approach to applying this kind of signal modeling to language was achieved with the use of hidden Marcov models as detailed by Rabiner in 1989.[26] This approach attempts to determine probabilities for the arbitrary number of models that could be being used in generating speech as well as modeling the probabilities for various words generated from each of these possible models. Similar approaches were employed in early speech recognition attempts starting in the late 70s at IBM using word/part-of-speech pair probabilities.[27] More recently these kinds of statistical approaches have been applied to more difficult tasks such as topic identification using Bayesian parameter estimation to infer topic probabilities in text documents.[28] 98 Subfields Computational linguistics can be divided into major areas depending upon the medium of the language being processed, whether spoken or textual; and upon the task being performed, whether analyzing language (recognition) or synthesizing language (generation). Speech recognition and speech synthesis deal with how spoken language can be understood or created using computers. Parsing and generation are sub-divisions of computational linguistics dealing respectively with taking language apart and putting it together. Machine translation remains the sub-division of computational linguistics dealing with having computers translate between languages. Some of the areas of research that are studied by computational linguistics include: • Computational complexity of natural language, largely modeled on automata theory, with the application of context-sensitive grammar and linearly bounded Turing machines. • Computational semantics comprises defining suitable logics for linguistic meaning representation, automatically constructing them and reasoning with them • Computer-aided corpus linguistics • Design of parsers or chunkers for natural languages • Design of taggers like POS-taggers (part-of-speech taggers) • Machine translation as one of the earliest and most difficult applications of computational linguistics draws on many subfields. • Simulation and study of language evolution in historical linguistics/glottochronology. The Association for Computational Linguistics defines computational linguistics as: ...the scientific study of language from a computational perspective. Computational linguists are interested in providing computational models of various kinds of linguistic phenomena.[29] Counter-views The status of Computational linguistics may be questioned from four perspectives: from the standpoints of philosophy of science, natural science (mismatch between human Cognitive domain and machine algorithms), Social Science Problem (Plurilingual condition and the advent of the simulated hyper-real cf. Baudrillard), Algocentricism (the discourse, which is only controlled or appropriated by the algorithm) in contrast with post-formal subjective and substantive task of Linguistics. These problems are summarized as follows: Philosophy of science problem: There is nothing called 'pen-paper-card linguistics', when these tools were used to taxonomize corpus. If computer manipulates linguistic data through the 'pen-paper-card' method, is it justified to label it as a separate epistemological discipline? Natural science problem: This problem deals with the matching condition between 'human cognitive domain' and 'machine algorithm' (identity and difference between computer and human being) on the basis of Russel's paradox Computational linguistics and Goedel's theorem Problem raised by Roger Penrose (1990,1994) and Searle's Chinese room puzzle. Computer's halting problem. Fuzziness of so- called natural language (The paper deals with some Bangla usages of numerals, where the status of number one is not always equal to one. The value of this fuzzy one is determined by the context, speakers socio-economic status etc.) Post-formalists deny the analytical procedures proposed by structralists. According to them, speaking subject perceives language as a whole (gestalt). Fragmenting language-object by deploying grammatical rules implies understanding symbolic order by means of another (meta-)symbolic order. A binary machine appropriates language-object according its own algorithmic program. It leads to a metonymic transformation of speaking subject as subjects’ non-algorithmic capability is ignored.[30][31][32] 99 References [1] Hans Uszkoreit. What Is Computational Linguistics? (http:/ / www. coli. uni-saarland. de/ ~hansu/ what_is_cl. html) Department of Computational Linguistics and Phonetics of Saarland University [2] John Hutchins: Retrospect and prospect in computer-based translation. (http:/ / www. hutchinsweb. me. uk/ MTS-1999. pdf) Proceedings of MT Summit VII, 1999, pp. 30–44. [3] Arnold B. Barach: Translating Machine (http:/ / www. flickr. com/ photos/ bostworld/ 2152048032/ in/ set-72157603898383698/ ) 1975: And the Changes To Come. [4] Natural Language Processing by Liz Liddy, Eduard Hovy, Jimmy Lin, John Prager, Dragomir Radev, Lucy Vanderwende, Ralph Weischedel (http:/ / www-nlpir. nist. gov/ MINDS/ FINAL/ NLP. web. pdf) [5] Computational linguistics and phonetics at Saarland University (http:/ / www. coli. uni-saarland. de) [6] Yatsko's computational linguistics laboratory (http:/ / vetsky. narod2. ru) [7] Clip: Computational Linguistics and Information Processing (https:/ / wiki. umiacs. umd. edu/ clip/ index. php/ Main_Page) [8] Computational Linguistics – Department of Linguistics – Georgetown College (http:/ / linguistics. georgetown. edu/ programs/ graduate/ computational/ ) [9] UPenn Linguistics: Computational Linguistics (http:/ / www. ling. upenn. edu/ research/ computational. html) [10] Bowerman, M. (1988). The “no negative evidence”problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar. Explaining language universals. Retrieved from http:/ / pubman. mpdl. mpg. de/ pubman/ item/ escidoc:468143:4/ component/ escidoc:532427/ bowerman_1988_The-No. pdf [11] Braine, M.D.S. (1971). On two types of models of the internalization of grammars. In D.I. Slobin (Ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar: A theoretical perspective. New York: Academic Press. [12] Elman, J. (1993). Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of starting small. Cognition, 71-99. Retrieved from http:/ / www. sciencedirect. com/ science/ article/ pii/ 0010027793900584 [13] Salvi, G., Montesano, L., Bernardino, A., & Santos-Victor, J. (2012). Language bootstrapping: learning word meanings from perception-action association. IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics. Part B, Cybernetics : a publication of the IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Society, 42(3), 660-71. doi:10.1109/TSMCB.2011.2172420 [14] Gong, T., Shuai, L., Tamariz, M., & Jäger, G. (2012). Studying Language Change Using Price Equation and Pólya-urn Dynamics. (E. Scalas, Ed.)PLoS ONE, 7(3), e33171. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033171 [15] Marcus, M., & Marcinkiewicz, M. (1993). Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational linguistics. Retrieved from http:/ / dl. acm. org/ citation. cfm?id=972475 [16] Angus, D., Smith, A., & Wiles, J. (2012). Conceptual recurrence plots: revealing patterns in human discourse. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 18(6), 988-97. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2011.100 [17] Furuhashi, S., & Hayakawa, Y. (2012). Lognormality of the Distribution of Japanese Sentence Lengths. Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, 81(3), 034004. doi:10.1143/JPSJ.81.034004 [18] Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59(236), 433-460. Retrieved from http:/ / www. jstor. org/ stable/ 10. 2307/ 2251299 [19] Weizenbaum, J. (1966). ELIZA---a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Communications of the ACM, 9(1), 36-45. doi:10.1145/365153.365168 [20] Och, F. J., & Ney, H. (2003). A Systematic Comparison of Various Statistical Alignment Models. Computational Linguistics, 29(1), 19-51. doi:10.1162/089120103321337421 [21] Mairesse, F. (2011). Controlling user perceptions of linguistic style: Trainable generation of personality traits. Computational Linguistics, (January 2009). Retrieved from http:/ / www. mitpressjournals. org/ doi/ abs/ 10. 1162/ COLI_a_00063 [22] Bledsoe, W. W., & Browning, I. (1959). Pattern recognition and reading by machine. Papers presented at the December 1–3, 1959, eastern joint IRE-AIEE-ACM computer conference on - IRE-AIEE-ACM ’59 (Eastern), 225-232. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1460299.1460326 [23] Mosteller, F. (1963). Inference in an authorship problem. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58(302), 275-309. Retrieved from http:/ / www. jstor. org/ stable/ 10. 2307/ 2283270 Computational linguistics [24] Winograd, T. (1971). Procedures as a Representation for Data in a Computer Program for Understanding Natural Language. Retrieved from http:/ / www. dtic. mil/ docs/ citations/ AD0721399 [25] Woods, W., Kaplan, R., & Nash-Webber, B. (1972). The lunar sciences natural language information system. Retrieved from http:/ / ntrs. nasa. gov/ search. jsp?R=19850068999 [26] Rabiner, L. (1989). A tutorial on hidden Markov models and selected applications in speech recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE. Retrieved from http:/ / ieeexplore. ieee. org/ xpls/ abs_all. jsp?arnumber=18626 [27] Bahl, L., Baker, J., Cohen, P., & Jelinek, F. (1978). Recognition of continuously read natural corpus. Speech, and Signal, 422-424. Retrieved from http:/ / ieeexplore. ieee. org/ xpls/ abs_all. jsp?arnumber=1170402 [28] Blei, D., & Ng, A. (2003). Latent dirichlet allocation. The Journal of Machine Learning, 3, 993-1022. Retrieved from http:/ / dl. acm. org/ citation. cfm?id=944937 [29] The Association for Computational Linguistics What is Computational Linguistics? (http:/ / www. aclweb. org/ archive/ misc/ what. html) Published online, Feb, 2005. [30] Computational Linguistics: A Dissenter's Voice (http:/ / papers. ssrn. com/ sol3/ papers. cfm?abstract_id=2015944) [31] On Computational and Chomskyan Linguistic Theory (http:/ / papers. ssrn. com/ sol3/ papers. cfm?abstract_id=2019795) [32] Bangla Numerals and Problems of Computability (http:/ / linguistlist. org/ pubs/ papers/ browse-papers-action. cfm?PaperID=7802) 100 External links • Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) (http://www.aclweb.org/) • ACL Anthology of research papers (http://www.aclweb.org/anthology) • ACL Wiki for Computational Linguistics (http://aclweb.org/aclwiki/) • CICLing annual conferences on Computational Linguistics (http://www.CICLing.org/) • Computational Linguistics – Applications workshop (http://CLA.imcsit.org) • Free online introductory book on Computational Linguistics (http://web.archive.org/web/20080125103030/ http://www.gelbukh.com/clbook/) (Internet Archive copy) • Language Technology World (http://www.lt-world.org/) • Resources for Text, Speech and Language Processing (http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/~gabr/resources/ resources.html) Forensic linguistics 101 Forensic linguistics Forensic linguistics is the application of linguistic knowledge, methods and insights to the forensic context of law, language, crime investigation, trial, and judicial procedure. It is a branch of applied linguistics. There are principally three areas of application for linguists working in forensic contexts - understanding language of the written law, understanding language use in forensic and judicial processes and the provision of linguistic evidence.[1] The discipline of forensic linguistics is not homogenous; it involves a range of experts and researchers in different areas of the field. History The phrase forensic linguistics first appeared in 1968 when Jan Svartvik, a professor of linguistics, used it in an analysis of statements by Timothy John Evans.[2] During the early days of forensic linguistics in the United Kingdom, the legal defense for many criminal cases questioned the authenticity of police statements. At the time, customary police procedure for taking suspects' statements dictated that it be in a specific format, rather than in the suspect's own words. Statements by witnesses are very seldom made in a coherent or orderly fashion, with speculation and backtracking done out loud. The delivery is often too fast-paced, causing important details to be left out. Early work of forensic linguistics in the United States concerned the rights of individuals with regard to understanding their Miranda rights during the interrogation process. An early application of forensic linguistics in the United States was related to the status of trademarks as words or phrases in the language. One of the bigger cases involved fastfood giant McDonald's claiming that it had originated the process of attaching unprotected words to the 'Mc' prefix and was unhappy with Quality Inns International's intention of opening a chain of economy hotels to be called 'McSleep.'[3] In the 1980s, Australian linguists discussed the application of linguistics and sociolinguistics to legal issues. They discovered that a phrase such as ' the same language ' is open to interpretation. Aboriginal people have their own understanding and use of 'English', something that is not always appreciated by speakers of the dominant version of English, i.e., 'white English'. The Aboriginal people also bring their own culturally based, interactional styles to the interview. Areas of study The range of topics within forensic linguistics is diverse, but research occurs in the following areas: The language of legal texts The study of the language of legal texts encompasses a wide range of forensic texts. That includes the study of text types and forms of analysis. Any text or item of spoken language can potentially be a forensic text when it is used in a legal or criminal context.[2] This includes analysing the linguistics of documents as diverse as Acts of Parliament (or other law-making body), private wills, court judgements and summonses and the statutes of other bodies, such as States and government departments. One important area is that of the transformative effect of Norman French and Ecclesiastic Latin on the development of the English common law, and the evolution of the legal specifics associated with it. It can also refer to the ongoing attempts at making legal language more comprehensible to laypeople. Forensic linguistics 102 The language of legal processes Among other things, this area examines language as it is used in cross-examination, evidence presentation, judge's direction, police cautions, police testimonies in court, summing up to a jury, interview techniques, the questioning process in court and in other areas such as police interviews. Forensic text types Emergency call In an emergency call, the recipient or emergency operator's ability to extract primarily linguistic information in threatening situations and to come up with the required response in a timely manner is crucial to the successful completion of the call. Intonational emphasis, voice pitch and the extent to which there is cooperation between the caller and the recipient at any one time are also very important in analysing an emergency call. Full cooperation includes frank and timely responses. Urgency plays a role in emergency calls, so hesitations, signs of evasiveness, and incomplete or overly short answers indicate that the caller might be making a false or hoax call. A genuine call has distinctive interlocking and slight overlap of turns. The recipient trusts the caller to provide accurate information and the caller trusts the recipient to ask only pertinent questions. If the caller uses a rising pitch at the end of every turn, it might represent a lack of commitment; the recipient's use of a rising pitch indicates doubt or desire for clarification. The call ideally moves from nil knowledge on the part of the recipient to a maximum amount of knowledge in a minimum possible period of time. This makes the emergency call unlike any other kind of service encounter.[2] Ransom demands or other threat communication Threat is a counterpart of a promise and is an important feature in a ransom demand. Ransom demands are also examined to identify between genuine and false threats. An example of a ransom note analysis can be seen in the case of the Lindbergh kidnapping, where the first ransom note (sometimes referred to as called the Nursery Note) stated: "We warn you for making anyding public or for notify the Polise the child is in gut care.[sic]".[4] From the sentence, the kidnapper makes the claim that the child is in good hands but to make such a claim, the note would have to be written before the perpetrator enters the premises. Therefore, the claim is false since the kidnapper had not even encountered the child when he wrote the note.[5] Suicide letters A suicide note is typically brief, concise and highly propositional with a degree of evasiveness.[2] A credible suicide letter must be making a definite unequivocal proposition in a situational context. The proposition of genuine suicide is thematic, directed to the addressee (or addressees) and relevant to the relationship between them. Suicide notes generally have sentences alluding to the act of killing oneself, or the method of suicide that was undertaken.[6] The contents of a suicide note could be intended to make the addressee suffer or feel guilt. Genuine suicide letters are short, typically less than 300 words in length.[2] Extraneous or irrelevant material are often excluded from the text.[6] Forensic linguistics 103 Death row statements Death row statements either admit the crime, leaving the witness with an impression of honesty and forthrightness; or deny the crime, leaving the witness with an impression of innocence. They may also denounce witnesses as dishonest, critique law enforcement as corrupt in an attempt to portray innocence or seek an element of revenge in their last moments (Olsson 2004). Death row statements are within the heavily institutionalized setting of death row prisons. Use of linguistic evidence in legal proceedings These areas of application have varying degrees of acceptability or reliability within the field. Linguists have provided evidence in: • Trademark and other intellectual property disputes • Disputes of meaning and use • Author identification (determining who wrote an anonymous text by making comparisons to known writing samples of a suspect; such as threat letters, mobile phone texts or emails) • Forensic stylistics (identifying cases of plagiarism) • Voice identification, also known as forensic phonetics, used to determine, through acoustic qualities, if the voice on a tape recorder is that of the defendant) • Discourse analysis (the analysis of the structure of written or spoken utterance to determine who is introducing topics or whether a suspect is agreeing to engage in criminal conspiracy) • Language analysis (forensic dialectology) tracing the linguistic history of asylum seekers (Language Analysis for the Determination of Origin)[7] • Reconstruction of mobile phone text conversations • Forensic phonetics Specialist databases of samples of spoken and written natural language (called corpora) are now frequently used by forensic linguists. These include corpora of suicide notes, mobile phone texts, police statements, police interview records and witness statements. They are used to analyse language, understand how it is used, and to reduce the effort needed to identify words that tend to occur near each other (collocations or collocates). Author identification The identification of whether a given individual said or wrote something relies on analysis of their idiolect,[8] or particular patterns of language use (vocabulary, collocations, pronunciation, spelling, grammar, etc). The idiolect is a theoretical construct based on the idea that there is linguistic variation at the group level and hence there may also be linguistic variation at the individual level. William Labov has stated that nobody has found a "homogenous data" in idiolects,[9] and there are many reasons why it is difficult to provide such evidence. Firstly, language is not an inherited property, but one which is socially acquired.[10] Because acquisition is continuous and life-long, an individual's use of language is always susceptible to variation from a variety of sources, including other speakers, the media and macro-social changes. Education can have a profoundly homogenizing effect on language use.[2] Research into authorship identification is ongoing. The term authorship attribution is now felt to be too deterministic.[11] The paucity of documents (ransom notes, threatening letters, etc) in most criminal cases in a forensic setting means there is often too little text upon which to base a reliable identification. However, the information provided may be adequate to eliminate a suspect as an author or narrow down an author from a small group of suspects. Authorship measures that analysts use include word length average, average number of syllables per word, article frequency, type-token ratio, punctuation (both in terms of overall density and syntactic boundaries) and the measurements of hapax legomena (unique words in a text). Statistical approaches include factor analysis, Bayesian Forensic linguistics statistics, Poisson distribution, multivariate analysis, and discriminant function analysis of function words. The Cusum (Cumulative Sum) method for text analysis has also been developed.[12] Cusum analysis works even on short texts and relies on the assumption that each speaker has a unique set of habits, thus rendering no significant difference between their speech and writing. Speakers tend to utilize two to three letter words in a sentence and their utterances tend to include vowel-initial words. In order to carry out the Cusum test on habits of utilizing two to three letter words and vowel-initial words in a sentential clause, the occurrences of each type of word in the text must be identified and the distribution plotted in each sentence. The Cusum distribution for these two habits will be compared with the average sentence length of the text. The two sets of values should track each other. Any altered section of the text would show a distinct discrepancy between the values of the two reference points. The tampered section will exhibit a different pattern from the rest of the text. 104 Forensic stylistics This discipline subjects written or spoken materials (or both), to scientific analysis for determination and measurement of content, meaning, speaker identification, or determination of authorship, in identifying plagiarism.[13] One of the earliest cases where forensic stylistics was used to detect plagiarism was the case of Helen Keller's short story. The blind American author was accused of plagiarism in 1892 with regard to her published short story, The Frost King. Upon investigation, The Frost King was found to have been plagiarised from Margaret Canby's book Frost Fairies which had been read to her some time ago. Keller was discovered to have made only minute changes to common words and phrases and used less common words to put the same point across, suggesting mere alterations to original ideas. Keller used 'vast wealth' instead of 'treasure' (approximately 230 times less common in the language) 'bethought' instead of 'concluded' (approximately 450 times less common), 'bade them' instead of 'told them' (approximately 30 times less common). Keller used the phrase 'ever since that time' whilst Canby chose 'from that time' (the latter 50 times more common than the former). Keller also used ' I cannot imagine' whereas Canby used ' I do not know'. 'Know' is approximately ten times more common than 'imagine'. Keller relied on a lexis that is less common when compared to Canby's. The Flesch and Flesch-Kincaid readability test showed that Canby's text showing more originality compared to Keller's. Canby's text obtained a higher grade on the reading ease scale compared to Keller's. The distinctions between Keller and Canby's text are at the lexical and phrasal level. Other examples of plagiarism include the cases between Richard Condon, author of The Manchurian Candidate and English novelist Robert Graves; and between Martin Luther King Jr and Archibald Carey. Judging by the text in The Manchurian Candidate, Condon's work is seen to be rich in clichés such as "in his superstitious heart of hearts." While Helen Keller took pride in using rare phrases and avoids common source words, Condon was fond of expanding existing words into phrases and existing phrases into more extensive ones. Condon was also found to have borrowed from a wide range of Graves' work.[2] In the plagiarism case of Martin Luther King Jr, almost half of his doctoral dissertation was discovered to have been copied from another theology student. King simply changed the names of the mountains and used much more alliteration and assonance.[14] Carey's and Graves' texts (source texts) were noticeably shorter, pithier and simpler in structure while Condon's and King's texts relied on 'purple' devices, extending the existing text and flourish their language significantly. Forensic linguistics 105 Discourse analysis Discourse analysis deals with analyzing written, oral, or sign language use, or any significant semiotic event. According to the method, the close analysis of a covert recording can produce useful deductions. The use of 'I' instead of 'We' in a recording highlights non-complicity in a conspiracy. The utterance of 'yeah' and 'uh-huh' as responses indicate that the suspect understands the suggestion, while feedback markers such as 'yeah' and 'uh-huh' do not denote the suspect's agreement to the suggestion. Discourse analysts are not always allowed to testify but during preparation for a case they are often useful to lawyers. Linguistic dialectology This refers to the study of dialects in a methodological manner based on anthropological information. It is becoming more important to conduct systematic studies of dialects, especially within the English language, because they are no longer as distinct as they once were due to the onslaught of mass media and population mobility. Political and social issues have also caused languages to straddle geographical borders resulting in certain language varieties spoken in multiple countries, leading to complications when determining an individual's origin by means of his/her language or dialect. Dialectology was used during the investigations into the Yorkshire Ripper tape hoax.[15] Forensic phonetics The forensic phonetician is concerned with the production of accurate transcriptions of what was being said. Transcriptions can reveal information about a speaker's social and regional background. Forensic phonetics can determine similarities between the speakers of two or more separate recordings. Voice recording as a supplement to the transcription can be useful as it allows victims and witnesses to indicate whether the voice of a suspect is that of the accused, i.e., alleged criminal. A man accused of manufacturing the drug Ecstasy was mis-heard by the police transcriber as 'hallucinogenic' [16] The police transcriber heard "but if it's as you say it's hallucinogenic, it's in the Sigma catalogue." However, the actual utterance was "but if it's as you say it's German, it's in the Sigma catalogue." Another disputed utterance was between a police officer and a suspect. One of the topics of conversation was a third man known as 'Ernie'. The poor signal of the recording made 'Ernie' sound like 'Ronnie'. The surveillance tape presented acoustic problems- an intrusive electronic-sounding cackle, the sound of the car engine, the playing of the car radio, the movement of the target vehicle, and the intrusive noise coincided with the first syllable of the disputed name.[2] Forensic speechreading is the complement of forensic voice identification. Transcripts of surveilled video records can sometimes allow expert speechreaders to identify speech content or style where the identity of the talker is apparent from the video record. Examples Evidence from forensic linguistics has more power to eliminate someone as a suspect than to prove him or her guilty. Linguistic expertise has been employed in criminal cases to defend an individual suspected of a crime, and during government investigations. Forensic linguists have given expert evidence in a wide variety of cases, including abuse of process, where police statements were found to be too similar to have been independently produced by police officers; the authorship of hate mail; the authorship of letters to an Internet child pornography service; the contemporaneity of an arsonist's diary; the comparison between a set of mobile phone texts and a suspect's police interview, and the reconstruction of a mobile phone text conversation. Some well-known examples include an appeal against the conviction of Derek Bentley and the identification of Theodore Kaczynski as the so-called "Unabomber". Forensic linguistics The criminal laboratories Bundeskriminalamt (in Germany) and the Nederlands Forensisch Instituut (in the Netherlands) both employ forensic linguists.[7] Forensic linguistics contributed to the overturning of Derek Bentley's conviction for murder in 1998 although there were other non-linguistic issues. Nineteen-year-old Bentley, who was functionally illiterate, had been hanged in 1953 for his part in the murder of PC Sidney Miles; he had been convicted partly on the basis of his statement to police, allegedly transcribed verbatim from a spoken monologue. When the case was reopened, a forensic linguist found that the frequency and usage of the word "then" in police transcripts suggested the transcripts were not verbatim statements but had been partially authored by police interviewers; this and other evidence led to Bentley's posthumous pardon.[17] In the case of Theodore Kaczynski, who was eventually convicted of being the "Unabomber", family members recognized his writing style from the published 35,000-word Industrial Society and Its Future (commonly called the "Unabomber Manifesto"), and notified the authorities. FBI agents searching Kaczynski's hut found hundreds of documents written by Kaczynski but not published anywhere. An analysis produced by FBI Supervisory Special Agent James R. Fitzgerald identified numerous lexical items and phrases common to the two documents.[18] Some were more distinctive than others, but the prosecution argued that even the more common words and phrases being used by Kaczynski became distinctive when used in combination with each other.[16] Forensic linguistic evidence also played a role in the investigation of the 2005 disappearance of Julie Turner, a 40-year-old woman living in Yorkshire. After she was reported missing, her partner received several text messages from Julie's mobile phone, such as "Stopping at jills, back later need to sort my head out", and "Tell kids not to worry. sorting my life out. (sic) be in touch to get some things". Investigators found that letters written by Turner's friend Howard Simmerson shared several unusual orthographic and punctuation features with the text messages, suggesting that Simmerson had been aware of the contents of the messages. Simmerson was eventually found guilty of Turner's murder.[19] Forensic linguist John Olsson gave evidence in a murder trial on the meaning of 'jooking' in connection with a stabbing.[20] During the appeal against the conviction of the Bridgewater Four, the forensic linguist examined the written confession of Patrick Molloy, one of the defendants — a confession which he had retracted immediately — and a written record of an interview which the police claimed took place immediately before the confession was dictated. Molloy denied that the interview had ever taken place, and the analysis indicated that the answers in the interview were not consistent with the questions being asked. The linguist came to the conclusion that the interview had been fabricated by police. The conviction against the Bridgewater Four was quashed before the linguist in the case, Malcolm Coulthard, could produce his evidence. In an Australian case reported by Eagleson, a "farewell letter" had apparently been written by a woman prior to her disappearance. The letter was compared with a sample of her previous writing and that of her husband. Eagleson came to the conclusion that the letter had been written by the husband of the missing woman, who subsequently confessed to having written it and to having killed his wife. The features analysed included sentence breaks, marked themes, and deletion of prepositions.[21] 106 Additional forensic linguistics concepts Linguistic fingerprinting A linguistic fingerprint is a concept put forward by some scholars that each human being uses language differently, and that this difference between people involves a collection of markers which stamps a speaker/writer as unique; similar to a fingerprint. Under this view, it is assumed that every individual uses languages differently and this difference can be observed as a fingerprint.[2] It is formed as a result of merged language style. A person's linguistic fingerprint can be reconstructed from the individual's daily interactions and relate to a variety of self-reported Forensic linguistics personality characteristics, situational variables and physiological markers (e.g. blood pressure, cortisol, testosterone).[22] In the process of an investigation, the emphasis should be on the relative rather than absolute difference between the authors and how investigators can classify their texts. John Olsson, however, argues that although the concept of linguistic fingerprinting is attractive to law enforcement agencies, there is so far little hard evidence to support the notion.[2] 107 Variation Intra-author variations are the ways in which one author's texts differ from each other. Inter-author variations are the ways in which different authors' writing varies. Two texts by one author do not necessarily vary less than texts by two different authors. • Genre: When texts are being measured in different genres, considerable variation is observed even though they are by the same author. • Text Type: Personal letters contain more inter-relationship bonding strategies than academic articles or term papers. • Fiction vs. Non-Fiction: Some fiction writers are journalists. Due to the different demands of each medium, they can be completely different from one another and this results in intra-author variation. • Private vs Public: A politician writing a political speech, which is a public text, will differ greatly from a private text to a friend or family member. • Time lapse as a cause of variation: The greater the time lapse between two works, the greater the likely variation. Language changes more than we realize in a relatively short span of time, influencing our susceptibility to language changes around us. • Disguise as a sort of variation: A writer can publish anonymously, hence disguising output to prevent recognition. Forensic transcription The two main types of transcriptions are written documents and video and audio records. Accurate, reliable text transcription is important because the text is the data which becomes the available evidence. If a transcription is wrong, the evidence is altered. If there is failure to transcribe the full text, evidence is once again altered unwittingly. There must be emphasis on the text being the evidence. A transcription of an audio file should never be assumed to be completely accurate. Each type of transcription contains its own problems. A handwritten document might contain unusual spellings which may result in ambiguous meanings, illegible handwriting and illustrations that are difficult to comprehend. A scanned document is tricky, as it may alter the original document. Audio and video documents can include repetitions, hesitation, nonsensical talk, jargon which can be hard to understand and speakers mumbling incoherently and inaudibly. Non-linguistic sounds such as crying and laughing may also be included in the audio and video text which cannot be transcribed easily. Because of this, civil libertarians argued that interrogations in major criminal cases should be recorded and the recordings kept, as well as transcribed.[23] Forensic linguistics 108 References [1] Centre for Forensic Linguistics, Aston University http:/ / www. forensiclinguistics. net/ cfl_fl. html [2] John Olsson (2008).. Forensic Linguistics, Second Edition. London: Continuum ISBN 978-0-8264-6109-4 [3] Ayres, Jr, B. Drummond (22 July 1988). McDonald's, to Court: 'Mc' Is Ours (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 1988/ 07/ 22/ us/ mcdonald-s-to-court-mc-is-ours. html). New York: The New York Times. . Retrieved 19 March 2012. [4] http:/ / www. pbs. org/ wgbh/ amex/ lindbergh/ sfeature/ crime. html [5] http:/ / njspmuseum. blogspot. com/ 2008/ 02/ one-of-most-fascinating-areas-of-study. html [6] John Olsson (2004). An Introduction to Language Crime and the Law. London: Continuum International Publishing Group [7] Peter Tiersma, What is Forensic Linguistics?, http:/ / www. languageandlaw. org/ FORENSIC. HTM [8] Coulthard, M. (2004). Author identification, idiolect and linguistic uniqueness. Applied Linguistics, 25(4), 431-447. [9] Labov, William (1972) Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, p192. [10] Miller, C. (1984). "Genre as social action." Quarterly Journal of Speech, pp 151-167 [11] Grant, T. D. (2008). Approaching questions in forensic authorship analysis. In J. Gibbons & M. T. Turell (Eds.), Dimensions of Forensic Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [12] Morton, A.Q., and S. Michaelson (1990) The Qsum Plot. Internal Report CSR-3-90, Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh. [13] http:/ / www. enotes. com/ forensic-science/ linguistics-forensic-stylistics [14] "Boston U. Panel Finds Plagiarism by Dr. King" (http:/ / query. nytimes. com/ gst/ fullpage. html?res=9D0CEFD61030F932A25753C1A967958260). The New York Times. 1991-10-11. . Retrieved 2008-06-14. [15] Martin Fido (1994), The Chronicle of Crime: The infamous felons of modern history and their hideous crimes [16] Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A. (2007). An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence. Oxford: Routledge:162-3. [17] Coulthard, R.M. (2000). " Whose text is it? On the linguistic investigation of authorship ", in S. Sarangi and R.M. Coulthard: Discourse and Social Life. London, Longman. [18] Fitzgerald, J. R. (2004). "Using a forensic linguistic approach to tracking the Unabomber." In J. Campbell, & D. DeNevi (Eds.)Profilers: Leading investigators take you inside the criminal mind (pp. 193-222). New York: Prometheus Books. [19] "Life term for man who shot lover" (http:/ / news. bbc. co. uk/ 2/ hi/ uk_news/ england/ south_yorkshire/ 4418518. stm). BBC News. 8 November 2005. . Retrieved 16 November 2011. [20] Trial of Rehan Asghar, Central Criminal Court, London, January 2008. [21] Eagleson, Robert. (1994). 'Forensic analysis of personal written texts: a case study', John Gibbons (ed.), Language and the Law, London: Longman, 362–373. [22] Pennebaker, J. W. (1990). 'Physiological factors influencing the reporting of physical symptoms'. The Science of Self-report: Implications for Research and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Publishers, pp. 299-316 [23] "Recording Police Questioning" (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2004/ 06/ 15/ opinion/ recording-police-questioning. html). The New York Times. 15 June 2004. . 24- Forensic linguistics; An Introduction to Language, Crime and Law (with original cases in Bureau of Police Investigation and Courts) by Azizi, Syrous & Momeni, Negar, Tehran: JahadDaneshgahi Publication, 2012. Further reading • • • • • • • • • Baldwin, J. R. and P. French (1990). Forensic phonetics. London: Pinter Publishers. Ellis,S. (1994). 'Case report: The Yorkshire Ripper enquiry, Part 1', Forensic Linguistics 1, ii, 197-206 Fairclough, N. (1989) Language and Power, London: Longman. Gibbons, J. (2003). Forensic Linguistics: an introduction to language in the Justice System. Blackwell. Gibbons, J., V Prakasam, K V Tirumalesh, and H Nagarajan (Eds) (2004). Language in the Law. New Delhi: Orient Longman. Gibbons, J. and M. Teresa Turell (eds) (2008). Dimensions of Forensic Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Grant, T. (2008). "Quantifying evidence in forensic authorship analysis", Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 14(1). Grant, T. and Baker, K. (2001). 'Reliable, valid markers of authorship', Forensic Linguistics VIII(1): 66-79. Hollien, H. (2002). "Forensic Voice Identification". New York: Harcourt. • Hoover, D. L. (2001). "Statistical stylistics and authorship attribution: an empirical investigation", Literary and Linguistic Comuputing, XIV (4), 421-44 • Koenig, B.J. (1986) 'Spectrographic voice identification: a forensic survey', letter to the editor of J. Acoustic Soc, Am., 79, 6, 2088-90. Forensic linguistics • Maley, Y. (1994). 'The language of the law', in J. Gibbons (ed.), Language and the Law, London:Longman,246-69 • McGehee, F. (1937).' The reliability of the identification of the human voice', Journal of General Psychology, 17, 249-71 • McMenamin, G. (1993). Forensic Stylistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier. • Nolan, F. and Grabe, E. (1996) 'Preparing a voice lineup', Forensic Linguistics, 3 i, 74-94 • Pennycook, A. (1996) 'Borrowing others words: text, ownership, memory and plagiarism', TESOL Quarterly, 30, 201-30. • Shuy, Roger W (2001). 'Discourse Analysis in the Legal Context.' In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Eds. Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. pp. 437–452. 109 External links • International Association of Forensic Linguists (http://www.iafl.org/) • International Association for Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics (http://www.iafpa.net/) Language acquisition Language acquisition is the process by which humans acquire the capacity to perceive and comprehend language, as well as to produce and use words and sentences to communicate. Language acquisition usually refers to first-language acquisition, which studies infants' acquisition of their native language. This is distinguished from second-language acquisition, which deals with the acquisition (in both children and adults) of additional languages. The capacity to successfully use language requires one to acquire a range of tools including phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and an extensive vocabulary. Language might be vocalized as speech or manual as in sign. The human language capacity is represented in the brain. Even though the human language capacity is finite, one can say and understand an infinite number of sentences, which is based on a syntactic principle called Recursion. Evidence suggests that every individual has three recursive mechanisms that allow sentences to go indeterminately. These three mechanisms are: relativization, complementation and coordination.[1] The capacity to acquire and use language is a key aspect that distinguishes humans from other beings. Although it is difficult to pin down what aspects of language are uniquely human, there are a few design features that can be found in all known forms of human language, but that are missing from forms of animal communication. For example, many animals are able to communicate with each other by signaling to the things around them, but this kind of communication lacks the arbitrariness of human vernaculars (in that there is nothing about the sound of the word "dog" that would hint at its meaning). Other forms of animal communication may utilize arbitrary sounds, but are unable to combine those sounds in different ways to create completely novel messages that can then be automatically understood by another. Hockett called this design feature of human language "productivity". It is crucial to the understanding of human language acquisition that we are not limited to a finite set of words, but, rather, must be able to understand and utilize a complex system that allows for an infinite number of possible messages. So, while many forms of animal communication exist, they differ from human languages, in that they have a limited range of non-syntactically structured vocabulary tokens that lack cross cultural variation between groups.[2] A major question in understanding language acquisition is how these capacities are picked up by infants from the linguistic input. Input in the linguistic context is defined as "All words, contexts, and other forms of language to which a learner is exposed, relative to acquired proficiency in first or second languages". Nativists find it difficult to believe, considering the hugely complex nature of human languages, and the relatively limited cognitive abilities of an infant, that infants are able to acquire most aspects of language without being explicitly taught. Children, within a few years of birth, understand the grammatical rules of their native language without being explicitly taught, as one Language acquisition learns grammar in school.[3] A range of theories of language acquisition have been proposed in order to explain this apparent problem. These theories, championed by the likes of Noam Chomsky and others, include innatism and Psychological nativism, in which a child is born prepared in some manner with these capacities, as opposed to other theories in which language is simply learned as other cognitive skills, including such mundane motor skills as learning to ride a bike. The conflict between the theories assuming humans are born with syntactic knowledge and those that claim all such knowledge is the product of learning from one's environment is often referred to as the "Nature vs. Nurture" debate. Some think that there are some qualities of language acquisition that the human brain is automatically wired for (a "nature" component) and some that are shaped by the particular language environment in which a person is raised (a "nurture" component). Others, especially evolutionary biologists, strongly object to assuming syntactic knowledge is genetically encoded and provided by automatic wiring of the brain. 110 History Philosophers in ancient societies were interested in how humans acquired the ability to understand and produce language well before empirical methods for testing those theories were developed, but for the most part they seemed to regard language acquisition as a subset of man's ability to acquire knowledge and learn concepts.[4] Some early, observation based ideas about language acquisition were proposed by Plato, who felt that word-meaning mapping in some form was innate. Additionally, Sanskrit grammarians debated for over twelve centuries whether humans' ability to recognize the meaning of words was god-given (possibly innate) or passed down by previous generations and learned from already established conventions—e.g. a child learning the word for cow by listening to trusted speakers talking about cows.[5] In a more modern context, empiricists, like Hobbes and Locke, argued that knowledge (and, for Locke, language) emerge ultimately from abstracted sense impressions. These arguments lean towards the "nurture" side of the argument- that language is acquired through sensory experience. This led to Carnap's Aufbau, an attempt to learn all knowledge from sense datum, using the notion of "remembered as similar" to bind these into clusters, which would eventually map into language.[6] Proponents of Behaviorism argued that language may be learned through a form of operant conditioning. In B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behaviour (1957), he suggested that the successful use of a sign, such as a word or lexical unit, given a certain stimulus, reinforces its "momentary" or contextual probability. Since operant conditioning is contingent on reinforcement by rewards, a child would learn that a specific combination of sounds stands for a specific thing through repeated successful associations made between the two. A "successful" use of a sign would be one in which the child is understood (for example, a child saying "up" when he or she wants to be picked up) and rewarded with the desired response from another person, thereby reinforcing the child's understanding of the meaning of that word and making it more likely that he or she will use that word in a similar situation in the future. Some Empiricist theories of language acquisition include the statistical learning theory Charles F. Hockett of language acquisition, Relational Frame Theory, functionalist linguistics, social interactionist theory, and usage-based language acquisition. Skinner's behaviourist idea was strongly attacked by Noam Chomsky in a review article in 1959, calling it "largely mythology" and a "serious delusion".[7] Instead, Chomsky argued for a mathematical approach to language acquisition, based on a study of syntax. Language acquisition 111 General approaches Social interactionism Social interactionist theory is a claim that language development occurs in the context of social interaction between the developing child and knowledgeable adults who model language usage and "scaffold" the child's attempts to master language. This type of theory is strongly influenced by the socio-cultural theories of the Soviet psychologist Lev Vygotsky. A major theorist is Jerome Bruner who has published extensively within this tradition. Relational frame theory The relational frame theory (RFT) (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, Roche, 2001), provides a wholly selectionist/learning account of the origin and development of language competence and complexity. Based upon the principles of Skinnerian behaviorism, RFT posits that children acquire language purely through interacting with the environment. RFT theorists introduced the concept of functional contextualism in language learning, which emphasizes the importance of predicting and influencing psychological events, such as thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, by focusing on manipulable variables in their context. RFT distinguishes itself from Skinner's work by identifying and defining a particular type of operant conditioning known as derived relational responding, a learning process that, to date, appears to occur only in humans possessing a capacity for language. Empirical studies supporting the predictions of RFT suggest that children learn language via a system of inherent reinforcements, challenging the view that language acquisition is based upon innate, language-specific cognitive capacities.[8] Emergentism Emergentist theories, such as MacWhinney's competition model, posit that language acquisition is a cognitive process that emerges from the interaction of biological pressures and the environment. According to these theories, neither nature nor nurture alone is sufficient to trigger language learning; both of these influences must work together in order to allow children to acquire a language. The proponents of these theories argue that general cognitive processes subserve language acquisition and that the end result of these processes is language-specific phenomena, such as word learning and grammar acquisition. The findings of many empirical studies support the predictions of these theories, suggesting that language acquisition is a more complex process than many believe.[9] Syntax and morphology As syntax began to be studied more closely in the early 20th century, in relation to language learning, it became apparent to linguists, psychologists, and philosophers that knowing a language was not merely a matter of associating words with concepts, but that a critical aspect of language involves knowledge of how to put words together—sentences are usually needed in order to communicate successfully, not just isolated words.[4] When acquiring a language, it is often found that most verbs, such as those in the English language, are irregular verbs. These verbs do not follow specific rules to form the past tense. Young children learn the past tense of verbs individually; however, when they are taught a "rule", such as adding -ed to form the past tense, they begin to exhibit overgeneralization errors (e.g. runned, hitted) as a result of learning these basic syntactical rules that do not apply to all verbs. The child then need to relearn how to apply these past tense rules to the irregular verbs they had previously done correctly.[10] Language acquisition 112 Generativism Generative grammar, associated especially with the work of Noam Chomsky, is currently one of the approaches to children's acquisition of syntax.[11] The leading idea is that human biology imposes narrow constraints on the child's "hypothesis space" during language acquisition. In the Principles and Parameters Framework, which has dominated generative syntax since Chomsky's (1980) Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures, the acquisition of syntax resembles ordering from a menu: The human brain comes equipped with a limited set of choices, from which the child selects the correct options using her parents' speech, in combination with the context.[12] An important argument, which favors the generative approach, is the Poverty of the stimulus argument. The child's input (a finite number of sentences encountered by the child, together with information about the context in which they were uttered) is, in principle, compatible with an infinite number of conceivable grammars. Moreover, few, if any, children can rely on corrective feedback from adults when they make a grammatical error.[13] Yet, barring situations of medical abnormality or extreme privation, all the children in a given speech-community converge on very much the same grammar by the age of about five years. An especially dramatic example is provided by children who, for medical reasons, are unable to produce speech, and, therefore, can literally never be corrected for a grammatical error, yet, nonetheless, converge on the same grammar as their typically developing peers, according to comprehension-based tests of grammar.[14][15] Considerations such as these have led Chomsky, Jerry Fodor, Eric Lenneberg and others to argue that the types of grammar the child needs to consider must be narrowly constrained by human biology (the nativist position).[16] These innate constraints are sometimes referred to as universal grammar, the human "language faculty", or the "language instinct".[17] Empiricism Although Chomsky's theory of a generative grammar has been popular with some linguists since the 1950s, many criticisms of the basic assumptions of generative theory have been put forth by cognitive-functional linguistics, who argue that language structure is created through language use.[18] These linguists argue that the concept of a Language Acquisition Device (LAD) is unsupported by evolutionary anthropology, which tends to show a gradual adaptation of the human brain and vocal cords to the use of language, rather than a sudden appearance of a complete set of binary parameters delineating the whole spectrum of possible grammars ever to have existed and ever to exist. On the other hand, cognitive-functional theorists use this anthropological data to show how human beings have evolved the capacity for grammar and syntax to meet our demand for linguistic symbols. (Binary parameters are common to digital computers, but may not be applicable to neurological systems such as the human brain.) Further, the generative theory has several hypothetical constructs (such as movement, empty categories, complex underlying structures, and strict binary branching) that cannot possibly be acquired from any amount of linguistic input. It is unclear that human language is actually anything like the generative conception of it. Since language, as imagined by nativists, is unlearnably complex, subscribers to this theory argue that it must, therefore, be innate. A different theory of language, however, may yield different conclusions. While all theories of language acquisition posit some degree of innateness, a less convoluted theory might involve less innate structure and more learning. Under such a theory of grammar, the input, combined with both general and language-specific learning capacities, might be sufficient for acquisition. Since 1980, linguists studying children, such as Melissa Bowerman, and psychologists following Jean Piaget, like Elizabeth Bates and Jean Mandler, came to suspect that there may indeed be many learning processes involved in the acquisition process, and that ignoring the role of learning may have been a mistake. In recent years, the debate surrounding the nativist position has centered on whether the inborn capabilities are language-specific or domain-general, such as those that enable the infant to visually make sense of the world in terms of objects and actions. The anti-nativist view has many strands, but a frequent theme is that language emerges from usage in social contexts, using learning mechanisms that are a part of a general cognitive learning apparatus Language acquisition (which is what is innate). This position has been championed by David M W Powers,[19] Elizabeth Bates,[20] Catherine Snow, Anat Ninio, Brian MacWhinney, Michael Tomasello,[2] Michael Ramscar,[21] William O'Grady,[22] and others. Philosophers, such as Fiona Cowie[23] and Barbara Scholz with Geoffrey Pullum[24] have also argued against certain nativist claims in support of empiricism. The new field of Cognitive Linguistics has emerged as a specific counter to Chomskian Generative Grammar and Nativism. Statistical learning Statistical learning suggests that, in learning language, a learner would use the natural statistical properties of language to deduce its structure, including sound patterns, words, and the beginnings of grammar. The statistical abilities are effective, but also limited by what qualifies as input, what is done with that input, and by the structure of the resulting output.[25] Some language acquisition researchers, such as Elissa Newport, Richard Aslin, and Jenny Saffran, believe that language acquisition is based primarily on general learning mechanisms, namely statistical learning. The development of connectionist models that are able to successfully learn words and syntactical conventions[26] supports the predictions of statistical learning theories of language acquisition, as do empirical studies of children's learning of words and syntax.[27] Chunking Chunking theories of language acquisition constitute a group of theories related to statistical learning theories, in that they assume the input from the environment plays an essential role; however, they postulate different learning mechanisms. The central idea of these theories is that language development occurs through the incremental acquisition of meaningful chunks of elementary constituents, which can be words, phonemes, or syllables. Recently, this approach has been highly successful in simulating several phenomena in the acquisition of syntactic categories[28] and the acquisition of phonological knowledge.[29] The approach has several features that make it unique: the models are implemented as computer programs, which enables clear-cut and quantitative predictions to be made; they learn from naturalistic input, made of actual child-directed utterances; they produce actual utterances, which can be compared with children's utterances; and they have simulated phenomena in several languages, including English, Spanish, and German. Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology have developed a computer model analyzing early toddler conversations to predict the structure of later conversations. They showed that toddlers develop their own individual rules for speaking with slots, into which they could put certain kinds of words. A significant outcome of the research was that rules inferred from toddler speech were better predictors of subsequent speech than traditional grammars.[30] 113 Language acquisition 114 Representation of language acquisition in the brain Recent advances in functional neuroimaging technology have allowed for a better understanding of how language acquisition is manifested physically in the brain. Language acquisition almost always occurs in children during a period of rapid increase in brain volume. At this point in development, a child has many more neural connections than he or she will have as an adult, allowing for the child to be more able to learn new things than he or she would be as an adult. Sensitive period Language acquisition has been studied from the perspective of developmental psychology and neuroscience, which looks at learning to use and understand language parallel to a child's brain development. It has been determined, through empirical research on developmentally normal children, as well as through some extreme cases of language deprivation, that there is a "sensitive period" of language acquisition in which human infants have the ability to learn any language. Several findings have observed that from birth until the age of six months, infants can discriminate the phonetic contrasts of all languages. Researchers believe that this gives infants the ability to acquire the language spoken around them. After this age the child is only able to perceive the phonemes specific to the language he or she is learning. This reduced phonemic sensitivity enables children to build phonemic categories and recognize stress patterns and sound combinations specific to the language they are acquiring.[31] As Christophe Pallier noted, "Before the child begins to speak and to perceive, the uncommitted cortex is a blank slate on which nothing has been written. In the ensuing years much is written, and the writing is normally never erased. After the age of ten or twelve, the general functional connexions have been established and fixed for the speech cortex." According to the sensitive or critical period models, the age at which a child acquires the ability to use language is a predictor of how well he or she is ultimately able to use language.[32] However, there may be an age at which becoming a fluent and natural user of a language is no longer possible. Our brains may be automatically wired to learn languages, but this ability does not last into adulthood in the same way that it exists during development. By the onset of puberty (around age 12), language acquisition has typically been solidified and it becomes more difficult to learn a language in the same way a native speaker would. At this point, it is usually a second language that a person is trying to acquire and not a first.[3] This critical period is usually never missed by cognitively normal children—humans are so well prepared to learn language that it becomes almost impossible not to. Researchers are unable to experimentally test the effects of the sensitive period of development on language acquisition, because it would be unethical to deprive children of language until this period is over. However, case studies on abused, language deprived children show that they were extremely limited in their language skills, even after instruction.[33] Vocabulary acquisition The capacity to acquire the ability to incorporate the pronunciation of new words depends upon the capacity to engage in speech repetition.[34][35][36][37] Children with reduced abilities to repeat nonwords (a marker of speech repetition abilities) show a slower rate of vocabulary expansion than children for whom this is easy.[38] It has been proposed that the elementary units of speech have been selected to enhance the ease with which sound and visual input can be mapped into motor vocalization.[39] Several computational models of vocabulary acquisition have been proposed so far.[40][41][42][43][44][45][46] Various studies have shown that the size of a child's vocabulary by the age of 24 months correlates with the child's future development and language skills. A lack of language richness by this age has detrimental and long-term effects on the child's cognitive development, which is why it is so important for parents to engage their infants in language. If a child knows fifty words or less by the age of 24 months, he or she is classified as a "late-talker" and future language development, like vocabulary expansion and the organization of grammar, will be slower and may be stunted. Language acquisition 115 Meaning Children learn, on average, 10 to 15 new word meanings each day, but only one of these words can be accounted for by direct instruction.[47] The other nine to 14 word meanings need to be picked up in some other way. It has been proposed that children acquire these meanings with the use of processes modeled by latent semantic analysis; that is, when they meet an unfamiliar word, children can use information in its context to correctly guess its rough area of meaning.[47] Neurocognitive research According to several linguists, neurocognitive research has confirmed many standards of language learning, such as: "learning engages the entire person (cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains), the human brain seeks patterns in its searching for meaning, emotions affect all aspects of learning, retention and recall, past experience always affects new learning, the brain's working memory has a limited capacity, lecture usually results in the lowest degree of retention, rehearsal is essential for retention, practice [alone] does not make perfect, and each brain is unique" (Sousa, 2006, p. 274). In terms of genetics, the gene ROBO1 has been associated with phonological buffer integrity or length[48] Although it is difficult to determine without invasive measures which exact parts of the brain become most active and important for language acquisition, fMRI and PET technology has allowed for some conclusions to be made about where language may be centered. Kuniyoshi Sakai proposed, based on several neuroimaging studies, that there may be a "grammar center", where language is primarily processed in the left lateral premotor cortex (located near the pre central sulcus and the inferior frontal sulcus). Additionally, these studies proposed that first language and second-language acquisition may be represented differently in the cortex.[3] Language acquisition and prelingual deafness Negative emotions are prominent towards language acquisition in the deaf community. Sign language and hearing aids help to establish skills in settings such as school or work. Development of words is comparable to the rest of society, but it is repeated at a slower rate.[49] Their ability to learn language is greatly affected as well as cognitive, behavioral, and social development. Cochlear implants show growth of language through modality-specific and modality-general cognitive processes.[50] Researchers continue to analyze the deaf in order to make necessary changes for the future. Instead of verbal language, speech can be expressed through hand movements, known as sign language. Due to recent advances in technology, cochlear implants allow deaf people to interact with others more efficiently. There are interior and exposed components that require a medical procedure. Studies found numerous results while analyzing neurocognitive processes that show improvements for those who receive cochlear implants earlier in life.[51] Also, speech processing occurs at a more rapid pace than traditional hearing aids.[51] According to research on the modality-specific cognitive, memorization is an advantage for hearing students.[52] After obtaining the average data for non-deaf individuals, 23 children with cochlear implants were tested in the same research. Results prove that language growth is exactly the same for normal individuals and those with cochlear implants.[51] Language acquisition 116 References [1] Lightfoot, David (2010). "Language acquisition and language change". Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 1 (5): 677–684. doi:10.1002/wcs.39. ISSN 19395078. [2] Tomasello, Michael (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-20177-1. OCLC 439979810. [3] Sakai, Kuniyoshi L. (2005). "Language Acquisition and Brain Development". Science 310 (5749): 815–819. doi:10.1126/science.1113530. PMID 16272114. [4] "Innateness and Language" (http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ innateness-language/ #ChoCasAgaSki). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. . [5] Matilal, Bimal Krishna (1990). The word and the world: India's contribution to the study of language. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-562515-3. OCLC 24041690. [6] Kendra A. Palmer (2009). "Understanding Human Language: An In-Depth Exploration of the Human Facility for Language" (http:/ / www. studentpulse. com/ articles/ 82/ 2/ understanding-human-language-an-in-depth-exploration-of-the-human-facility-for-language). StudentPulse.com. . Retrieved 22 August 2012. [7] Noam, Chomsky (1959). "A Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior" (http:/ / cogprints. org/ 1148/ ). Language 35: 26–58. . [8] Steven C. Hayes, Dermot Barnes-Holmes, Brian Roche, ed. (2001). Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition (Hardcover). Plenum Press. ISBN 0-306-46600-7. OCLC 51896575. [9] Brian MacWhinney, ed. (1999). The Emergence of Language. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 0-8058-3010-3. OCLC 44958022. [10] Carlson, Neil and Heth, Donald (2007). Psychology the Science of Behaviour. Pearson Education:New Jersey. [11] Lillo-Martin, Diane C.; Crain, Stephen (1999). An introduction to linguistic theory and language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers. ISBN 0-631-19536-X. OCLC 799714148. [12] Baker, Mark Raphael (2002). The atoms of language. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-860632-X. OCLC 66740160. [13] Brown, Roger and Camile Hanlon. 1970. Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In Cognition and the development of language, ed. J. R. Hayes. New York: Wiley [14] Lenneberg, Eric. 1967. Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley. [15] Stromswold, Karin. 2009—Lessons from a mute child. Paper presented at 'Rich Languages from Poor Inputs: A Workshop in Honor of Carol Chomsky'. MIT, Cambridge, MA, 11 December 2009. [16] Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon Books. [17] Pinker, Steven (2007). The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language (P.S.). Harper Perennial Modern Classics. ISBN 0-06-133646-7. OCLC 778413074. [18] Tomasello, Michael (2003). Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-01030-2. OCLC 62782600. [19] Powers, D.M.W. ; Turk, C.C.R. (1989). Machine Learning of Natural Language. New York & Berlin: Springer. ISBN 3-540-19557-2 and 0-387-19557-2. [20] Bates, E ; Elman, J ; Johnson, M ; Karmiloff-Smith, A ; Parisi, D ; Plunkett, K ; (1999). "Innateness and emergentism". In Graham, George; Bechtel, William. A companion to cognitive science. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 590–601. ISBN 0-631-21851-3. OCLC 47008353. [21] Ramscar, Michael; Gitcho, Nicole (2007). "Developmental change and the nature of learning in childhood" (http:/ / www. sciencedirect. com/ science?_ob=ArticleURL& _udi=B6VH9-4NX8RMS-1& _user=145269& _rdoc=1& _fmt=& _orig=search& _sort=d& _docanchor=& view=c& _acct=C000012078& _version=1& _urlVersion=0& _userid=145269& md5=47ff435b0e447e46c2f65460d22fbc8d). Trends in Cognitive Science 11 (7): 274–9. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.05.007. . [22] "Innateness, Universal Grammar, and Emergentism (2008)" (http:/ / www. ling. hawaii. edu/ faculty/ ogrady/ Innateness,_UG,_Emergentism. pdf). . [23] Cowie, F. (1999): What's Within? Nativism Reconsidered (http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ innateness-language/ ) (Oxford University Press, New York). [24] Barbara Scholz and Geoffrey Pullum (2006). Robert J. Stainton. ed. "Irrational Nativist Exuberance" (http:/ / hum. uchicago. edu/ ~jriggle/ SP05. pdf). Contemporary Debates in Cognitive Science (Oxford / Basil Blackwell): 59–80. . [25] Saffran, Jenny R. (2003). "Statistical language learning: mechanisms and constraints". Current Directions in Psychological Science 12 (4): 110–114. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.01243. ISSN 0963-7214. [26] Seidenberg, Mark S.; J.L. McClelland (1989). "A distributed developmental model of word recognition and naming". Psychological Review 96 (4): 523–568. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.523. PMID 2798649. [27] Saffran, Jenny; R.N.Aslin, E.L. Newport (1996). "Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants" (http:/ / www. sciencemag. org/ cgi/ content/ full/ 274/ 5294/ 1926?ijkey=4tT5xXrt3zjSo). Science 274 (5294): 1926–1928. doi:10.1126/science.274.5294.1926. PMID 8943209. . Retrieved 23 December 2008. [28] Freudenthal, Daniel; J.M. Pine, F. Gobet (2005). "Modelling the development of children's use of optional infinitives in English and Dutch using MOSAIC" (http:/ / bura. brunel. ac. uk/ bitstream/ 2438/ 731/ 1/ oi-paper-all. pdf). Cognitive Science 30 (2): 277–310. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0000_47. PMID 21702816. . Retrieved 2 April 2009. [29] Jones, Gary; F. Gobet, J.M. Pine (2007). "Linking working memory and long-term memory: A computational model of the learning of new words" (http:/ / bura. brunel. ac. uk/ bitstream/ 2438/ 618/ 1/ DevSci_revised-final. pdf). Developmental Science 10 (6): 853–873. Language acquisition doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00638.x. PMID 17973801. . Retrieved 2 April 2009. [30] Bannard C, Lieven E, Tomasello M (October 2009). "Modeling children's early grammatical knowledge". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106 (41): 17284–9. doi:10.1073/pnas.0905638106. PMC 2765208. PMID 19805057. [31] Kuhl 2004 [32] Pallier, Cristophe. "Critical periods in language acquisition and language attrition" (http:/ / www. pallier. org/ papers/ Pallier. critical. period. attrition. chapter. 2007. pdf). . [33] Curtiss, Susan (1977). Genie: a psycholinguistic study of a modern-day "wild child". Boston: Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-196350-0. OCLC 3073433. [34] Bloom L. Hood L. Lichtbown P. (1974). Imitation in language, If, when, and why. Cognitive Psychology 6, 380–420.OCLC  65013247 [35] Miller, George A. (1977). Spontaneous apprentices: children and language. New York: Seabury Press. ISBN 0-8164-9330-8. OCLC 3002566. [36] Masur EF. (1995). Infants' early verbal imitation and their later lexical development. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 41, 286–306.OCLC 89395784 [37] Gathercole SE. Baddeley AD. (1989). "Evaluation of the role of phonological STM in the development of vocabulary in children, A longitudinal study" (http:/ / cat. inist. fr/ ?aModele=afficheN& cpsidt=7251627). Journal of Memory and Language 28 (2): 200–213. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(89)90044-2. . [38] Gathercole SE (2006). "Nonword repetition and word learning: The nature of the relationship" (http:/ / www. york. ac. uk/ res/ wml/ Gathercole06 Applied PsyLinguistics. pdf). Applied Psycholinguistics 27: 513–543. doi:10.1017/S0142716406060383. . [39] Skoyles, JR (1998). "Speech phones are a replication code". Medical hypotheses 50 (2): 167–73. PMID 9572572. [40] Gupta Prahlad, MacWhinney Brian (1997). "Vocabulary acquisition and verbal short-term memory: Computational and neural bases". Brain and Language 59 (2): 267–333. doi:10.1006/brln.1997.1819. PMID 9299067. [41] Regier Terry (2003). "Emergent constraints on word-learning: A computational review". Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7 (6): 263–268. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00108-6. PMID 12804693. [42] Regier, Terry (2005). "The emergence of words: Attentional Learning in Form and Meaning". Cognitive Science 29: 819–865. [43] Hadzibeganovic Tarik, Cannas Sergio A (2009). "A Tsallis' statistics based neural network model for novel word learning". Physica A 388 (5): 732–746. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2008.10.042. [44] Roy Deb K., Pentland Alex P. (2002). "Learning words from sights and sounds: A computational model". Cognitive Science 26: 113–146. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2601_4. [45] Fazly Afsaneh, Alishahi Afra, Stevenson Suzanne (2010). "A Probabilistic Computational Model of Cross-Situational Word Learning". Cognitive Science 34 (6): 1017–1063. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01104.x. PMID 21564243. [46] Yu Chen, Ballard Dana H (2007). "A unified model of early word learning: Integrating statistical and social cues". Neurocomputing 70 (13–15): 2149–2165. doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2006.01.034. [47] Landauer, TK; Dumais, ST. (1997). "A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition" (http:/ / www. edtechpolicy. org/ AAASGW/ Session2/ landauer_article. pdf) (PDF). Psychological review 104: 211–240. . [48] T. C. Bates, M. Luciano, S. E. Medland, G. W. Montgomery, M. J. Wright and N. G. Martin. (2010). Genetic Variance in a Component of the Language Acquisition Device: ROBO1 Polymorphisms Associated with Phonological Buffer Deficits. Behav Genet10.1007/s10519-010-9402-9 [49] McAnally, Rose (1987). Language Learning Practices with Deaf Children. Boston. pp. 34–40. [50] Houston, Derek M.; Beer, Jessica; Bergeson, Tonya R.; Chin, Steven B.; Pisoni, David B.; Miyamoto, Richard T. (1 January 2012). "The Ear Is Connected to the Brain: Some New Directions in the Study of Children with Cochlear Implants at Indiana University". Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. doi:10.3766/jaaa.23.6.7. [51] McKinley, Ann (2000). The Effectiveness of Cochlear Implants for Children with Prelingual Deafness. Sage Publications. pp. 252–263. [52] Houston, Derek M.; Beer, Jessica; Bergeson, Tonya R.; Chin, Steven B.; Pisoni, David B.; Miyamoto, Richard T. (1 January 2012). "The Ear Is Connected to the Brain: Some New Directions in the Study of Children with Cochlear Implants at Indiana University". Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. doi:10.3766/jaaa.23.6.7. 117 Further reading • Kuhl PK (September 2010). "Brain mechanisms in early language acquisition". Neuron 67 (5): 713–27. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.08.038. PMC 2947444. PMID 20826304. • Arias-Trejo N, Plunkett K (December 2009). "Lexical-semantic priming effects during infancy". Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 364 (1536): 3633–47. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0146. PMC 2846315. PMID 19933137. • Hickok G, Poeppel D (2004). "Dorsal and ventral streams: a framework for understanding aspects of the functional anatomy of language". Cognition 92 (1-2): 67–99. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.011. PMID 15037127. • Kuperberg GR (May 2007). "Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: challenges to syntax". Brain Res. 1146: 23–49. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.12.063. PMID 17400197. Language acquisition • Pickering MJ, Ferreira VS (May 2008). "Structural priming: a critical review". Psychol Bull 134 (3): 427–59. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.427. PMC 2657366. PMID 18444704. • Richardson FM, Price CJ (October 2009). "Structural MRI studies of language function in the undamaged brain". Brain Struct Funct 213 (6): 511–23. doi:10.1007/s00429-009-0211-y. PMC 2749930. PMID 19618210. 118 External links • Innateness and Language, Encyclopedia Entry (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/innateness-language/) • Sprachsozialisation einiger nicht-europäischer Kulturen im Vergleich. (http://kaltric.de/mat/matlingu/ sprachsozialisation/) Evolutionary linguistics Evolutionary linguistics is a cover term for the scientific study of both the origins and development of language as well as the cultural evolution of languages.[1] The main challenge in this research is the lack of empirical data: spoken language leaves practically no traces. This led to an abandonment of the field for more than a century.[2] Since the late 1980s, the field has been revived in the wake of progress made in the related fields of psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics, evolutionary anthropology, evolutionary psychology, and cognitive science. History August Schleicher (1821–1868) and his Stammbaumtheorie are often quoted as the starting point of evolutionary linguistics. Inspired by the natural sciences, especially biology, Schleicher was the first to compare languages to evolving species.[3] He introduced the representation of language families as an evolutionary tree in articles published in 1853. Joseph Jastrow published a gestural theory of the evolution of language in the seventh volume of Science, 1886.[4] The Stammbaumtheorie proved to be very productive for comparative linguistics, but didn't solve the major problem of studying the origin of language: the lack of fossil records. The question of the origin of language was abandoned as unsolvable. Famously, the Société Linguistique de Paris in 1866 refused to admit any further papers on the subject. The field has re-appeared in 1988 in the Linguistic Bibliography, as a subfield of psycholinguistics. In 1990, Steven Pinker and Paul Bloom published their paper "Natural Language & Natural Selection"[5] which strongly argued for an adaptationist approach to language origins. Their paper is often credited with reviving the interest in evolutionary linguistics. This development was further strengthened by the establishment (in 1996) of a series of conferences on the Evolution of Language (now known as "Evolang"), promoting a scientific, multidisciplinary approach to the issue, and interest from major academic publishers (e.g., the Studies in the Evolution of Language series has been appearing with Oxford University Press since 2001) and scientific journals. Recent developments Evolutionary linguistics as a field is rapidly emerging as a result of developments in neighboring disciplines. To what extent language's features are determined by genes, a hotly debated dichotomy in linguistics, has had new light shed upon it by the discovery of the FoxP2-gene. An English family with a severe, heritable language dysfunction was found to have a defective copy of this gene. Mutations of the corresponding gene in mice (FOXP2 is fairly well conserved; modern humans share the same allele as Neanderthals) cause reductions in size and vocalization rate. If both copies are damaged, the Purkinje layer (a part of the cerebellum that contains better-connected neurons than any other) develops abnormally, runting is more common, and pups die within weeks due to inadequate lung Evolutionary linguistics development.[6] Additionally, higher presence of FOXP2 in songbirds is correlated to song changes, with downregulation causing incomplete and inaccurate song imitation in zebra finches. In general, evidence suggests that the protein is vital to neuroplasticity. There is little support, however, for the idea that FOXP2 is 'the grammar gene' or that it had much to do with the relatively recent emergence of syntactical speech.[7] Another controversial dichotomy is the question of whether human language is solely human or on a continuum with (admittedly far removed) animal communication systems. Studies in ethology have forced researchers to reassess many claims of uniquely human abilities for language and speech. For instance, Tecumseh Fitch has argued that the descended larynx is not unique to humans. Similarly, once held uniquely human traits such as formant perception, combinatorial phonology and compositional semantics are now thought to be shared with at least some nonhuman animal species. Conversely, Derek Bickerton and others argue that the advent of abstract words provided a mental basis for analyzing higher-order relations, and that any communication system that remotely resembles human language utterly relies on cognitive architecture that co-evolved alongside language. As it leaves no fossils, language's form and even its presence are extremely hard or impossible to deduce from physical evidence. Computational modeling is now widely accepted as an approach to assure the internal consistency of language-evolution scenarios. Approximately one-third of all papers presented at the 2010 Evolution of Language conference [8] rely at least in part on computer simulations. 119 Approaches One original researcher in the field is Luc Steels, head of the research units of Sony CSL in Paris and the AI Lab at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. He and his team are currently investigating ways in which artificial agents self-organize languages with natural-like properties and how meaning can co-evolve with language. Their research is based on the hypothesis that language is a complex adaptive system that emerges through adaptive interactions between agents and continues to evolve in order to remain adapted to the needs and capabilities of the agents. This research has been implemented in fluid construction grammar (FCG), a formalism for construction grammars that has been specially designed for the origins and evolution of language. The approach of computational modeling and the use of robotic agents grounded in real life is claimed to be theory independent. It enables the researcher to find out exactly what cognitive capacities are needed for certain language phenomena to emerge. It also focuses the researcher in formulating hypotheses in a precise and exact manner, whereas theoretical models often stay very vague. Some linguists, such as John McWhorter, have analyzed the evolution and construction of basic communication methods such as Pidginization and Creolization.[9] "Nativist" models of "Universal Grammar" are informed by linguistic universals such as the existence of pronouns and demonstratives, and the similarities in each languages process of nominalization (the process of verbs becoming nouns) as well as the reverse, the process of turning nouns into verbs.[10] This is a purely descriptive approach to what we mean by "natural language" without attempting to address its emergence. Finally there are those archaeologists and evolutionary anthropologists – among them Ian Watts,[11] Camilla Power[12] and Chris Knight (co-founder with James Hurford of the EVOLANG series of conferences) — who argue that 'the origin of language' is probably an insoluble problem. In agreement with Amotz Zahavi,[13] Knight argues that language — being a realm of patent fictions — is a theoretical impossibility in a Darwinian world, where signals must be intrinsically reliable. If we are to explain language's evolution, according to this view, we must tackle it as part of a wider one — the evolutionary emergence of symbolic culture as such.[14] Evolutionary linguistics 120 EVOLANG Conference The Evolution of Language International Conferences [15][16] have been held biennially since 1996. 1. 1996 Edinburgh: Hurford, J. R., Studdert-Kennedy, M. & Knight C. (eds), Approaches to the Evolution of Language - Social and Cognitive Bases, Cambridge University Press, 1998. 2. 1998 London: Chris Knight, James R. Hurford and Michael Studdert-Kennedy (eds), The Evolutionary Emergence of Language: Social function and the origins of linguistic form, Cambridge University Press, 3. 2000 Paris: J. L. Desalles & L. Ghadakpour (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Evolution of Language 4. 2002 Boston: J. Hurford & T. Fitch (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on the Evolution of Language 5. 2004 Leipzig 6. 2006 Rome: Angelo Cangelosi, Andrew D. M. Smith, Kenny Smith The Evolution of Language: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on the Evolution of Language, World Scientific, ISBN 981-256-656-2. 7. 2008 Barcelona: [17] Andrew D. M. Smith, Kenny Smith, Ramon Ferrer i Cancho "The Evolution of Language (EVOLANG 7)", World Scientific, ISBN 981-277-611-7. 8. 2010 Utrecht, the Netherlands, April 14–17, 2010. [8]. Andrew D. M. Smith, Marieke Schouwstra, Bart de Boer, Kenny Smith "The Evolution of Language (EVOLANG 8)", World Scientific, ISBN 981-4295-21-3. 9. 2012 Kyoto, Japan, March 13–16, 2012. [18]. Scott-Phillips, T.C. and Tamariz, M. and Cartmill, E.A. and Hurford, J.R., editor, The Evolution of Language: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference (EVOLANG9), World Scientific. 10. 2014 Vienna Notes [1] Croft, William (October 2008). "Evolutionary Linguistics" (http:/ / www. annualreviews. org/ doi/ abs/ 10. 1146/ annurev. anthro. 37. 081407. 085156). Annual Review of Anthropology (Annual Reviews) 37: 219–234. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.37.081407.085156. . [2] for about 12 decades, from the 1860s to the 1980s. [3] Taub, Liba. Evolutionary Ideas and "Empirical" Methods: The Analogy Between Language and Species in the Works of Lyell and Schleicher. British Journal for the History of Science 26, pages 171–193 (1993) [4] Jastrow J (1886). "The Evolution of Language". Science 7 (176S): 555–557. doi:10.1126/science.ns-7.176S.555. JSTOR 1761264. PMID 17778380. [5] Pinker, S.; Bloom, P. (2011). "Natural language and natural selection". Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13 (4): 707. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00081061. [6] Shu W, Lu MM, Zhang Y, Tucker PW, Zhou D, Morrisey EE (May 2007). "Foxp2 and Foxp1 cooperatively regulate lung and esophagus development". Development 134 (10): 1991–2000. doi:10.1242/dev.02846. PMID 17428829. [7] Diller, K. C. and R. L. Cann 2009. Evidence against a genetic-based revolution in language 50,000 years ago. In R. Botha and C. Knight (eds), The Cradle of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 135-149. [8] http:/ / evolang2010. nl [9] (2002) McWhorter, John. The Power of Babel: The Natural History of Language, Random House Group. [10] (2005) Deutscher, Guy. The Unfolding of Language, Owl Books. [11] Watts, I. 2009. Red ochre, body painting, and language: interpreting the Blombos ochre. In R. Botha and C. Knight (eds), The Cradle of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 62-92. [12] Power, C. 2009. Sexual selection models for the emergence of symbolic communication: why they should be reversed. In R. Botha and C. Knight (eds), The Cradle of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 257-280. [13] Zahavi, A. 1993. The fallacy of conventional signalling. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. 340: 227-230. [14] Chris Knight, 2010. The origins of symbolic culture. (http:/ / www. chrisknight. co. uk/ wp-content/ uploads/ 2007/ 09/ The-Origins-of-Symbolic-Culture. pdf) In Ulrich J. Frey, Charlotte Störmer and Kai P. Willführ (eds) 2010. Homo Novus – A Human Without Illusions. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, pp. 193-211. [15] http:/ / www. ling. ed. ac. uk/ evolang/ [16] http:/ / www. let. uu. nl/ evolang2010. nl/ history. php [17] http:/ / stel. ub. edu/ evolang2008/ pro. htm [18] http:/ / kyoto. evolang. org/ Evolutionary linguistics 121 References • Cangelosi, A.; Harnad, S. (2001). "The adaptive advantage of symbolic theft over sensorimotor toil: Grounding language in perceptual categories" (http://cogprints.org/2036/). Evolution of Communication 4 (1): 117–142. doi:10.1075/eoc.4.1.07can. • M. Christiansen and S. Kirby (eds.), Language Evolution, Oxford University Press, New York (2003), ISBN 978-0-19-924484-3. • Bickerton, D., Symbol and Structure: A Comprehensive Framework for Language Evolution, pp. 77–93. • Hurford, J. R., The Language Mosaic and Its Evolution, pp. 38–57. • Lieberman, P.,Motor Control, Speech, and the Evolution of Language, pp. 252–271. Deacon, T. (1997) The symbolic species: the coevolution of language and the brain, Norton, New York. Hauser, M.D. (1996) The evolution of communication, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Daniel Dor and Jablonka Eva (2001). How language changed the genes. In Tabant J. Ward. S. (editors). Mouton de Gruyer: Berlin, pp 149–175. Dor D. and Jablonka E. (2001) From cultural selection to genetic selection: a framework for the evolution of language. Selection, 1–3, pp. 33–57. • • • • • Hauser MD, Chomsky N, Fitch WT (2002). "The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?" (http://www3.isrl.uiuc.edu/~junwang4/langev/localcopy/pdf/hauser02science.pdf). Science 298 (5598): 1569–79. doi:10.1126/science.298.5598.1569. PMID 12446899. • Jackendoff, R. (2002) Foundations of language: brain, meaning, grammar, evolution (http://www.bbsonline. org/Preprints/Jackendoff-07252002/Referees/) Oxford University Press, New York • Knight, C. (2010). The origins of symbolic culture. In Ulrich J. Frey, Charlotte Störmer and Kai P. Willführ (eds) 2010. Homo Novus – A Human Without Illusions. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, pp. 193–211. PDF (http:/ /www.chrisknight.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/The-Origins-of-Symbolic-Culture.pdf) • Komarova, N.L. (2007). Language and Mathematics: An evolutionary model of grammatical communication. In: History & Mathematics (http://urss.ru/cgi-bin/db.pl?cp=&page=Book&id=53184&lang=en&blang=en& list=1). Ed. by Leonid Grinin, Victor C. de Munck, and Andrey Korotayev. Moscow, KomKniga/URSS. pp. 164–179. ISBN 978-5-484-01001-1. • Nowak, M.A.; Komarova, N.L. (2001). "Towards an evolutionary theory of language". Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5 (7): 288–295. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01683-1. PMID 11425617. • Pinker, S. (1994) The language instinct, HarperCollins, New York. • Pinker, S.; Bloom, P. (1990). "Natural language and natural selection" (http://www.bbsonline.org/documents/ a/00/00/04/99/index.html). Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13: 707–784. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00081061. • Power, C. 2009. Sexual selection models for the emergence of symbolic communication: why they should be reversed. In R. Botha and C. Knight (eds), The Cradle of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 257–280. • Sampson, Geoffrey: Evolutionary Language Understanding, published 1996 by Cassel (London), ISBN 0-304-33650-5 • Steels, Luc (2001) Grounding Symbols through Evolutionary Language Games. In: Cangelosi A. and Parisi D. (Eds.) Simulating the Evolution of Language (http://www.tech.plym.ac.uk/soc/staff/angelo/book2001-TOC. html) Springer. • Steklis, H.D.; Harnad, S (1976). "From hand to mouth: Some critical stages in the evolution of language In: Harnad, S., Steklis, H. D. and Lancaster, J., (1976) (Eds) Origins and Evolution of Language and Speech" (http:// cogprints.org/866/). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 280: 1–914. • See also the UIUC Language Evolution and Computation Bibliography/Repository (http://www.isrl.uiuc.edu/ amag/langev/) (1200+ related references, citations, and fulltext pointers) • Encyclopedia Americana,Americana Corporation of Canada{1959}-Iceland-Language Evolutionary linguistics • Watts, I. 2009. Red ochre, body painting, and language: interpreting the Blombos ochre. In R. Botha and C. Knight (eds), The Cradle of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 62–92. • Zuidema, W. H., The Major Transitions in the Evolution of Language, PhD thesis, Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, University of Edinburgh (2005) (http://www.isrl.uiuc.edu/~amag/langev/paper/zuidema05phd. html) • Johansson, Sverker, Origins of language : constraints on hypotheses, Converging evidence in language and communication research vol. 5, Amsterdam : Benjamins (2005). • Mithen, Steven J., The singing neanderthals : the origins of music, language, mind and body London : Weidenfeld & Nicolson (2005), ISBN 978-0-297-64317-3 • Partha Niyogi, The computational nature of language learning and evolution MIT Press, Current studies in linguistics 43 (2006). • A. Carstairs-McCarthy, The evolution of language, Lingua vol. 117, issue 3 (2007, March). • Bernd Heine, Tania Kuteva, The genesis of grammar : a reconstruction, Oxford University Press, 2007, ISBN 978-0-19-922776-1, ISBN 978-0-19-922777-8. • James R. Hurford, Language in the light of evolution, Oxford University Press, Studies in the evolution of language vol. 1 (2007). • Atkinson QD, Meade A, Venditti C, Greenhill SJ, Pagel M (2008). "Languages evolve in punctuational bursts". Science 319 (5863): 588. doi:10.1126/science.1149683. PMID 18239118. 122 Further reading • Botha, R; Knight, C., [editors] (2009). The Cradle of Language. Oxford Series in the Evolution of Language. Oxford.: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-954586-5. • Elvira, Javier (2009). Evolución lingüística y cambio sintáctico. Fondo Hispánico de Lingüística y Filología. Bern et al.: Peter Lang. ISBN 978-3-0343-0323-1. • Fitch, W. Tecumseh (2010). The Evolution of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge. ISBN 978-0-521-67736-3. • Harnad, Stevan R.; Steklis, Horst D.; Lancaster, Jane, [editors] (1976). Origins and Evolution of Language and Speech. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, v. 280. New York: New York Academy of Sciences. ISBN 0-89072-026-6. • Johanson, Donald C.; and Edgar, Blake (2006). From Lucy to Language (Revised, updated, and expanded ed.). New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. ISBN 0-7432-8064-4. OCLC 72440476. • Kenneally, Christine (2007). The First Word: The Search for the Origins of Language. New York, NY: Viking. ISBN 978-0-670-03490-1. OCLC 80460757. • Tallerman, Maggie (2005). Language Origins: Perspectives on Evolution. Oxford, UK; New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-927904-7. OCLC 60607214. Evolutionary linguistics 123 External links • Fluid Construction Grammar (http://arti.vub.ac.be/FCG/) • Language Evolution and Computation Research Unit, University of Edinburgh (http://www.ling.ed.ac.uk/lec/ ) • Sony CSL Research (http://www.csl.sony.fr/) • ARTI Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (http://arti.vub.ac.be/) • ECAgents: The Project on Embodied and Communicating Agents (http://www.ecagents.org/) • Blog about quantification of the genetic proximity between languages (http://www.elinguistics.net/) Internet linguistics Internet linguistics is a sub-domain of linguistics advocated by David Crystal. It studies new language styles and forms that have arisen under the influence of the Internet and other New Media, such as Short Message Service (SMS) text messaging.[1][2] Since the beginning of Human-computer interaction (HCI) leading to computer-mediated communication (CMC) and Internet-mediated communication (IMC), experts have acknowledged that linguistics has a contributing role in it, in terms of web interface and usability. Studying the emerging language on the Internet can help improve conceptual organization, translation and web usability. This will benefit both linguists and web users.[3] The study of Internet linguistics can be effectively done through four main perspectives; sociolinguistics, education, stylistics and applied.[1] Further dimensions have developed as a result of further technological advancements which include the development of the Web as Corpus and the spread and influence of the stylistic variations brought forth by the spread of the Internet, through the Mass Media and Literary Works. In view of the increasing number of users connected to the Internet, the linguistics future of the Internet remains to be determined as new computer-mediated technologies continues to emerge and people adapt their languages to suit these new mediums.[4] The Internet continues to play a significant role in both encouraging as well as diverting attention away from the usage of languages.[5] Main perspectives David Crystal has identified four main perspectives for further investigation – the sociolinguistic perspective, the educational perspective, the stylistic perspective and the applied perspective.[2] The four perspectives are effectively interlinked and affect one another. Sociolinguistic perspective This perspective deals with how society views the impact of Internet development on languages.[1] The advent of the Internet has revolutionized communication in many ways; it changed the way people communicate and created new platforms with far-reaching social impact. Significant avenues include but are not limited to SMS Text Messaging, e-mails, chatgroups, virtual worlds and the Web.[2] The evolution of these new mediums of communications has raised much concern with regards to the way language is being used. According to Crystal (2005), these concerns are neither without grounds nor unseen in history – it surfaces almost always when a new technology breakthrough influences languages; as seen in the 15th century when printing was introduced, the 19th century when the telephone was invented and the 20th century when broadcasting began to penetrate our society.[2] At a personal level, CMC such as SMS Text Messaging and mobile emailing (push mail) has greatly enhanced instantaneous communication.[2] Some examples include the iPhone and the BlackBerry. Internet linguistics In schools, it is not uncommon for educators and students to be given personalized school email accounts for communication and interaction purposes. Classroom discussions are increasingly being brought onto the Internet in the form of discussion forums. For instance, at Nanyang Technological University, students engage in collaborative learning at the university’s portal – edveNTUre, where they participate in discussions on forums and online quizzes and view streaming podcasts prepared by their course instructors among others. iTunes U in 2008 began to collaborate with universities as they converted the Apple music service into a store that makes available academic lectures and scholastic materials for free – they have partnered more than 600 institutions in 18 countries including Oxford, Cambridge and Yale Universities.[6] These forms of academic social networking and media are slated to rise as educators from all over the world continue to seek new ways to better engage students. It is commonplace for students in New York University to interact with “guest speakers weighing in via Skype, library staffs providing support via instant messaging, and students accessing library resources from off campus.”[7] This will affect the way language is used as students and teachers begin to use more of these CMC platforms.[7] At a professional level, it is a common sight for companies to have their computers and laptops hooked up onto the Internet (via wired and wireless Internet connection) and employees having individual email accounts. This greatly facilitates internal (among staffs of the company) and external (with other parties outside of one’s organization) communication. Mobile communications such as smart phones are increasingly making their way into the corporate world. For instance, in 2008, Apple announced their intention to actively step up their efforts to help companies incorporate the iPhone into their enterprise environment, facilitated by technological developments in streamlining integrated features (push e-mail, calendar and contact management) using ActiveSync.[6] In general, these new CMCs that are made possible by the Internet have altered the way people use language – there is heightened informality and consequently a growing fear of its deterioration. However as David Crystal puts it, these should be seen positively as it reflects the power of the creativity of a language.[2] Themes The sociolinguistics of the Internet may also be examined through five interconnected themes.[8] 1. Multilingualism – It looks at the prevalence and status of various languages on the Internet. 2. Language change – From a sociolinguistic perspective, language change is influenced by the physical constraints of technology (e.g. typed text) and the shifting social-economic priorities such as globalization. It explores the linguistic changes over time, with emphasis on Internet lingo. 3. Conversation discourse – It explores the changes in patterns of social interaction and communicative practice on the Internet. 4. Stylistic diffusion – It involves the study of the spread of Internet jargons and related linguistic forms into common usage. As language changes, conversation discourse and stylistic diffusion overlap with the aspect of language stylistics. See below: Stylistic perspective 5. Metalanguage and folk linguistics – It involves looking at the way these linguistic forms and changes on the Internet are labelled and discussed (e.g. impact of Internet lingo resulted in the 'death' of the apostrophe and loss of capitalization.) 124 Educational perspective The educational perspective of internet linguistics examines the Internet's impact on formal language use, specifically on Standard English, which in turn affects language education.[2] The rise and rapid spread of Internet use has brought about new linguistic features specific only to the Internet platform. These include, but are not limited to, an increase in the use of informal written language, inconsistency in written styles and stylistics and the use of new abbreviations in Internet chats and SMS text messaging, where constraints of technology on word count Internet linguistics contributed to the rise of new abbreviations.[1] Such acronyms exist primarily for practical reasons — to reduce the time and effort required to communicate through these mediums apart from technological limitations. Examples of common acronyms include lol (for laughing out loud; a general expression of laughter), omg (oh my god) and gtg (got to go).[9] The educational perspective has been considerably established in the research on the Internet's impact on language education. It is an important and crucial aspect as it affects and involves the education of current and future student generations in the appropriate and timely use of informal language that arises from Internet usage. There are concerns for the growing infiltration of informal language use and incorrect word use into academic or formal situations, such as the usage of casual words like "guy" or the choice of the word "preclude" in place of "precede" in academic papers by students. There are also issues with spellings and grammar occurring at a higher frequency among students' academic works as noted by educators, with the use of abbreviations such as "u" for "you" and "2" for "to" being the most common.[10] Linguists and professors like Eleanor Johnson suspect that widespread mistakes in writing are strongly connected to Internet usage, where educators have similarly reported new kinds of spelling and grammar mistakes in student works. There is, however, no scientific evidence to confirm the proposed connection.[11] Though there are valid concerns about Internet usage and its impact on student's academic and formal writing, its severity is however enlarged by the informal nature of the new media platforms. Naomi S. Baron (2008) argues in Always On that student writings suffer little impact from the use of Internet-mediated communication (IMC) such as internet chat, SMS text messaging and e-mail.[12] A recent study published by the British Journal of Developmental Psychology found that students who regularly texted (sends message via SMS using a mobile phone) displayed a wider range of vocabulary and this may lead to a positive impact on their reading development.[13] Though the use of the Internet resulted in stylistics that are not deemed appropriate in academic and formal language use, it is to be noted that Internet use may not hinder language education but instead aid it. The Internet has proven in different ways that it can provide potential benefits in enhancing language learning, especially in second or foreign language learning. Language education through the Internet in relation to Internet linguisitics is, most significantly, applied through the communication aspect (use of e-mails, discussion forums, chat messengers, blogs, etc.).[14] IMC allows for greater interaction between language learners and native speakers of the language, providing for greater error corrections and better learning opportunities of standard language, in the process allowing the picking up of specific skills such as negotiation and persuasion.[14] 125 Stylistic perspective This perspective examines how the Internet and its related technologies have encouraged new and different forms of creativity in language, especially in literature.[2] It looks at the Internet as a medium through which new language phenomena have arisen. This new mode of language is interesting to study because it is an amalgam of both spoken and written languages. For example, traditional writing is static compared to the dynamic nature of the new language on the Internet where words can appear in different colors and font sizes on the computer screen.[15] Yet, this new mode of language also contains other elements not found in natural languages. One example is the concept of framing found in emails and discussion forums. In replying to emails, people generally use the sender’s email message as a frame to write their own messages. They can choose to respond to certain parts of an email message while leaving other bits out. In discussion forums, one can start a new thread and anyone regardless of their physical location can respond to the idea or thought that was set down through the Internet. This is something that is usually not found in written language.[] Future research also includes new varieties of expressions that the Internet and its various technologies are constantly producing and their effects not only on written languages but also their spoken forms.[2] The communicative style of Internet language is best observed in the CMC channels below, as there are often attempts to overcome technological restraints such as transmission time lags and to re-establish social cues that are often vague Internet linguistics in written text.[8] Mobile phones Mobile phones (also called "cell phones") have an expressive potential beyond their basic communicative functions. This can be seen in text-messaging poetry competitions such as the one held by The Guardian.[2] The 160-character limit imposed by the cell phone has motivated users to exercise their linguistic creativity to overcome them. A similar example of new technology with character constraints is Twitter, which has a 140-character limit. There have been debates as to whether these new abbreviated forms introduced in users’ Tweets are "lazy" or whether they are creative fragments of communication. Despite the on-going debate, there is no doubt that Twitter has contributed to the linguistic landscape with new lingoes and also brought about a new dimension of communication.[16] The cell phone has also created a new literary genre – cell phone novels. A typical cell phone novel consists of several chapters which readers download in short installments. These novels are in their "raw" form as they do not go through editing processes like traditional novels. They are written in short sentences, similar to text-messaging.[17] Authors of such novels are also able to receive feedbacks and new ideas from their readers through emails or online feedback channels. Unlike traditional novel writing, readers’ ideas sometimes get incorporated into the storyline or authors may also decide to change their story’s plot according to the demand and popularity of their novel (typically gauged by the number of download hits).[18] Despite their popularity, there has also been criticism regarding the novels’ "lack of diverse vocabulary" and poor grammar.[19] Blogs Blogging has brought about new ways of writing diaries and from a linguistic perspective, the language used in blogs is "in its most 'naked' form",[2] published for the world to see without undergoing the formal editing process. This is what makes blogs stand out because almost all other forms of printed language have gone through some form of editing and standardization.[20] David Crystal stated that blogs were "the beginning of a new stage in the evolution of the written language".[2] Blogs have become so popular that they have expanded beyond written blogs,[21] with the emergence of photoblog, videoblog, audioblog and moblog. These developments in interactive blogging have created new linguistic conventions and styles, with more expected to arise in the future.[20] Virtual worlds Virtual worlds provide insights into how users are adapting the usage of natural language for communication within these new mediums. The Internet language that has arisen through user interactions in text-based chatrooms and computer-simulated worlds has led to the development of slangs within digital communities. Examples of these include pwn and noob. Emoticons are further examples of how users have adapted different expressions to suit the limitations of cyberspace communication, one of which is the "loss of emotivity".[22] Communication in niches such as role-playing games (RPG) of Multi-User domains (MUDs) and virtual worlds is highly interactive, with emphasis on speed, brevity and spontaneity. As a result, CMC is generally more vibrant, volatile, unstructured and open. There are often complex organization of sequences and exchange structures evident in the connection of conversational strands and short turns. Some of the CMC strategies used include capitalization for words such as EMPHASIS, usage of symbols such as the asterisk to enclose words as seen in *stress* and the creative use of punctuation like ???!?!?!?.[8] Besides contributing to these new forms in language, virtual worlds are also being used to teach languages. Virtual world language learning provides students with simulations of real-life environments, allowing them to find creative ways to improve their language skills. Virtual worlds are good tools for language learning among the younger learners because they already see such places as a "natural place to learn and play".[23] 126 Internet linguistics Email One of the most popular Internet-related technologies to be studied under this perspective is email, which has expanded the stylistics of languages in many ways. A study done on the linguistic profile of emails has shown that there is a hybrid of speech and writing styles in terms of format, grammar and style.[24] Email is rapidly replacing traditional letter-writing because of its convenience, speed and spontaneity.[25] It is often related to informality as it feels temporary and can be deleted easily. However, as this medium of communication matures, email is no longer confined to sending informal messages between friends and relatives. Instead, business correspondences are increasingly being carried out through emails. Job seekers are also using emails to send their resumes to potential employers. The result of a move towards more formal usages will be a medium representing a range of formal and informal stylistics.[20] While email has been blamed for students’ increased usage of informal language in their written work, David Crystal argues that email is "not a threat, for language education" because email with its array of stylistic expressiveness can act as a domain for language learners to make their own linguistic choices responsibly. Furthermore, the younger generation’s high propensity for using email may improve their writing and communication skills because of the efforts they are making to formulate their thoughts and ideas, albeit through a digital medium.[25] Instant messaging Like other forms of online communication, instant messaging has also developed its own acronyms and short forms. However, instant messaging is quite different from email and chatgroups because it allows participants to interact with one another in real-time while conversing in private.[26] With instant messaging, there is an added dimension of familiarity among participants. This increased degree of intimacy allows greater informality in language and "typographical idiosyncrasies". There are also greater occurrences of stylistic variation because there can be a very wide age gap between participants. For example, a granddaughter can catch up with her grandmother through instant messaging. Unlike chatgroups where participants come together with shared interests, there is no pressure to conform in language here.[20] 127 Applied perspective The applied perspective views the linguistic exploitation of the Internet in terms of its communicative capabilities – the good and the bad.[1] The Internet provides a platform where users can experience multilingualism. Although English is still the dominant language used on the Internet, other languages are gradually increasing in their number of users.[8] The Global Internet usage page provides some information on the number of users of the Internet by language, nationality and geography. This multilingual environment continues to increase in diversity as more language communities become connected [27] to the Internet. The Internet is thus a platform where minority and Source: Internet World Stats endangered languages can seek to revive their language use and/or create awareness. This can be seen in two instances where it provides these languages opportunities for progress in two important regards - language documentation and language revitalization.[1] Internet linguistics Language documentation Firstly, the Internet facilitates language documentation. Digital archives of media such as audio and video recordings not only help to preserve language documentation, but also allows for global dissemination through the Internet.[28] Publicity about endangered languages, such as Webster (2003) has helped to spur a worldwide interest in linguistic documentation. Foundations such as the Hans Rausing Endangered Languages Project (HRELP), funded by Arcadia also help to develop the interest in linguistic documentation. The HRELP is a project that seeks to document endangered languages, preserve and disseminate documentation materials among others. The materials gathered are made available online under its Endangered Languages Archive (ELAR) program. Other online materials that support language documentation include the Language Archive Newsletter which provides news and articles about topics in endangered languages. The web version of Ethnologue also provides brief information of all of the world’s known living languages. By making resources and information of endangered languages and language documentation available on the Internet, it allows researchers to build on these materials and hence preserve endangered languages. Language revitalization Secondly, the Internet facilitates language revitalization. Throughout the years, the digital environment has developed in various sophisticated ways that allow for virtual contact. From e-mails, chats to instant messaging, these virtual environments have helped to bridge the spatial distance between communicators. The use of e-mails has been adopted in language courses to encourage students to communicate in various styles such as conference-type formats and also to generate discussions.[29] Similarly, the use of e-mails facilitates language revitalization in the sense that speakers of a minority language who moved to a location where their native language is not being spoken can take advantage of the Internet to communicate with their family and friends, thus maintaining the use of their native language. With the development and increasing use of telephone broadband communication such as Skype, language revitalization through the internet is no longer restricted to literate users.[1] Hawaiian educators have been taking advantage of the Internet in their language revitalization programs.[30] The graphical bulletin board system, Leoki (Powerful Voice), was established in 1994. The content, interface and menus of the system are entirely in the Hawaiian language. It is installed throughout the immersion school system and includes components for e-mails, chat, dictionary and online newspaper among others. In higher institutions such as colleges and universities where the Leoki system is not yet installed, the educators make use of other software and Internet tools such as Daedalus Interchange, e-mails and the Web to connect students of Hawaiian language with the broader community.[31] Another use of the Internet includes having students of minority languages write about their native cultures in their native languages for distant audiences. Also, in an attempt to preserve their language and culture, Occitan speakers have been taking advantage of the Internet to reach out to other Occitan speakers from around the world. These methods provide reasons for using the minority languages by communicating in it.[32][33] In addition, the use of digital technologies, which the young generation think of as ‘cool’, will appeal to them and in turn maintain their interest and usage of their native languages.[1] Exploitation of the Internet See also: Forensic linguistics The Internet can also be exploited for activities such as terrorism, internet fraud and pedophilia. In recent years, there has been an increase in crimes that involved the use of the Internet such as e-mails and Internet Relay Chat (IRC), as it is relatively easy to remain anonymous.[34] These conspiracies carry concerns for security and protection. From a forensic linguistic point of view, there are many potential areas to explore. While developing a chat room child protection procedure based on search terms filtering is effective, there is still minimal linguistically orientated 128 Internet linguistics literature to facilitate the task.[1] In other areas, it is observed that the Semantic Web has been involved in tasks such as personal data protection, which helps to prevent fraud.[35] 129 Dimensions of Internet linguistics The dimensions covered in this section include looking at the Web as a corpus and issues of language identification and normalization. The impacts of internet linguistics on everyday life are examined under the spread and influence of Internet stylistics, trends of language change on the Internet and conversation discourse. The Web as a corpus With the Web being a huge reservoir of data and resources, language scientists and technologist are increasingly turning to the web for language data.[4] Corpora were first formally mentioned in the field of computational linguistics at the 1989 ACL meeting in Vancouver. It was met with much controversy as they lacked theoretical integrity leading to much skepticism of their role in the field,[4] until the publication of the journal ‘Using Large Corpora’ in 1993[36] that the relationship between computational linguistics and corpora became widely accepted.[4] To establish whether the Web is a corpus, it is worthwhile to turn to the definition established by McEnery and Wilson (1996, pp 21).[37] In principle, any collection of more than one text can be called a corpus. . . . But the term “corpus” when used in the context of modern linguistics tends most frequently to have more specific connotations than this simple definition provides for. These may be considered under four main headings: sampling and representativeness, finite size, machine-readable form, a standard reference. — Tony McEnery and Andrew Wilson, Corpus Linguistics Relating closer to the Web as a Corpus, Manning and Schütze (1999, pp 120)[38] further streamlines the definition: In Statistical NLP [Natural Language Processing], one commonly receives as a corpus a certain amount of data from a certain domain of interest, without having any say in how it is constructed. In such cases, having more training data is normally more useful than any concerns of balance, and one should simply use all the text that is available. — Christopher Manning and Hinrich Schütze, Foundations of Statistical Language Processing Hit counts were used for carefully constructed search engine queries to identify rank orders for word sense frequencies, as an input to a word sense disambiguation engine.[39] This method was further explored with the introduction of the concept of a parallel corpora where the existing Web pages that exist in parallel in local and major languages be brought together.[40] It was demonstrated that it is possible to build a language-specific corpus from a single document in that specific language.[41] Themes There has been much discussion about the possible developments in the arena of the Web as a corpus. The development of using the web as a data source for word sense disambiguation was brought forward in The EU MEANING project in 2002.[42] It used the assumption that within a domain, words often have a single meaning, and that domains are identifiable on the Web. This was further explored by using Web technology to gather manual word sense annotations on the Word Expert Web site. In areas of language modeling, the Web has been used to address data sparseness. Lexical statistics have been gathered for resolving prepositional phrase attachments,[43] while Web document were used to seek a balance in the corpus.[44] In areas of information retrieval, a Web track was integrated as a component in the community’s TREC evaluation initiative. The sample of the Web used for this exercise amount to around 100GB, compromising of largely documents in the .gov top level domain.[45] Internet linguistics British National Corpus See also: British National Corpus The British National Corpus contains ample information on the dominant meanings and usage patterns for the 10,000 words that forms the core of English. The number of words in the British National Corpus (ca 100 million) is sufficient for many empirical strategies for learning about language for linguists and lexicographers,[4][46] and is satisfactory for technologies that utilize quantitative information about the behavior of words as input (parsing).[47][48] However, for some other purposes, it is insufficient, as an outcome of the Zipfian nature of word frequencies. Because the bulk of the lexical stock occurs less than 50 times in the British National Corpus, it is insufficient for statistically stable conclusions about such words. Furthermore for some rarer words, rare meanings of common words, and combinations of words, no data has been found. Researchers find that probabilistic models of language based on very large quantities of data are better than ones based on estimates from smaller, cleaner data sets.[4] The multilingual Web The Web is clearly a multilingual corpus. It is estimated that 71% of the pages (453 million out of 634 million Web pages indexed by the Excite engine) were written in English, followed by Japanese (6.8%), German (5.1%), French (1.8%), Chinese (1.5%), Spanish (1.1%), Italian (0.9%), and Swedish (0.7%).[49] A test to find contiguous words like ‘deep breath’ revealed 868,631 Web pages containing the terms in AlltheWeb. The number found through the search engines are more than three times the counts generated by the British National Corpus, indicating the significant size of the English corpus available on the Web. The massive size of text available on the Web can be seen in the analysis of controlled data in which corpora of different languages were mixed in various proportions. The estimated Web size in words by AltaVista saw English at the top of the list with 76,598,718,000 words. The next is German, with 7,035,850,000 words alongside with 6 other languages with over a billion hits. Even languages with fewer hits on the Web such as Slovenian, Croatian, Malay, and Turkish have more than one hundred million words on the Web.[50] This reveals the potential strength and accuracy of using the Web as a Corpus given its significant size, which warrants much additional research such as the project currently being carried out by the British National Corpus to exploit its scale.[4] Challenges In areas of language modeling, there are limitations on the applicability of any language model as the statistics for different types of text will be different.[51] When a language technology application is put into use (applied to a new text type), it is not certain that the language model will fare in the same way as how it would when applied to the training corpus. It is found that there are substantial variations in model performance when the training corpus changes.[52] This lack of theory types limits the assessment of the usefulness of language-modeling work. As Web texts are easily produced (in terms of cost and time) and with many different authors working on them, it often results in little concern for accuracy. Grammatical and typographical errors are regarded as “erroneous” forms that cause the Web to be a dirty corpus. Nonetheless, it may still be useful even with some noise.[4] The issue of whether sublanguages should be included remains unsettled. Proponents of it argue that with all sublanguages removed, it will result in an impoverished view of language. Since language is made up of lexicons, grammar and a wide array of different sublanguages, they should be included. However, it is not until recently that it became a viable option. Striking a middle ground by including some sublanguages is contentious because it’s an arbitrary issue of which to include and which not.[4] The decision of what to include in a corpus lies with corpus developers, and it has been done so with pragmatism.[4] The desiderata and criteria used for the British National Corpus serves as a good model for a general-purpose, general-language corpus[53] with the focus of being representative replaced with being balanced.[4] 130 Internet linguistics Search engines such as Google serves as a default means of access to the Web and its wide array of linguistics resources. However for linguists working in the field of corpora, there presents a number of challenges. This includes the limited instances that are presented by the search engines (1,000 or 5,000 maximum); insufficient context for each instance (Google provides a fragment of around ten words); results selected according to criteria that are distorted (from a linguistic point of view) as search term in titles and headings often occupy the top results slots; inability to allow searches to be specified according to linguistic criteria, such as the citation form for a word, or word class; unreliability of statistics, with results varying according to search engine load and many other factors. At present, in view of the conflicts of priorities among the different stakeholders, the best solution is for linguists to attempt to correct these problems by themselves. This will then lead to a large number of possibilities opening in the area of harnessing the rich potential of the Web.[4] Representation Despite the sheer size of the Web, it may still not be representative of all the languages and domains in the world, and neither are other corpora. However, the huge quantities of text, in numerous languages and language types on a huge range of topics makes it a good starting point that opens up to large number of possibilities in the study of corpora.[4] 131 Impact of its spread and influence Stylistics arising from Internet usage has spread beyond the new media into other areas and platforms, including but not limited to, films, music and literary works. The infiltration of Internet stylistics is important as mass audiences are exposed to the works, reinforcing certain Internet specific language styles which may not be acceptable in standard or more formal forms of language. Apart from internet slang, grammatical errors and typographical errors are features of writing on the Internet and other CMC channels. As users of the Internet gets accustomed to these errors, it progressively infiltrates into everyday language use, in both written and spoken forms.[1] It is also common to witness such errors in mass media works, from typographical errors in news articles to grammatical errors in advertisements and even internet slang in drama dialogues. Mass media There has been instances of television advertisements using Internet slang, reinforcing the penetration of Internet stylistics in everyday language use. For example, in the Cingular commercial in the United States, acronyms such as "BFF Jill" (which means "Best Friend Forever, Jill") were used. More businesses have adopted the use of Internet slang in their advertisements as the more people are growing up using the Internet and other CMC platforms, in an attempt to relate and connect to them better.[54] Such commercials have received relatively enthusiastic feedback from its audiences.[54] The use of Internet lingo has also spread into the arena of music, significantly seen in popular music. A recent example is Trey Songz's lyrics for "LOL :-)", which incorporated many Internet lingo and mentions of Twitter and texting.[55] The spread of Internet linguistics is also present in films made by both commercial and independent filmmakers. Though primarily screened at film festivals, DVDs of independent films are often available for purchase over the internet including paid-live-streamings, making access to films more easily available for the public.[56] The very nature of commercial films being screened at public cinemas allows for the wide exposure to the mainstream mass audience, resulting in a faster and wider spread of Internet slangs. The latest commercial film is titled "LOL" (acronym for Laugh Out Loud or Laughing Out Loud), starring Miley Cyrus and Demi Moore.[57] This movie is a 2011 remake of the Lisa Azuelos' 2008 popular French film similarly titled "LOL (Laughing Out Loud)".[58] Internet linguistics The use of internet slangs is not limited to the English language but extends to other languages as well. The Korean language has incorporated the English alphabet in the formation of its slang, while others were formed from common misspellings arising from fast typing. The new Korean slang is further reinforced and brought into everyday language use by television shows such as soap operas or comedy dramas like “High Kick Through the Roof” released in 2009.[59] 132 Linguistic future of the Internet With the emergence of greater computer/Internet mediated communication systems, coupled with the readiness with which people adapt to meet the new demands of a more technologically sophisticated world, it is expected that users will continue to remain under pressure to alter their language use to suit the new dimensions of communication.[4] As the number of Internet users increase rapidly around the world, the cultural background, linguistic habits and language differences among users are brought into the Web at a much faster pace. These individual differences among Internet users will significantly impact the future of Internet linguistics, notably in the aspect of the multilingual web. The Internet is on its way to becoming a more diverse multilingual Web, Global Internet Users. - Internet World Stats with a wider variety of languages being used. As seen from 2000 to 2010, Internet penetration has experienced its greatest growth in non-English speaking countries such as China, India and Africa,[60] resulting in more languages apart from English penetrating the Web. Also, the interaction between English and other languages will be an important area of study. As global users interact with each other, possible references to different languages may continue to increase, resulting in formation of new Internet stylistics that spans across languages. Chinese and Korean languages have already experienced English language's infiltration leading to the formation of their multilingual Internet lingo.[61] At current state, the Internet provides a form of education and promotion for minority languages. However, similar to how cross-language interaction has resulted in English language's infiltration into Chinese and Korean languages to form new slangs,[61] minority languages are also affected by the more common languages used on the Internet (such as English and Spanish). While language interaction can cause a loss in the authentic standard of minority languages, familiarity of the majority language can also affect the minority languages in adverse ways.[5] For example, users attempting to learn the minority language may opt to read and understand about it in a majority language and stop there, resulting in a loss instead of gain in the potential speakers of the minority language.[62] Also, speakers of minority languages may be encouraged to learn the more common languages that are being used on the Web in order to gain access to more resources, and in turn leading to a decline in their usage of their own language.[63] The future of endangered minority languages in view of the spread of Internet remains to be observed. References [1] "Language Development via The Internet" (http:/ / www. learnchinese1on1. com). ScienceDaily. February 28, 2005. . [2] Crystal, David (2005). "The Scope of Internet Linguistics" (http:/ / www. davidcrystal. com/ DC_articles/ Internet2. pdf). paper presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting. . [3] Martín del Pozo, Maria Angeles (May 8, 2005). "Linguistics and web usability" (http:/ / www. nosolousabilidad. com/ articulos/ linguistics. htm). Research Paper 4. ISSN 1886-8592. . Retrieved 2010-10-21. [4] Kilgarriff, Adam; Grefenstette, Gregory (September 2003). "Introduction to the Special Issue on the Web as Corpus" (http:/ / www. aclweb. org/ anthology-new/ J/ J03/ J03-3001. pdf). Computational Linguistics (MIT Press) 29 (3): 333–347. doi:10.1162/089120103322711569. . [5] Cunliffe, Daniel; Herring, Susan C. (December 2005). "Introduction to Minority Languages, Multimedia and the Web" (http:/ / www. informaworld. com/ smpp/ section?content=a727453066& fulltext=713240928#references). New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia (Informa world) 11 (2): 131–137. doi:10.1080/13614560512331392186. . Retrieved 2010-11-12. [6] Cohen, Peter (7 March 2008). "iPhone Takes on the BlackBerry" (http:/ / www. pcworld. com/ article/ 143187/ iphone_takes_on_the_blackberry. html). PC World. . Retrieved 2010-10-31. Internet linguistics [7] Cohen, Peter (30 March 2010). "Universities Use Social Media to Connect" (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2010/ 03/ 31/ education/ 31iht-riedsoc. html?_r=1). The New York Times. . Retrieved 2010-10-31. [8] Thurlow, Crispin (2001). "The Internet and Language" (http:/ / faculty. washington. edu/ thurlow/ papers/ Thurlow(2001)-EofSLX. pdf). In Mesthrie, R.; Asher, R.. Concise Encyclopedia of Sociolinguistics. London: Pergamon. pp. 287–289. ISBN 0-08-043726-5. . Retrieved 2010-11-09. [9] Nazaryan, Ani; Gridchin, Aleksandr (2006). "The Influence of Internet on Language and "Email Stress"" (http:/ / facta. junis. ni. ac. rs/ lap/ lap2006/ lap2006-03. pdf). Law and Politics 4 (1): 23–27. . Retrieved 2010-10-19. [10] Hayslett, Chandra M. (2006-11-26). "No LOL Matter: Cyber lingo shows up in academia" (http:/ / seattletimes. nwsource. com/ html/ nationworld/ 2003448269_student26. html). The Seattle Times. . Retrieved 2010-11-06. [11] Abrams, Rachel (2010-01-16). "Experts divided over Internet changes to Language" (http:/ / www. voanews. com/ english/ news/ science-technology/ Experts-Divided-Over-Internet-Changes-to-Language-81898572. html). VOANews. . Retrieved 2010-10-19. [12] Naomi, S. Baron (2008). Always On. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-531305-4. [13] "Texting 'improves language skill'" (http:/ / news. bbc. co. uk/ 2/ hi/ technology/ 7910075. stm). BBC. 2009-02-25. . Retrieved 2010-11-04. [14] Xie, Tim (June 2008). "Globalization and Language Education" (http:/ / learningchineseonline. net/ PPT/ Globalization/ globalization_and_lang_ed. ppt). Presentation. . Retrieved 2010-10-19. [15] Cook, Franklin (2001). "Linguists See Internet Lingo as Cultural Catalyst" (http:/ / www. yourdictionary. com/ library/ article010. html). yourdictionary.com. . Retrieved 2010-11-08. [16] Clark, Roy Peter (4 September 2009). "From Telegraph to Twitter: The Language of the Short Form" (http:/ / www. poynter. org/ column. asp?id=78& aid=169118). Poynter Online. . Retrieved 2010-10-21. [17] Onishi, Norimitsu (20 January 2008). "Thumbs Race as Japan’s Best Sellers Go Cellular" (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2008/ 01/ 20/ world/ asia/ 20japan. html). The New York Times. . Retrieved 2010-11-07. [18] "Cell Phones Put to Novel Use" (http:/ / www. wired. com/ gadgets/ miscellaneous/ news/ 2005/ 03/ 66950). Associated Press. 18 March 2005. . Retrieved 2010-11-08. [19] Galbraith, Patrick W (2010). "Cell phone novels come of age" (http:/ / www. japantoday. com/ category/ entertainment-arts/ view/ cell-phone-novels-come-of-age). Metropolis Magazine. . Retrieved 2010-11-08. [20] Crystal, David (2006). Language and the Internet. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-86859-4. [21] Francisco, San (18 March 2003). "Success of blogs heralds an even bigger future" (http:/ / www. theage. com. au/ articles/ 2003/ 03/ 18/ 1047749747469. html). The Age. Associated Press (Melbourne). . Retrieved 2010-11-10. [22] Cicognani, Anna (1998). "On The Linguistic Nature of Cyberspace and Virtual Communities" (http:/ / www. springerlink. com/ content/ rj6211470t19x33n/ ). Virtual Reality (Springer) 3 (1): 16–24. doi:10.1007/BF01409794. . Retrieved 2010-11-06. [23] "Language Teaching Gains Second Life: Virtual Worlds Offer New Methods to Teach Languages" (http:/ / www. scribd. com/ doc/ 2569361/ Language-Teaching-Gains-Second-Life-Virtual-Worlds-Offer-New-Methods-to-Teach-Languages) (Press release). Avatar English. 2007. . Retrieved 2010-11-08. [24] Baron, Naomi S. (1998). "Letters by phone or speech by other means: the linguistics of email" (http:/ / www1. american. edu/ lfs/ tesol/ Letters by Phone 1. pdf). Language and Communication (London: Pergamon) 18 (2): 133–70. doi:10.1016/S0271-5309(98)00005-6. . Retrieved 2010-11-08. [25] Olsen, Stefanie; Suri, Sabena (24 August 2007). "Say so long to traditional letter writing" (http:/ / news. cnet. com/ Say-so-long-to-traditional-letter-writing/ 2009-1025_3-6204248. html). CNET News. . Retrieved 2010-11-10. [26] The EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (November 2005). "7 Things You Should Know About Instant Messaging" (http:/ / net. educause. edu/ ir/ library/ pdf/ ELI7008. pdf). 7 Things You Should Know About... (EDUCAUASE Learning Initiative). . Retrieved 2010-11-10. [27] http:/ / www. internetworldstats. com/ stats7. htm [28] Johnson, Heidi (2004). "Language Documentation and Archiving, or How to Build a Better Corpus" (http:/ / www. hrelp. org/ events/ workshops/ eldp2008_6/ resources/ johnson. pdf). In Austin, Peter K.. Language Documentation and Description. 2. London: SOAS. pp. 140–153. . Retrieved 2010-11-06. [29] Singhal, Meena (June 1997). "The Internet and Foreign Language Education: Benefits and Challenges" (http:/ / iteslj. org/ Articles/ Singhal-Internet. html). The Internet TESFL Journal III (6). . Retrieved 2010-11-06. [30] Warschauer, Mark (1998). "Technology and Indigenous Language Revitalization: Analyzing the Experience of Hawai'i" (http:/ / www. gse. uci. edu/ person/ warschauer_m/ revitalization. html). Canadian Modern Language Review 55 (1): 140–161. doi:10.3138/cmlr.55.1.139. . Retrieved 2010-11-06. [31] Warschauer, Mark (2000). "Language, identity, and the Internet" (http:/ / motspluriels. arts. uwa. edu. au/ MP1901mw. html). Race in Cyberspace. New York: Routledge. . Retrieved 201-11-06. [32] Wright, Sue (2007). "The Right to Speak One's Own Language: Reflections on Theory and Practice". Language Policy 6 (2): 203–224. doi:10.1007/s10993-007-9050-y. [33] Cazden, Courtney B. (2003). "Sustaining Indigenous Languages in Cyberspace" (http:/ / jan. ucc. nau. edu/ jar/ NNL/ NNL_4. pdf). In Reyhner, J.; Trujillo, O.; Carrasco, R. L. et al.. Nurturing Native Languages. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University. pp. 53–57. . Retrieved 2010-11-06. [34] British Association for the Advancement of Science (8 September 2008). "Txt Crimes, Sex Crimes And Murder: The Science Of Forensic Linguistics" (http:/ / www. sciencedaily. com/ releases/ 2008/ 09/ 080908073841. htm). ScienceDaily. . Retrieved 2010-11-06. 133 Internet linguistics [35] Lee, Ryan (2002). Personal Data Protection in the Semantic Web (http:/ / www. w3. org/ 2002/ 01/ pedal/ thesis. html) (PhD thesis). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. . Retrieved 2010-11-06. [36] Church, Kenneth; Mercer, Robert (1993). "Introduction to the special issue on computational linguistics using large corpora". Computational Linguistics (MIT Press) 19 (1): 1–24. [37] McEnery, Tony; Wilson, Andrew (1996). Corpus Linguistics (http:/ / icame. uib. no/ ij21/ meyer. pdf). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 0-7486-0808-7. . [38] Manning, Christopher; Schütze, Hinrich (1999). Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. Cambridge: MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-13360-1. [39] Mihalcea, Rada; Moldovan, Dan (1999). "A method for word sense disambiguation of unrestricted text". Proceedings of the 37th Meeting of ACL. College Park, Maryland. pp. 152–158. [40] Resnik, Philip (1999). "A method for word sense disambiguation of unrestricted text". Proceedings of the 37th Meeting of ACL. College Park, Maryland. pp. 152–158. [41] Jones, Rosie; Rayid, Ghani (2000). "Automatically building a corpus for a minority language from the Web". Proceedings of the Student Workshop of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Hong Kong. pp. 29–36. [42] Rigau, German; Magnini, Bernardo; Agirre, Eneko; Carroll, John (2002). "Meaning: A roadmap to knowledge technologies.". Proceedings of COLING Workshop on A Roadmap for Computational Linguistics. Taipei, Taiwan. [43] Volk, Martin (2001). "Exploiting the WWW as a corpus to resolve PP attachment ambiguities". Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2001. Lancaster, England. [44] "A corpus balancing method for language model construction". Fourth International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics (CICLing-2003). Taipei, Taiwan. 2003. pp. 393–401. [45] Hawking, David; Voorhees, Ellen; Craswell, Nick; Bailey, Peter (1999). "Overview of the TREC8 Web track". Proceedings of the Eighth Text Retrieval Conference. Gaithersburg, Maryland. [46] Baker, Colin; Fillmore, Charles; Lowe, John (1998). "The Berkeley FrameNet Project". Proceedings of COLING-ACL. Montreal. pp. 86–90. [47] Briscoe, Ted; Carroll, John (1997). "Automatic extraction of subcategorization from corpora". Proceedings of the fifth Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing. Washington, DC. pp. 356–363. [48] Korhonen, Anna (2000). "Using semantically motivated estimates to help subcategorization acquisition". Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in NLK and Very Large Corpora. Hong Kong. pp. 216–223. [49] Xu, J.L. (2000). "Multilingual search on the World Wide Web". Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS-33). Maui, Hawaii. [50] Grefenstette, Gregory; Nioche, Julien (2000). "Estimation of English and non-English use on the WWW". Proceedings of the RIAO (Recherche d’Informations Assiste ́e par Ordinateur). Paris. pp. 237–246. [51] Biber, Douglas (1993). "Using register-diversified corpora for general language studies". Computational Linguistics (MIT Press) 19 (2): 219–242. [52] Sekine, Satshi (1997). "The domain dependence of parsing". Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing. Washington, DC. pp. 96–102. [53] Atkins, Sue; Clear, Jeremy; Ostler, Nicholas (January 1992). "Corpus design criteria" (http:/ / llc. oxfordjournals. org/ content/ 7/ 1/ 1. abstract). Literary and Linguistic Computing (Oxford Journals) 7 (1): 1–16. doi:10.1093/llc/7.1.1. . [54] Pawelski, Amanda. "Using Internet Slang in Spoken Conversation: LOL!" (http:/ / amandapawelski. com/ InternetSlang. pdf). Research Paper. United States: Colorado State University. . Retrieved 2010-11-06. [55] Songz, Trey. "LOL :-) Ft. Gucci Mane & Soulja Boy Tell 'Em" (http:/ / www. treysongz. com/ music/ lol-ft-gucci-mane-soulja-boy/ ). Song. Trey Songz. . Retrieved 2010-11-07. [56] Swanberg, Joe(Director) (2006). LOL - The Movie (http:/ / www. lolthemovie. com/ ) (Movie). America: Swanberg, Joe. . Retrieved 2010-11-08. [57] Kaufman, Gil (29 October 2010). "Miley Cyrus' Movie 'LOL' Picked Up By Distributor" (http:/ / www. mtv. com/ news/ articles/ 1651097/ 20101029/ cyrus__miley. jhtml). MTV News (MTV). . Retrieved 2010-11-08. [58] Azuelos, Lisa (Director) (2008). [[LOL (Laughing Out Loud) (http:/ / www. imdb. com/ title/ tt1194616/ )]] (Movie). France: Azuelos, Lisa. . Retrieved 2010-11-08. [59] "Korean Language in Contemporary Society" (http:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Korean_Language_in_Contemporary_Society). Wikipedia Article. . Retrieved 2010-11-08. [60] Internet World Stats (2010-06-30). "Internet Usage Statistics - World Internet Users and Population Stats" (http:/ / www. internetworldstats. com/ stats. htm). Statistics. Miniwatts Marketing Group. . Retrieved 2010-11-11. [61] Butterfield, Jessica M.; Na, Pan. "A Comparison of English and Chinese Internet Language" (http:/ / www. public. iastate. edu/ ~napan/ works/ A Comparison of English and Chinese Internet Language. pdf). Research Paper. . Retrieved 2010-11-11. [62] Martín, Santiago Jorge Paricio; Cortés, Juan Pablo Martinez (May 2010). "New ways to revitalise minority language: the impact of the Internet in the case of Aragonese" (http:/ / webcache. googleusercontent. com/ search?q=cache:Mdz6uCZm5aMJ:www. uoc. edu/ ojs/ index. php/ digithum/ article/ viewDownloadInterstitial/ n12-paricio-martinez/ n12-paricio-martinez-eng+ New+ ways+ to+ revitalise+ minority+ language:+ the+ impact+ of+ the+ Internet+ in+ the+ case+ of+ Aragonese& cd=1& hl=en& ct=clnk). Digithum: the Humanities in the Digital Era (UOC) (12). . Retrieved 2010-11-12. [63] Crystal, David (2003). English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 134 Internet linguistics 135 Further reading • Aitchison, J., & Lewis, D. M. (Eds.). (2003). New Media Language. London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-28303-5 • Baron, N. S. (2000). Alphabet to Email: How Written English Evolved and Where It’s Heading. London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-18685-4 • Beard, A. (2004). Language Change. London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-32056-9 • Biewer, C., Nesselhauf, N., & Hundt, M. (Eds.). (2006). Corpus Linguistics and the Web. The Netherlands: Rodopi. ISBN 90-420-2128-4 • Boardman, M. (2005). The Language of Websites. New York and London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-32854-3 • Crystal, D. (2004). A Glossary of Netspeak and Textspeak. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 0-7486-1982-8 • Crystal, D. (2004). The Language Revolution (Themes for the 21st Century). United Kingdom: Polity Press Ltd. ISBN 0-7456-3312-9 • Crystal, D. (2006). Language and the Internet (2nd Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-86859-4 • Crystal, D. (2011). Internet Linguistics: A Student Guide. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-60271-6 • Dieter, J. (2007). Webliteralität: Lesen und Schreiben im World Wide Web. ISBN 3-8334-9729-7 • Enteen, J. (2010). Virtual English: Internet Use, Language, and Global Subjects. London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-97724-X • Gerrand, P. (2009). Minority Languages on the Internet: Promoting the Regional Languages of Spain. VDM Verlag. ISBN 3-639-19111-0 • Gibbs, D., & Krause, K. (Eds.). (2006). Cyberlines 2.0.: Languages and Cultures of the Internet. Australia: James Nicholas Publishers. ISBN 1-875408-42-8 • Jenkins, J. (2003). World Englishes: A Resource Book for Students. London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-25806-5 • Macfadyen, L. P., Roche, J., & Doff, S. (2005). Communicating Across Cultures in Cyberspace : A Bibliographical Review of Intercultural Communication Online. Lit Verlag. ISBN 3-8258-7613-6 • Thurlow, C., Lengel, L. B., & Tomic, A. (2004). Computer Mediated Communication: Social Interaction and the Internet. London: Sage Publications. ISBN 0-7619-4954-2 Language assessment 136 Language assessment Language assessment or language testing is a field of study under the umbrella of applied linguistics. Its main focus is the assessment of first, second or other language in the school, college, or university context; assessment of language use in the workplace; and assessment of language in the immigration, citizenship, and asylum contexts.[1] The assessment may include listening, speaking, reading, writing or cultural understanding. Equal weightage may be placed on knowledge (understanding how the language works theoretically) and proficiency (ability to use the language practically), or greater weightage may be given to one aspect or the other.[2] History The earliest works in language assessment in the US date back to the 1950s to the pioneering studies and test created by Robert Lado and David Harris. The earliest large scale assessment in the US was the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) that was launched in 1961 by Educational Testing Service, ETS, Princeton, New Jersey. This test was designed to assess the English language ability of students applying for admission to US and Canadian colleges and universities. This test, which is used widely around the world, is still in use although it is now only available in the internet-based format (now called the TOEFL iBT[3]). Many tests from other companies, universities and agencies compete for this market: iTEP (International Test of English Proficiency), the Canadian English Language Proficiency Index Program (CELPIP) Test, the Pearson Language Test's Pearson Test of English (PTE), the University of Michigan's Michigan English Language Assessment Battery (MELAB) and the University of Cambridge, the British Council and the Australian IDP's International English Language Testing System (IELTS). In the US, non-profit and other organizations such as the Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C. and Language Testing International, White Plains, NY have developed language tests that are used by many public and private agencies. Many universities too, like the University of California, Los Angeles, Teachers College, Columbia University, and the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, have developed English (and other) language tests to assess the abilities of their students and teaching assistants. These language assessments are generally known as proficiency or achievement assessments. Other modern English language tests developed include The General English Proficiency Test (GEPT) in Taiwan, the College English Test in China, and the STEP Eiken in Japan. New technology has also made a presence in the field: Versant's English and Dutch assessments use phone technology to record the speaking and automated scoring of their speaking tests, and the ETS is currently experimenting with automated scoring of their writing tests. Organizations The International Language Testing Association (ILTA) is one of the many organizations that organizes conferences, workshops, and a public forum for the discussion of important matters. ILTA's major annual conference is the Language Testing Research Colloquium. In 2008, the conference will be in Hangzhou, China, and in 2009 in Denver, Colorado. ILTA's Lifetime Achievement Award winners include: Alan Davies (UK), Lyle Bachman (USA), Bernard Spolsky (Israel), John Clark (USA), Charles Alderson (UK) and Elana Shohamy (Israel). Other well-known scholars who have not yet won the award include Kenji Ohtomo (Japan), Gui Sihuan (China), Merrill Swain (Canada), Carol Chapelle (USA), Tim McNamara (Australia), Dan Douglas (USA), Liz Hamp-Lyons (UK), and John Oller (USA). Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, the home of the TOEFL, offers an annual outstanding Doctoral Dissertation Award in Second or Foreign Language and the University of Cambridge, UK, also offers an annual outstanding Masters Degree Award in second language testing. In Europe, there are two organizations: the Association of Language Testers of Europe (ALTE) and the European Association for Language Testing and Assessment (EALTA). All of these associations have developed Codes of Ethics and Practice that all language Language assessment assessment professionals are expected to adhere to. 137 Annual conferences There are many annual conferences on general or specific topics. Among the most important conferences is ILTA's official conference: the Language Testing Research Colloquium (LTRC), which has been held every year since 1978. In the last few years, it has been held in different parts of the world: Temecula, California, USA (2004); Ottawa, Canada (2005); Melbourne, Australia (2006); Barcelona, Spain (2007); Hangzhou, China (2008), and Denver, Colorado (2009), Cambridge (2010) and Ann Arbor, Michigan (2011). ALTE's official conferences too are held in different cities in Europe: Barcelona, Spain (2002); Berlin, Germany (2005); Cambridge, UK (2008) with regional conferences in Perugia, Prague, Budapest, Sofia, and Lisbon. Similarly, there are regional meetings in China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. Publications There are two premier journals in the field: Language Assessment Quarterly (published by Routledge/Taylor & Francis) currently edited by Antony John Kunnan and Language Testing (published by Sage Publications) currently edited by Glenn Fulcher and Cathie Elder that publishes major findings from researchers. Both these journals are indexed in Thompson's SSCI list. Other journals that publish articles from the field include Applied Linguistics, Language Learning, TESOL Quarterly, Assessing Writing, and System. Some of these journals have special issue volumes on Ethics in language assessment, structural equation modeling, language assessment in Asia, Classroom assessment, etc. and commentaries, brief reports, and book and test reviews. The field has exploded in the last twenty years in terms of textbooks and research publications. The most popular books include: Lyle Bachman's Fundamental considerations in language testing, and Statistical Analyses for Language Assessment, Lyle Bachman and Adrian Palmer's Language Testing in Practice and Language Assessment in Practice, Charles Alderson's Assessing Reading, John Read's Assessing Vocabulary, James Purpura's Assessing Grammar, Gary Buck's Assessing Listening, Sara Weigle's Assessing Writing, and edited volumes: Alister Cumming's Valdiation in Language Testing, Antony John Kunnan's Validation in Language Assessment, and Fairness in Language Assessment. The most popular book series are Michael Milanovic, Cyril Weir, and Lynda Taylor's Studies in Language Testing series, and Lyle Bachman and Charles Alderson's Cambridge Language Assessment Series. Courses Language assessment or language testing courses are taught as required or elective courses in many graduate and doctoral programs, particularly in the subjects of applied linguistics, English for Speakers of Other Languages, English as a second or foreign language, or educational linguistics. These programs are known as MA or PhD programs in Applied Linguistics, Educational Linguistics, TESOL, TEFL, or TESL. The focus of most courses is on test development, psychometric qualities of tests, validity, reliability and fairness of tests, and classical true score measurement theory. Additional courses focus on item response theory, factor analysis, structural equation modeling, G theory, latent growth modeling, qualitative analysis of test performance data such as conversation and discourse analysis, and politics and language policy issues. Universities that have regular courses and programs that focus on language assessment at the Ph.D. level include UCLA, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, University of Hawai'i, Manoa, Teachers College, Columbia University, Penn State University, Georgia State University, Northern Arizona University, McGill University, University of Toronto, University of Lancaster, University of Bristol, University of Cambridge, and University of Bedfordshire; at the MA level include California State Universities at Fullerton, Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Jose, and San Francisco. Language assessment 138 References [1] Hornberger, Nancy H.; Shohamy, Elana (2008). Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Volume 7: Language Testing and Assessment. Berlin: Springer. ISBN 0-387-32875-0. [2] http:/ / hrd. apec. org/ index. php/ Language_Assessment APEC Human Resources Development Working Group [3] About the TOEFL iBT Test http:/ / www. ets. org/ toefl/ ibt/ about/ Retrieved 23 November 2010 External links • International Language Testing Association (http://www.iltaonline.com/) • Language Testing (http://ltj.sagepub.com/) • Language Assessment Quarterly (http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/journal.asp?issn=1543-4303& subcategory=ED200000) • European Association for Language Testing and Assessment (http://www.ealta.eu.org/) • Association of Language Testers of Europe (http://www.alte.org/) • Language Testing International (http://www.languagetesting.com/) • Language Testing Resources (http://languagetesting.info/) • Language Testing in Asia (http://www.languagetestingasia.com/) Language development Language development is a process starting early in human life. Infants start without language, yet by 4 months of age, babies can discriminate speech sounds and engage in babbling. Some research has shown that the earliest learning begins in utero when the fetus starts to recognize the sounds and speech patterns of its mother's voice. Usually, productive language is considered to begin with a stage of preverbal communication in which infants use gestures and vocalizations to make their intents known to others. According to a general principle of development, new forms then take over old functions, so that children learn words to express the same communicative functions which they had already expressed by preverbal means. Theoretical frameworks of language development Language development is thought to proceed by ordinary processes of learning in which children acquire the forms, meanings and uses of words and utterances from the linguistic input. The method in which we develop language skills is universal[1] however, the major debate is how the rules of syntax are acquired. There are two major approaches to syntactic development, an empiricist account by which children learn all syntactic rules from the linguistic input, and a nativist approach by which some principles of syntax are innate and are transmitted through the human genome. The nativist theory, proposed by Noam Chomsky, argues that language is a unique human accomplishment. Chomsky says that all children have what is called an LAD, an innate language acquisition device that allows children to produce consistent sentences once vocabulary is learned. His claim is based upon the view that what children hear - their linguistic input - is insufficient to explain how they come to learn language. While this view has dominated linguistic theory for over fifty years and remains highly influential, as witnessed by the number of articles in journals, and books. The empiricist theory suggests, contra Chomsky, that there is enough information in the linguistic input that children receive, and therefore there is no need to assume an innate language acquisition device (see above). Some researchers in this tradition employ a methodology involving the construction of computational models that learn aspects of language and/or that simulate the type of linguistic output produced by children, such as the statistical learning theories suggested by Saffran,[2] such as connectionist models and chunking theories. Language development Other researchers embrace an interactionist perspective, consisting of social-interactionist theories of language development. In such approaches, children learn language in the interactive and communicative context, learning language forms for meaningful moves of communication. These theories focus mainly on the caregiver's attitudes and attentiveness to their children in order to promote productive language habits.[3] An older empiricist theory, the behaviorist theory proposed by B. F. Skinner suggested that language is learned through operant conditioning, namely, by imitation of stimuli and by reinforcement of correct responses . This perspective has not been widely accepted at any time, but by some accounts, is experiencing a resurgence.[4] Some empiricist theory accounts today use behaviorist models.[5] Other relevant theories about language development include Piaget's theory of cognitive development, which considers the development of language as a continuation of general cognitive development[6] and Vygotsky's social theories that attribute the development of language to an individual's social interactions and growth.[7] 139 Biological preconditions Evolutionary biologists are skeptical of the claim that syntactic knowledge is transmitted in the human genome. However, many researchers claim that the ability to acquire such a complicated system is unique to the human species. Non-biologists also tend to believe that our ability to learn spoken language may have been developed through the evolutionary process and that the foundation for language may be passed down genetically. The ability to speak and understand human language requires a specific vocal apparatus as well as a nervous system with certain capabilities. One hotly debated issue is whether the biological contribution includes capacities specific to language acquisition, often referred to as universal grammar. For fifty years, linguist Noam Chomsky has argued for the hypothesis that children have innate, language-specific abilities that facilitate and constrain language learning. In particular, he has proposed that humans are biologically prewired to learn language at a certain time and in a certain way, arguing that children are born with a Language Acquisition Device (LAD).[8] However, since he developed the Minimalist Program, his latest version of theory of syntactic structure, Chomsky has reduced the elements of universal grammar which are in his opinion to be prewired in humans to just the principle of recursion, thus voiding most of the nativist endeavor.[9] Researchers who believe that grammar is learned rather than innate, have hypothesized that language learning results from general cognitive abilities and the interaction between learners and their human interactants. It has also recently been suggested that the relatively slow development of the prefrontal cortex in humans may be one reason that humans are able to learn language, whereas other species are not.[10][11] Gender Differences Children versus adults It seems as if during the early years of language development females exhibit an advantage over males of the same age. When infants between the age of 16 to 22 months were observed interacting with their mothers, a female advantage was obvious. The females in this age range showed more spontaneous speech production than the males and this finding was not due to mothers speaking more with daughters than sons (Huttenlocher, Haight, Bryk, Seltzer, and Lyons 1991). In addition, boys between 2 and 6 years as a group did not show higher performance in language development over their girl counterparts on experimental assessments. In studies using adult populations, 18 and over, it seems that the female advantage may be task dependent. Depending on the task provided, a female advantage may or may not be present (Bornstein, Hahn and Haynes 2004). Language development 140 Lateralization effect on language It is currently believed that in regards to brain lateralization males are left lateralized, while females are bilateralized. Studies on patients with unilateral lesions have provided evidence that females are in fact more bilateralized with their verbal abilities. It seems that when a female has experienced a lesion to the left hemisphere she is better able to compensate for this damage than a male can. If a male has a lesion in the left hemisphere his verbal abilities are greatly impaired in comparison to a control male of the same age without that damage (Frith and Vargha-Khadem 2001). However, these results may also be task dependent as well as time dependent (Kansaku and Kitazawa 2001). Environmental Influences The environment a child develops in has influences on language development. The environment provides language input for the child to process. Speech by adults to children help provide the child with correct language usage repetitively. Environmental influences on language development are explored in the tradition of social interactionist theory by such researchers as Jerome Bruner, Alison Gopnik, Andrew Meltzoff, Anat Ninio, Roy Pea, Catherine Snow, Ernest Moerk and Michael Tomasello. Jerome Bruner who laid the foundations of this approach in the 1970s, emphasized that adult "scaffolding" of the child's attempts to master linguistic communication is an important factor in the developmental process. One component of the young child's linguistic environment is child-directed speech (also known as baby talk or motherese), which is language spoken in a higher pitch than normal with simple words and sentences. Although the importance of its role in developing language has been debated, many linguists think that it may aid in capturing the infant's attention and maintaining communication.[12] When children begin to communicate with adults, this motherese speech allows the child the ability to discern the patterns in language and to experiment with language. Throughout research done, it is concluded that children exposed to extensive vocabulary and complex grammatical structures more quickly develop language and also have a more accurate syntax than children raised in environments without complex grammar exposed to them. With motherese, the mother talks to the child and responds back to the child, whether it be a babble the child made or a short sentence. While doing this, the adult is prompting the child to continue communicating which may help a child develop language sooner than children raised in environments where communication is not fostered. This motherese speech will also catch the child's attention and in situations where words for new objects are being expressed to the child this form of speech may help the child recognize the speech cues and the new information provided. Data shows that children raised in highly verbal families had higher language scores than those children raised in low verbal families. Continuously hearing complicated sentences throughout language development increases the child's ability to understand these sentences and then to use complicated sentences as they develop. Studies have shown that students enrolled in high language classrooms have two times the growth in complex sentences usage than students in classrooms where teachers do not frequently use complex sentences. Adults use strategies other than child-directed speech like recasting, expanding, and labeling: Recasting is rephrasing something the child has said, perhaps turning it into a question or restating the child's immature utterance in the form of a fully grammatical sentence. For example, a child saying "cookie now" a parent may respond with "Would you like a cookie now?" Expanding is restating, in a linguistically sophisticated form, what a child has said. For example, a child may say "car move road" and the parent may respond "A car drives on the road." Labeling is identifying the names of objects[8] If a child points to an object such as a couch the mother may say "couch" in response. Language development 141 Social preconditions It is crucial that children are allowed to socially interact with other people who can vocalize and respond to questions. For language acquisition to develop successfully, children must be in an environment that allows them to communicate socially in that language. There are a few different theories as to why and how children develop language. The most popular—and yet heavily debated—explanation is that language is acquired through imitation. The two most accepted theories in language development are psychological and functional. Psychological explanations focus on the mental processes involved in childhood language learning. Functional explanations look at the social processes involved in learning the first language. There are four main components of language: • Phonology involves the rules about the structure and sequence of speech sounds. • Semantics consists of vocabulary and how concepts are expressed through words. • Grammar involves two parts. The first, syntax, is the rules in which words are arranged into sentences. The second, morphology, is the use of grammatical markers (indicating tense, active or passive voice etc.). • Pragmatics involves the rules for appropriate and effective communication. Pragmatics involves three skills: • using language for greeting, demanding etc. • changing language for talking differently depending on who it is you are talking to • following rules such as turn taking, staying on topic Each component has its own appropriate developmental periods. Phonological development From shortly after birth to around one year, the baby starts to make speech sounds. At around two months, the baby will engage in cooing, which mostly consists of vowel sounds. At around four months, cooing turns into babbling which is the repetitive consonant-vowel combinations. Babies understand more than they are able to say. From 1–2 years, babies can recognize the correct pronunciation of familiar words. Babies will also use phonological strategies to simplify word pronunciation. Some strategies include repeating the first consonant-vowel in a multisyllable word ('TV'--> 'didi') or deleting unstressed syllables in a multisyllable word ('banana'-->'nana'). By 3–5 years, phonological awareness continues to improve as well as pronunciation. By 6–10 years, children can master syllable stress patterns which helps distinguish slight differences between similar words. Semantic development From birth to one year, comprehension (the language we understand) develops before production (the language we use). There is about a 5 month lag in between the two. Babies have an innate preference to listen to their mother's voice. Babies can recognize familiar words and use preverbal gestures. From 1–2 years, vocabulary grows to several hundred words. There is a vocabulary spurt between 18–24 months, which includes fast mapping. Fast mapping is the babies' ability to learn a lot of new things quickly. The majority of the babies' new vocabulary consists of object words (nouns) and action words (verbs). By 3–5 years, children usually have difficulty using words correctly. Children experience many problems such as underextensions, taking a general word and applying it specifically (for example, 'blankie') and overextensions, taking a specific word and applying it too generally (example, 'car' for 'van'). However, children coin words to fill in for words not yet learned (for example, someone is a cooker rather than a chef because a child will not know what a chef is). Children can also understand metaphors. Language development From 6–10 years, children can understand meanings of words based on their definitions. They also are able to appreciate the multiple meanings of words and use words precisely through metaphors and puns. Fast mapping continues. 142 Grammatical development From 1–2 years, children start using telegraphic speech, which are two word combinations, for example 'wet diaper'. Brown (1973)[13] observed that 75% of children's two-word utterances could be summarised in the existence of 11 semantic relations: Eleven important early semantic relations and examples based on Brown 1973: • • • • • • • • Attributive: 'big house' Agent-Action: 'Daddy hit' Action-Object: 'hit ball' Agent-Object: 'Daddy ball' Nominative: 'that ball' Demonstrative: 'there ball' Recurrence: 'more ball' non-existence: 'all-gone ball' • Possessive: 'Daddy chair' • Entity + Locative: 'book table' • Action + Locative: 'go store' At around 3 years, children engage in simple sentences, which are 3 word sentences. Simple sentences follow adult rules and get refined gradually. Grammatical morphemes get added as these simple sentences start to emerge. By 3–5 years, children continue to add grammatical morphemes and gradually produce complex grammatical structures. By 6–10 years, children refine the complex grammatical structures such as passive voice. Pragmatics development From birth to one year, babies can engage in joint attention (sharing the attention of something with someone else). Babies also can engage in turn taking activities. By 1–2 years, they can engage in conversational turn taking and topic maintenance. At ages 3–5, children can master illocutionary intent, knowing what you meant to say even though you might not have said it and turnabout, which is turning the conversation over to another person. By age 6-10, shading occurs, which is changing the conversation topic gradually. Children are able to communicate effectively in demanding settings, such as on the telephone. Different Connotation of "Development"(Economics) “Development” as it is deployed in Economics is also followed by Sociolinguists. Their questions are: What is developed language and what is under/un-developed language? The popular notions of “good” standard language vis a vis dialect, patois, Pidgin, Creole, Folk-language etc., which are used in the classroom discourse also, are contested by some post-structuralists following Phillipson.[14] The cultural convention of using these terms in an epistemological discipline is approximated by the extra-linguistic socio-economic condition.[15] An E-language is developed if and only if the capital-relationship established through the investment of money-sign. Language development 143 Reference list • Frith U, Vargha-Khadem F. (2001). Are there sex differences in the brain basis of literacy related skills? Evidence from reading and spelling impairments after early unilateral brain damage. Neuropsychologia, 39, 1485-1488. • Huttenlocher, J., Haight, W., Bryk, A., Seltzer, M., & Lyons, T. (1991). Early vocabulary growth: Relation to language input and gender. Developmental Psychology, 27(2), 236-248. • Kansaku, K. & Kitazawa, S. (2001). Imaging studies on sex differences in the lateralization of language. Neuroscience Research, 41, 333-337. • Bornstein, M., Hahn, C., & Haynes, O. (2004). Specific and general language performance across early childhood: Stability and gender considerations. First Language, 24(3), 267-303. [1] Corbett Dooren, Jennifer (15 September 2004). "No Matter What the Language, Toddlers Learn it the Same Way". Wall Street Journal. [2] Saffran, Jenny R. (2003). "Statistical language learning: mechanisms and constraints". Current Directions in Psychological Science 12 (4): 110–114. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.01243. ISSN 0963-7214. [3] Poll, Gerard H. (October 2011). "Increasing the Odds: Applying Emergentist Theory in Language Intervention.". Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 42 (4): 580–591. [4] Roediger, R. (2004) " What happened to Behaviorism (http:/ / www. psychologicalscience. org/ observer/ getArticle. cfm?id=1540)." American Psychological Society. [5] Ramscar M, Yarlett D (November 2007). "Linguistic self-correction in the absence of feedback: a new approach to the logical problem of language acquisition" (http:/ / psych. stanford. edu/ ~michael/ papers/ ramscar-and-yarlett-lwof. pdf). Cogn Sci 31 (6): 927–60. doi:10.1080/03640210701703576. PMID 21635323. . [6] Clibbens, John (October 1993). "From theory to practice in child language development" (http:/ / www. down-syndrome. org/ reviews/ 20/ reviews-20. pdf). Down Syndrome Research and Practice 1 (3): 101–106. . Retrieved 2012-11-20. [7] Schneider, Phyllis; Watkins, Ruth (April 1996). "Applying Vygotskian Developmental Theory to Language Intervention". Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools 27 (2): 157–170. [8] Santrock, John W. (2007). A Topical Approach to Lifespan Development. McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages. ISBN 0-07-338264-7. OCLC 171151508. [9] Hauser MD, Chomsky N, Fitch WT (November 2002). "The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?" (http:/ / www. chomsky. info/ articles/ 20021122. pdf). Science 298 (5598): 1569–79. doi:10.1126/science.298.5598.1569. PMID 12446899. . [10] Thompson-Schill SL, Ramscar M, Chrysikou EG (2009). "Cognition without control: When a little frontal lobe goes a long way" (http:/ / psych. stanford. edu/ ~michael/ papers/ Ramscar_control. pdf). Curr Dir Psychol Sci 18 (5): 259–263. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01648.x. PMC 2855545. PMID 20401341. . [11] Ramscar M, Gitcho N (July 2007). "Developmental change and the nature of learning in childhood" (http:/ / psych. stanford. edu/ ~michael/ papers/ Ramscar_tics. pdf). Trends Cogn. Sci. (Regul. Ed.) 11 (7): 274–9. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.05.007. PMID 17560161. . [12] Mani, Nivedita; Plunkett, Kim (2010). "Twelve-Month-Olds Know Their Cups From Their Keps and Tups". Infancy 15 (5): 445–470. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7078.2009.00027.x. ISSN 15250008. [13] Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Harvard University Press. [14] [Phillipson,R.1992.Linguistic Imperialism.] [15] Understanding Semantics of Language Development (http:/ / ssrn. com/ abstract=2029127) Further reading • Balari S, Benítez-Burraco A, Camps M, Longa VM, Lorenzo G, Uriagereka J (2011). "The archaeological record speaks: bridging anthropology and linguistics". Int J Evol Biol 2011: 382679. doi:10.4061/2011/382679. PMC 3123707. PMID 21716806. • Berk, Laura E. (2009). "9, Language Development". Child development. Boston: Pearson Education/Allyn & Bacon. ISBN 0-205-61559-7. OCLC 637146042. • Campbell R (March 2008). "The processing of audio-visual speech: empirical and neural bases". Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 363 (1493): 1001–10. doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2155. PMC 2606792. PMID 17827105. • Hickok G, Poeppel D (2004). "Dorsal and ventral streams: a framework for understanding aspects of the functional anatomy of language" (https://hpc.hamilton.edu/~lablab/Hickok_2004.pdf). Cognition 92 (1-2): 67–99. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.011. PMID 15037127. Language development • Kuhl PK, Conboy BT, Coffey-Corina S, Padden D, Rivera-Gaxiola M, Nelson T (March 2008). "Phonetic learning as a pathway to language: new data and native language magnet theory expanded (NLM-e)". Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 363 (1493): 979–1000. doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2154. PMC 2606791. PMID 17846016. • Perani D, Saccuman MC, Scifo P, et al. (September 2011). "Neural language networks at birth". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108 (38): 16056–61. doi:10.1073/pnas.1102991108. PMC 3179044. PMID 21896765. • Richardson FM, Price CJ (October 2009). "Structural MRI studies of language function in the undamaged brain". Brain Struct Funct 213 (6): 511–23. doi:10.1007/s00429-009-0211-y. PMC 2749930. PMID 19618210. • Wandell BA, Rauschecker AM, Yeatman JD (January 2012). "Learning to see words". Annu Rev Psychol 63: 31–53. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100434. PMC 3228885. PMID 21801018. 144 External links • http://www3.niu.edu/acad/psych/Millis/History/2003/cogrev_skinner.htm • http://www.asha.org/public/speech/development/Pragmatics.htm Language education Language education is the teaching and learning of a foreign or second language. Language education is a branch of applied linguistics. Need for language education Increasing globalization has created a large need for people in the workforce who can communicate in multiple languages. The uses of common languages are in areas such as trade, tourism, international relations, technology, media, and science. Many countries such as Korea (Kim Yeong-seo, 2009), Japan (Kubota, 1998) and China (Kirkpatrick & Zhichang, 2002) frame education policies to teach at least one foreign language at the primary and secondary school levels. However, some countries such as India, Singapore, Malaysia, Pakistan, and the Philippines use a second official language in their governments. According to GAO (2010), China has recently been putting enormous importance on foreign language learning, especially the English Language. History of foreign language education Ancient to medieval period Although the need to learn foreign languages is almost as old as human history itself, the origins of modern language education are in the study and teaching of Latin in the 17th century. Latin had for many centuries been the dominant language of education, commerce, religion, and government in much of the Western world, but it was displaced by French, Italian, and English by the end of the 16th century. John Amos Comenius was one of many people who tried to reverse this trend. He composed a complete course for learning Latin, covering the entire school curriculum, culminating in his Opera Didactica Omnia, 1657. In this work, Comenius also outlined his theory of language acquisition. He is one of the first theorists to write systematically about how languages are learned and about pedagogical methodology for language acquisition. He held that language acquisition must be allied with sensation and experience. Teaching must be oral. The schoolroom should have models of things, and failing that, pictures of them. As a result, he also published the world's first illustrated children's book, Orbis Sensualium Pictus. The study of Latin diminished from the study of a living language to be used in the real world to a subject in the school curriculum. Such decline brought about a new justification for its study. It was then claimed that its study developed intellectual abilities, and the study of Latin Language education grammar became an end in and of itself. "Grammar schools" from the 16th to 18th centuries focused on teaching the grammatical aspects of Classical Latin. Advanced students continued grammar study with the addition of rhetoric.[1] 145 18th century The study of modern languages did not become part of the curriculum of European schools until the 18th century. Based on the purely academic study of Latin, students of modern languages did much of the same exercises, studying grammatical rules and translating abstract sentences. Oral work was minimal, and students were instead required to memorize grammatical rules and apply these to decode written texts in the target language. This tradition-inspired method became known as the 'grammar-translation method'.[1] 19th–20th century Innovation in foreign language teaching began in the 19th century and became very rapid in the 20th century. It led to a number of different and sometimes conflicting methods, each trying to be a major improvement over the previous or contemporary methods. The earliest applied linguists included Jean Manesca, Heinrich Gottfried Ollendorff (1803–1865), Henry Sweet (1845–1912), Otto Jespersen (1860–1943), and Harold Palmer (1877–1949). They worked on setting language teaching principles and approaches based on linguistic and psychological theories, but they left many of the specific practical details for others to devise.[1] Those looking at the history of foreign-language education in the 20th century and the methods of teaching (such as those related below) might be tempted Henry Sweet was a key figure in establishing the applied linguistics to think that it is a history of failure. Very few students in U.S. universities tradition in language teaching who have a foreign language as a major manage to reach something called "minimum professional proficiency". Even the "reading knowledge" required for a PhD degree is comparable only to what second-year language students read and only very few researchers who are native English speakers can read and assess information written in languages other than English. Even a number of famous linguists are monolingual.[2] However, anecdotal evidence for successful second or foreign language learning is easy to find, leading to a discrepancy between these cases and the failure of most language programs, which helps make the research of second language acquisition emotionally charged. Older methods and approaches such as the grammar translation method or the direct method are dismissed and even ridiculed as newer methods and approaches are invented and promoted as the only and complete solution to the problem of the high failure rates of foreign language students. Most books on language teaching list the various methods that have been used in the past, often ending with the author's new method. These new methods are usually presented as coming only from the author's mind, as the authors generally give no credence to what was done before and do not explain how it relates to the new method. For example, descriptive linguists seem to claim unhesitatingly that there were no scientifically based language teaching methods before their work (which led to the audio-lingual method developed for the U.S. Army in World War II). However, there is significant evidence to the contrary. It is also often inferred or even stated that older methods were completely ineffective or have died out completely when even the oldest methods are still used (e.g. the Berlitz version of the direct method). One reason for this situation is that proponents of new methods have been so sure that their ideas are so new and so correct that they could not conceive that the older ones have enough validity to cause controversy. This was in turn caused by emphasis on new scientific advances, which has tended to blind researchers to precedents in older work.[2](p. 5) Language education There have been two major branches in the field of language learning; the empirical and theoretical, and these have almost completely separate histories, with each gaining ground over the other at one point in time or another. Examples of researchers on the empiricist side are Jesperson, Palmer, and Leonard Bloomfield, who promote mimicry and memorization with pattern drills. These methods follow from the basic empiricist position that language acquisition basically results from habits formed by conditioning and drilling. In its most extreme form, language learning is seen as basically the same as any other learning in any other species, human language being essentially the same as communication behaviors seen in other species. On the theoretical side are, for example, Francois Gouin, M.D. Berlitz, and Elime de Sauzé, whose rationalist theories of language acquisition dovetail with linguistic work done by Noam Chomsky and others. These have led to a wider variety of teaching methods ranging from the grammar-translation method to Gouin's "series method" to the direct methods of Berlitz and de Sauzé. With these methods, students generate original and meaningful sentences to gain a functional knowledge of the rules of grammar. This follows from the rationalist position that man is born to think and that language use is a uniquely human trait impossible in other species. Given that human languages share many common traits, the idea is that humans share a universal grammar which is built into our brain structure. This allows us to create sentences that we have never heard before but that can still be immediately understood by anyone who understands the specific language being spoken. The rivalry of the two camps is intense, with little communication or cooperation between them.[2] 146 Teaching foreign language in classrooms Language education may take place as a general school subject or in a specialized language school. There are many methods of teaching languages. Some have fallen into relative obscurity and others are widely used; still others have a small following, but offer useful insights. While sometimes confused, the terms "approach", "method" and "technique" are hierarchical concepts. An approach is a set of assumptions about the nature of language and language learning, but does not involve procedure or provide any details about how such assumptions should translate into the classroom setting. Such can be related to second language acquisition theory. There are three principal "approaches": 1. The structural view treats language as a system of structurally related elements to code meaning (e.g. grammar). 2. The functional view sees language as a vehicle to express or accomplish a certain function, such as requesting something. 3. The interactive view sees language as a vehicle for the creation and maintenance of social relations, focusing on patterns of moves, acts, negotiation and interaction found in conversational exchanges. This approach has been fairly dominant since the 1980s.[1] A method is a plan for presenting the language material to be learned and should be based upon a selected approach. In order for an approach to be translated into a method, an instructional system must be designed considering the objectives of the teaching/learning, how the content is to be selected and organized, the types of tasks to be performed, the roles of students and the roles of teachers. 1. Examples of structural methods are grammar translation and the audio-lingual method. 2. Examples of functional methods include the oral approach / situational language teaching. 3. Examples of interactive methods include the direct method, the series method, communicative language teaching, language immersion, the Silent Way, Suggestopedia, the Natural Approach, Total Physical Response, Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling and Dogme language teaching. A technique (or strategy) is a very specific, concrete stratagem or trick designed to accomplish an immediate objective. Such are derived from the controlling method, and less directly, from the approach.[1] Language education 147 Online and self-study courses Hundreds of languages are available for self-study, from scores of publishers, for a range of costs, using a variety of methods.[3] The course itself acts as a teacher and has to choose a methodology, just as classroom teachers do. Audio recordings and books Audio recordings use native speakers, and one strength is helping learners improve their accent.[4] Some recordings have pauses for the learner to speak. Others are continuous so the learner speaks along with the recorded voice, similar to learning a song.[5] Audio recordings for self-study use many of the methods used in classroom teaching, and have been produced on records, tapes, CDs, DVDs and websites. Most audio recordings teach words in the target language by using explanations in the learner's own language. An alternative is to use sound effects to show meaning of words in the target language.[6] The only language in such recordings is the target language, and they are comprehensible regardless of the learner's native language. Language books have been published for centuries, teaching vocabulary and grammar. The simplest books are phrasebooks to give useful short phrases for travelers, cooks, receptionists, or others who need specific vocabulary. More complete books include more vocabulary, grammar, exercises, translation, and writing practice. Internet and software Software can interact with learners in ways that books and audio cannot: 1. Some software records the learner, analyzes the pronunciation, and gives feedback.[7] 2. Software can present additional exercises in areas where a particular learner has difficulty, until the concepts are mastered. 3. Software can pronounce words in the target language and show their meaning by using pictures[8] instead of oral explanations. The only language in such software is the target language. It is comprehensible regardless of the learner's native language. Websites provide various services geared toward language education. Some sites are designed specifically for learning languages: 1. Some software runs on the web itself, with the advantage of avoiding downloads, and the disadvantage of requiring an internet connection. 2. Some publishers use the web to distribute audio, texts and software, for use offline. 3. Some websites offer learning activities such as quizzes or puzzles to practice language concepts. 4. Language exchange sites connect users with complementary language skills, such as a native Spanish speaker who wants to learn English with a native English speaker who wants to learn Spanish. Language exchange websites essentially treat knowledge of a language as a commodity, and provide a market like environment for the commodity to be exchanged. Users typically contact each other via chat, voice-over-IP, or email. Language exchanges have also been viewed as a helpful tool to aid language learning at language schools. Language exchanges tend to benefit oral proficiency, fluency, colloquial vocabulary acquisition, and vernacular usage, rather than formal grammar or writing skills. Many other websites are helpful for learning languages, even though they are designed, maintained and marketed for other purposes: 1. All countries have websites in their own languages, which learners elsewhere can use as primary material for study: news, fiction, videos, songs, etc. In a study conducted by the Center for Applied Linguistics, it was noted that the use of technology and media has begun to play a heavy role in facilitating language learning in the classroom. With the help of the internet, students are readily exposed to foreign media (music videos, television shows, films) and as a result, teachers are taking heed of the internet's influence and are searching for ways to Language education combine this exposure into their classroom teaching.[9] Translation sites let learners find the meaning of foreign text or create foreign translations of text from their native language. Speech synthesis or text to speech (TTS) sites and software let learners hear pronunciation of arbitrary written text, with pronunciation similar to a native speaker. Course development and learning management systems such as Moodle are used by teachers, including language teachers. Web conferencing tools can bring remote learners together; e.g. Elluminate Live. Players of computer games can practice a target language when interacting in Massively multiplayer online games and virtual worlds. In 2005, the virtual world Second Life started to be used for foreign language tuition, sometimes with entire businesses being developed.[10][11] In addition, Spain’s language and cultural institute Instituto Cervantes has an "island" on Second Life. A list of educational projects (including some language schools) in Second Life can be found on the second life Educational wiki, or the SimTeach [12] site. 148 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Some Internet content is free, often from government and nonprofit sites such as BBC, Book2, Foreign Service Institute, with no or minimal ads. Some is ad-supported, such as newspapers and YouTube. Some requires a payment. Learning strategies Code switching Code switching, that is, changing between languages at some point in a sentence or utterance, is a commonly used communication strategy among language learners and bilinguals. While traditional methods of formal instruction often discourage code switching, students, especially those placed in a language immersion situation, often use it. If viewed as a learning strategy, wherein the student uses the target language as much as possible but reverts to their native language for any element of an utterance that they are unable to produce in the target language (as, e.g., in Wolfgang Butzkamm's concept of enlightened monolingualism), then it has the advantages that it encourages fluency development and motivation and a sense of accomplishment by enabling the student to discuss topics of interest to him or her early in the learning process—before requisite vocabulary has been memorized. It is particularly effective for students whose native language is English, due to the high probability of a simple English word or short phrase being understood by the conversational partner. [13] Teaching strategies Blended learning Blended learning combines face-to-face teaching with distance education, frequently electronic, either computer-based or web-based. It has been a major growth point in the ELT (English Language Teaching) industry over the last ten years. Some people, though, use the phrase 'Blended Learning' to refer to learning taking place while the focus is on other activities. For example, playing a card game that requires calling for cards may allow blended learning of numbers (1 to 10). Language education 149 Skills teaching When talking about language skills, the four basic ones are: listening, speaking, reading and writing. However, other, more socially based skills have been identified more recently such as summarizing, describing, narrating etc. In addition, more general learning skills such as study skills and knowing how one learns have been applied to language classrooms.[14] In the 1970s and 1980s, the four basic skills were generally taught in isolation in a very rigid order, such as listening before speaking. However, since then, it has been recognized that we generally use more than one skill at a time, leading to more integrated exercises.[14] Speaking is a skill that often is underrepresented in the traditional classroom. This could be due to the fact that it is considered a less-academic skill than writing, is transient and improvised (thus harder to assess and teach through rote imitation). More recent textbooks stress the importance of students working with other students in pairs and groups, sometimes the entire class. Pair and group work give opportunities for more students to participate more actively. However, supervision of pairs and groups is important to make sure everyone participates as equally as possible. Such activities also provide opportunities for peer teaching, where weaker learners can find support from stronger classmates.[14] Sandwich technique In foreign language teaching, the sandwich technique is the oral insertion of an idiomatic translation in the mother tongue between an unknown phrase in the learned language and its repetition, in order to convey meaning as rapidly and completely as possible. The mother tongue equivalent can be given almost as an aside, with a slight break in the flow of speech to mark it as an intruder. When modeling a dialogue sentence for students to repeat, the teacher not only gives an oral mother tongue equivalent for unknown words or phrases, but repeats the foreign language phrase before students imitate it: L2 => L1 => L2. For example, a German teacher of English might engage in the following exchange with the students: Teacher: "Let me try - lass mich mal versuchen - let me try." Students: "Let me try." Mother tongue mirroring Mother tongue mirroring is the adaptation of the time-honoured technique of literal translation or word-for word translation for pedagogical purposes. The aim is to make foreign constructions salient and transparent to learners and, in many cases, spare them the technical jargon of grammatical analysis. It differs from literal translation and interlinear text as used in the past since it takes the progress learners have made into account and only focuses upon a specific structure at a time. As a didactic device, it can only be used to the extent that it remains intelligible to the learner, unless it is combined with a normal idiomatic translation. Back-chaining Back-chaining is a technique used in teaching oral language skills, especially with polysyllabic or difficult words.[15] The teacher pronounces the last syllable, the student repeats, and then the teacher continues, working backwards from the end of the word to the beginning.[16] For example, to teach the name ‘Mussorgsky' a teacher will pronounce the last syllable: -sky, and have the student repeat it. Then the teacher will repeat it with -sorg- attached before: -sorg-sky, and all that remains is the first syllable: Mus-sorg-sky. Language education 150 Language education by region Practices in language education vary significantly by region. First, the languages being learned differ; in the United States, Spanish is the most popular language to be learned, whereas the most popular language to be learned in Australia is Japanese. Also, teaching methods tend to differ by region. Language immersion is popular in some European countries, but is not used very much in the United States. Language study holidays An increasing number of people are now combining holidays with language study in the native country. This enables the student to experience the target culture by meeting local people. Such a holiday often combines formal lessons, cultural excursions, leisure activities, and a homestay, perhaps with time to travel in the country afterwards. Language study holidays are popular across Europe and Asia due to the ease of transportation and variety of nearby countries. These holidays have become increasingly more popular in Central and South America in such countries as Guatemala, Ecuador and Peru. With the increasing prevalence of international business transactions, it is now important to have multiple languages at one's disposal. This is also evident in businesses outsourcing their departments to Eastern Europe. Minority language education Minority language education policy The principle policy arguments in favor of promoting minority language education are the need for multilingual workforces, intellectual and cultural benefits and greater inclusion in global information society.[17] Access to education in a minority language is also seen as a human right as granted by the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the UN Human Rights Committee.[18] Bilingual Education has been implemented in many countries including the United States, in order to promote both the use and appreciation of the minority language, as well as the majority language concerned.[19] Materials and e-learning for minority language education Suitable resources for teaching and learning minority languages can be difficult to find and access, which has led to calls for the increased development of materials for minority language teaching. The internet offers opportunities to access a wider range of texts, audios and videos.[20] Language learning 2.0 (the use of web 2.0 tools for language education)[21] offers opportunities for material development for lesser-taught languages and to bring together geographically dispersed teachers and learners.[22] Acronyms and abbreviations See also: English language learning and teaching for information on language teaching acronyms and abbreviations which are specific to English. • • • • • ALL: Apprenticeship Language Learning CALL: computer-assisted language learning CLIL: content and language integrated learning CELI: Certificato di Conoscenza della Lingua Italiana CLL: community language learning • DELE: Diploma de Español como Lengua Extranjera • DELF: diplôme d'études en langue française • EFL: English as a foreign language Language education • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ELL: English language learning ELT: English language teaching FLL: foreign language learning FLT: foreign language teaching HLL: heritage language learning L1: first language, native language, mother tongue L2: second language (or any additional language) LDL: Lernen durch Lehren (German for learning by teaching) LOTE: Languages Other Than English SLA: second language acquisition TELL: technology-enhanced language learning TEFL: teaching English as a foreign language N.B. This article is about travel-teaching. TEFLA: teaching English as a foreign language to adults TESOL: teaching English to speakers of other languages TPR: Total Physical Response TPRS: Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling 151 • UNIcert is a European language education system of many universities based on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Notes [1] Richards, Jack C.; Theodore S. Rodgers (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-00843-3. [2] Diller, Karl Conrad (1978). The Language Teaching Controversy. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House. ISBN 912066-22-9. [3] "Reviews of Language Self-Study Courses: Comparison, Problems, Ratings" (http:/ / Lang1234. com). Lang1234. . Retrieved 17 July 2012. [4] "Good Accents" (http:/ / lastly. weebly. com/ 2/ category/ accent/ 1. html). Lang1234. . Retrieved 5 August 2012. [5] "Shadowing Step by Step" (http:/ / www. youtube. com/ watch?v=130bOvRpt24). ForeignLanguageExpertise.com. . Retrieved 17 July 2012. [6] Amazing Hear-Say, by Donald Rivera, Penton Overseas Inc., isbn: 560156775, 1591253500, 1591253535, 1591253497, 1591253519 [7] "Scoring Your Pronunciation" (http:/ / lastly. weebly. com/ 3/ post/ 2012/ 08/ pronunciation. html). Lang1234. . Retrieved 5 August 2012. [8] "Language Guide" (http:/ / Languageguide. org). Language Guide. . Retrieved 17 July 2012. [9] "What We Can Learn From Foreign Language Teaching In Other Countries" (http:/ / www. cal. org/ resources/ digest/ 0106pufahl. html). Center for Applied Linguistics. . Retrieved 8 May 2012. [10] Dorveaux, Xavier (15 July 2007). "Study and teach in Second Life" (http:/ / www. its-teachers. com/ destinations/ second_life/ second_life03. asp). iT's Magazines. . Retrieved 15 July 2007. [11] Dorveaux, Xavier (15 July 2007). "Apprendre une langue dans un monde virtuel" (http:/ / www. lemonde. fr/ web/ article/ 0,1-0,36-935560,0. html). Le Monde. . Retrieved 15 July 2007. [12] http:/ / www. simteach. com/ wiki/ index. php?title=Institutions_and_Organizations_in_SL [13] Butzkamm, Wolfgang (1998). "Code-Switching in a Bilingual History Lesson: The Mother Tongue as a Conversational Lubricant". International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 1:2, pp.81-99. [14] Holden, Susan; Mickey Rodgers (1998). English language teaching. Mexico City: DELTI. ISBN 968-6820-12-4. [15] "Backchaining." Glossary. Retrieved April 4, 2009, from http:/ / www. usingenglish. com/ glossary/ backchaining. html [16] "Backchaining." Teaching English. Retrieved April 4, 2009, from http:/ / www. teachingenglish. org. uk/ think/ knowledge-wiki/ backchaining [17] Sachdev, I; McPake, J (2008). "Community Languages in Higher Education: Towards realising the potential" (http:/ / www. routesintolanguages. ac. uk/ community). Routes into Languages. pp. 76. . Retrieved 26 June 2009. [18] de Varennes, Fernand (2004). "The right to education and minority language" (http:/ / www. eumap. org/ journal/ features/ 2004/ minority_education/ edminlang). EUMAP: EU Monitoring and Advocacy Program Online Journal. . Retrieved 26 June 2009. [19] National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning (1999-07). "Two-Way Bilingual Education Programs in Practice: A National and Local Perspective" (http:/ / www. cal. org/ resources/ Digest/ ed379915. html). Center for Applied Linguistics. . Retrieved 26 June 2009. [20] Sachdev, I; McPake, J (2008). "Community Languages in Higher Education: Towards realising the potential" (http:/ / www. routesintolanguages. ac. uk/ community). Routes into Languages. pp. 61–62. . Retrieved 26 June 2009. [21] Diouri, Mourad (2009). "Language learning 2.0 in action: web .0 tools to enhance language learning" (http:/ / www2. plymouth. ac. uk/ e-learning/ conference_proceedings_2009. pdf). 4th Plymouth e-Learning Conference 2009. . Retrieved 26 June 2009. Language education [22] Ikeda, A. Sho; Doty, Christopher (14 March 2009). "New Roles for Technology in Language Maintenance and Revitalization" (http:/ / hdl. handle. net/ 10125/ 5011). 1st International Conference on Language Documentation and Conservation (ICLDC). . Retrieved 26 June 2009. 152 References • Gao, Xuesong (Andy). (2010).Strategic Language Learning.Multilingual Matters:Canada, 2010 • Kim Yeong-seo (2009) "History of English education in Korea" • Kirkpatrick, A & Zhichang, X (2002).”Chinese pragmatic norms and “China English”. World Englishes. Vol. 21, pp. 269–279. • Kubota, K (1998) “Ideologies of English in Japan” World Englishes Vol.17, No.3, pp. 295–306. Further reading • Bernhardt, E. B. (Ed.) (1992). Life in language immersion classrooms. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters, Ltd. • Genesee, F. (1985). Second language learning through immersion: A review of U.S. programs. Review of Educational Research, 55(4), 541–561. • Genesee, F. (1987). Learning Through Two Languages: Studies of Immersion and Bilingual Education. Cambridge, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers. • Lindholm-Leary, K. (2001). Theoretical and conceptual foundations for dual language education programs. In K. Lindholm-Leary, Dual language education (pp. 39–58). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd. • McKay, Sharon; Schaetzel, Kirsten, Facilitating Adult Learner Interactions to Build Listening and Speaking Skills (http://www.cal.org/caelanetwork/resources/facilitating.html), CAELA Network Briefs, CAELA and Center for Applied Linguistics • Meunier, Fanny; Granger, Sylviane, "Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching" (http://books. google.com/books?id=QWJbyFXs8sMC&printsec=frontcover), Amsterdam and Philadelphia : John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2008 • Met, M., & Lorenz, E. (1997). Lessons from U.S. immersion programs: Two decades of experience. In R. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 243–264). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. • Swain, M. & Johnson, R. K. (1997). Immersion education: A category within bilingual education. In R. K. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 1–16). NY: Cambridge University Press. External links • Language Education (http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Social_Sciences/Linguistics/Languages/Education/) at the Open Directory Project • CILT UK, The National Centre for Languages (http://www.cilt.org.uk) • The REALIA Project (http://www.realiaproject.org/) • UCLA Language Materials Project (http://www.lmp.ucla.edu/) Linguistic anthropology 153 Linguistic anthropology Linguistic anthropology is the interdisciplinary study of how language influences social life. It is a branch of anthropology that originated from the endeavor to document endangered languages, and has grown over the past 100 years to encompass almost any aspect of language structure and use.[1] Linguistic anthropology explores how language shapes communication, forms social identity and group membership, organizes large-scale cultural beliefs and ideologies, and develops a common cultural representation of natural and social worlds.[2] Historical development As Alessandro Duranti has noted, three paradigms have emerged over the history of the subdiscipline. The first, now known as "anthropological linguistics," focuses on the documentation of languages. The second, known as "linguistic anthropology," engages in theoretical studies of language use. A third paradigm, developed over the past two or three decades, studies questions related to other subfields of anthropology with the tools of linguistic inquiry. Though they developed sequentially, all three paradigms are still practiced today.[3] "Anthropological linguistics" The first paradigm was originally referred to as "linguistics", although as it and its surrounding fields of study matured it came to be known as "anthropological linguistics". The field was devoted to themes unique to the subdiscipline—linguistic documentation of languages then seen as doomed to extinction (these were the languages of native North America on which the first members of the subdiscipline focused) such as: • Grammatical description, • Typological classification (see typology), and • The unresolved issue of linguistic relativity (associated with Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf but actually brought to American linguistics by Franz Boas working within a theoretical framework going back to European thinkers from Vico to Herder to Humboldt). The so-called Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis is perhaps a misnomer insofar as the approach to science taken by these two differs from the positivist, hypothesis-driven model of science. In any case, it was Harry Hoijer (Sapir's student) who coined the term.[4] "Linguistic anthropology" Dell Hymes was largely responsible for launching the second paradigm that fixed the name "linguistic anthropology" in the 1960s, though he also coined the term "ethnography of speaking" (or "ethnography of communication") to describe the agenda he envisioned for the field. It would involve taking advantage of new developments in technology, including new forms of mechanical recording. A new unit of analysis was also introduced by Hymes. Whereas the first paradigm focused on ostensibly distinct "languages" (scare quotes indicate that contemporary linguistic anthropologists treat the concept of "a language" as an ideal construction covering up complexities within and "across" so-called linguistic boundaries), the unit of analysis in the second paradigm was new—the "speech event." (The speech event is an event defined by the speech occurring in it—a lecture, for example—so that a dinner is not a speech event, but a speech situation, a situation in which speech may or may not occur.) Much attention was devoted to speech events in which performers were held accountable for the form of their linguistic performance as such.[5][6] Hymes also pioneered a linguistic anthropological approach to ethnopoetics. Hymes had hoped to link linguistic anthropology more closely with the mother discipline. The name certainly stresses that the primary identity is with anthropology, whereas "anthropological linguistics" conveys a sense that the primary identity of its practitioners was with linguistics, which is a separate academic discipline on most university Linguistic anthropology campuses today (not in the days of Boas and Sapir). However, Hymes' ambition in a sense backfired; the second paradigm in fact marked a further distancing of the subdiscipline from the rest of anthropology. 154 Anthropological issues studied via linguistic methods and data In the third paradigm, which has emerged since the late 1980s, instead of continuing to pursue agendas that come from a discipline alien to anthropology, linguistic anthropologists have systematically addressed themselves to problems posed by the larger discipline of anthropology—but using linguistic data and methods. Popular areas of study in this third paradigm include investigations of social identities, broadly shared ideologies, and the construction and uses of narrative in interaction among individuals and groups.[3] Areas of interest Contemporary linguistic anthropology continues research in all three of the paradigms described above. Several areas related to the third paradigm, the study of anthropological issues, are particularly rich areas of study for current linguistic anthropologists. Identity A great deal of work in linguistic anthropology investigates questions of sociocultural identity linguistically. Linguistic anthropologist Don Kulick has done this in relation to identity, for example, in a series of settings, first in a village called Gapun in Papua New Guinea.[7] Kulick explored how the use of two languages with and around children in Gapun village—the traditional language (Taiap) not spoken anywhere but in their own village and thus primordially "indexical" of Gapuner identity, and Tok Pisin (the widely circulating official language of New Guinea). (Linguistic anthropologists use "indexical" to mean indicative, though some indexical signs create their indexical meanings on the fly, so to speak.[8]) To speak the Taiap language is associated with one identity—not only local but "Backward" and also an identity based on the display of *hed* (personal autonomy). To speak Tok Pisin is to index a modern, Christian (Catholic) identity, based not on *hed* but on *save*, that is an identity linked with the will and the skill to cooperate. In later work, Kulick demonstrates that certain loud speech performances called *um escândalo*, Brazilian travesti (roughly, 'transvestite') sex workers shame clients. The travesti community, the argument goes, ends up at least making a powerful attempt to transcend the shame the larger Brazilian public might try to foist off on them—again, through loud public discourse and other modes of performance.[9] Socialization In a series of studies, linguistic anthropologists Elinor Ochs and Bambi Schieffelin addressed the important anthropological topic of socialization (the process by which infants, children, and foreigners become members of a community, learning to participate in its culture), using linguistic as well as ethnographic methods.[10] They discovered that the processes of enculturation and socialization do not occur apart from the process of language acquisition, but that children acquire language and culture together in what amounts to an integrated process. Ochs and Schieffelin demonstrated that baby talk is not universal, that the direction of adaptation (whether the child is made to adapt to the ongoing situation of speech around it or vice versa) was a variable that correlated, for example, with the direction it was held vis-à-vis a caregiver's body. In many societies caregivers hold a child facing outward so as to orient it to a network of kin whom it must learn to recognize early in life. Ochs and Schieffelin demonstrated that members of all societies socialize children both to and through the use of language. Ochs and Taylor uncovered how, through naturally occurring stories told during dinners in white middle class households in southern California, both mothers and fathers participated in replicating male dominance (the "father knows best" syndrome) by the distribution of participant roles such as protagonist (often a child but sometimes mother and almost never the father) and "problematizer" (often the father, who raised uncomfortable questions or challenged the competence of the protagonist). When mothers collaborated with children to get their Linguistic anthropology stories told they unwittingly set themselves up to be subject to this process. Schieffelin's more recent research has uncovered the socializing role of pastors and other fairly new Bosavi converts in the Southern Highlands, Papua New Guinea community she studies.[11][12][13][14] Pastors have introduced new ways of conveying knowledge— i.e. new linguistic epistemic markers[11]—and new ways of speaking about time.[13] And they have struggled with and largely resisted those parts of the Bible that speak of being able to know the inner states of others (e.g. the gospel of Mark, chapter 2, verses 6-8).[14] 155 Ideologies In a third example of the current (third) paradigm, since Roman Jakobson's student, Michael Silverstein opened the way, there has been an efflorescence of work done by linguistic anthropologists on the major anthropological theme of ideologies[15]—in this case "language ideologies", sometimes defined as "shared bodies of commonsense notions about the nature of language in the world."[16] Silverstein has demonstrated that these ideologies are not mere false consciousness but actually influence the evolution of linguistic structures, including the dropping of "thee" and "thou" from everyday English usage.[17] Woolard, in her overview of "code switching", or the systematic practice of alternating linguistic varieties within a conversation or even a single utterance, finds the underlying question anthropologists ask of the practice—Why do they do that?—reflects a dominant linguistic ideology. It is the ideology that people should "really" be monoglot and efficiently targeted toward referential clarity rather than diverting themselves with the messiness of multiple varieties in play at a single time.[18] Attitudes toward languages such as Spanish and English in the U.S. are certainly informed by linguistic ideologies. This extends to the widespread impression, created by statements such as that by U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee (in regards to a recently passed measure making English the "official" language of the U.S.), that English is "part of our blood." To Horwitz, this invocation of blood implies that English reflects the deepest vein of the nation's ancestry, i.e., the oldest language spoken in what is now the United States. Such a claim, if made openly, would be doubly absurd, ignoring a) all of the Native American languages severely impacted by the arrival of Europeans, but also b) Spanish, the language of a rather sizable number of European explorers and settlers across the length and breadth of what is now the United States.[19] Thus Alexander is attempting to "naturalize" language and national identity via the metaphor of "blood." Much research on linguistic ideologies probes subtler influences on language, such as the pull exerted on Tewa — a Kiowa-Tanoan language spoken in certain New Mexico Pueblos as well as on the Hopi Reservation in Arizona — by "kiva speech," discussed in the next section.[20] Social space In a final example of this third paradigm, a group of linguistic anthropologists has done very creative work on the idea of social space. Duranti published a ground breaking article on Samoan greetings and their use and transformation of social space.[21] Prior to that, Indonesianist Joseph Errington — making use of earlier work by Indonesianists not necessarily concerned with language issues per se—brought linguistic anthropological methods (and semiotic theory) to bear on the notion of the "exemplary center," or the center of political and ritual power from which emanated exemplary behavior.[22] Errington demonstrated how the Javanese *priyayi*, whose ancestors served at the Javanese royal courts, became emissaries, so to speak, long after those courts had ceased to exist, representing throughout Java the highest example of 'refined speech.' The work of Joel Kuipers further develops this theme vis-a-vis the island of Sumba, Indonesia. And, even though it pertains to Tewa Indians in Arizona rather than Indonesians, Paul Kroskrity's argument that speech forms originating in the Tewa kiva (or underground ceremonial space) forms the dominant model for all Tewa speech can be seen as a rather direct parallel. Silverstein tries to find the maximum theoretical significance and applicability in this idea of exemplary centers. He feels, in fact, that the exemplary center idea is one of linguistic anthropology's three most important findings. He generalizes the notion in the following manner, arguing that "there are wider-scale institutional 'orders of Linguistic anthropology interactionality,' historically contingent yet structured. Within such large-scale, macrosocial orders, in-effect ritual centers of semiosis come to exert a structuring, value-conferring influence on any particular event of discursive interaction with respect to the meanings and significance of the verbal and other semiotic forms used in it."[23] Current approaches to such classic anthropological topics as ritual by linguistic anthropologists emphasize not static linguistic structures but the unfolding in realtime of a "'hypertrophic' set of parallel orders of iconicity and indexicality that seem to cause the ritual to create its own sacred space through what appears, often, to be the magic of textual and nontextual metricalizations, synchronized."[23][24] 156 References [1] Duranti, Alessandro. ed. 2004. Companion to Linguistic Anthropology (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=3jMmmQjssaEC). Malden, MA: Blackwell. [2] Society for Linguistic Anthropology. n.d. About the Society for Linguistic Anthropology. (http:/ / www. linguisticanthropology. org/ about/ ) Accessed 7 July 2010. [3] Duranti, Alessandro. 2003. Language as Culture in U.S. Anthropology: Three Paradigms. Current Anthropology 44(3):323-348. [4] Hoijer, Harry. 1954. "The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis," in Language in culture: Conference on the interrelations of language and other aspects of culture. Edited by H. Hoijer, pp. 92–105. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. • Hill, Jane, and Bruce Mannheim. 1992. "Language and Worldview." Annual Reviews in Anthropology 21:381-406. [5] Bauman, Richard. 1977. Verbal Art as Performance. (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1525/ aa. 1975. 77. 2. 02a00030) American Anthropologist 77:290-311. [6] Hymes, Dell. 1981 [1975] Breakthrough into Performance. In In Vain I Tried to Tell You: Essays in Native American Ethnopoetics. D. Hymes, ed. Pp. 79-141. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. [7] Kulick, Don. 1992. Language Shift and Cultural Reproduction: Socialization, Self and Syncretism in a Papua New Guinea Village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [8] Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description. In Meaning in Anthropology. K. Basso and H.A. Selby, eds. Pp. pp. 11-56. Albuquerque: School of American Research, University of New Mexico Press. [9] Kulick, Don, and Charles H. Klein. 2003. Scandalous Acts: The Politics of Shame among Brazilian Travesti Prostitutes. In Recognition Struggles and Social Movements: Contested Identities, Agency and Power. B. Hobson, ed. Pp. 215-238. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [10] Ochs, Elinor. 1988. Culture and language development: Language acquisition and language socialization in a Samoan village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, Elinor, and Bambi Schieffelin. 1984. Language Acquisition and Socialization: Three Developmental Stories and Their Implications. In Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self, and Emotion. R. Shweder and R.A. LeVine, eds. Pp. 276-320. New York: Cambridge University. • Ochs, Elinor, and Carolyn Taylor. 2001. The “Father Knows Best” Dynamic in Dinnertime Narratives. In Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader. A. Duranti, ed. Pp. 431-449. Oxford. Malden, MA: Blackwell. • Schieffelin, Bambi B. 1990. The Give and Take of Everyday Life: Language Socialization of Kaluli Children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [11] Schieffelin, Bambi B. 1995. Creating evidence: Making sense of written words in Bosavi. Pragmatics 5(2):225-244. [12] Schieffelin, Bambi B. 2000. Introducing Kaluli Literacy: A Chronology of Influences. In Regimes of Language. P. Kroskrity, ed. Pp. 293-327. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. [13] Schieffelin, Bambi B. 2002. Marking time: The dichotomizing discourse of multiple temporalities. Current Anthropology 43(Supplement):S5-17. [14] Schieffelin, Bambi B. 2006. PLENARY ADDRESS: Found in translating: Reflexive language across time and texts in Bosavi, PNG. Twelve Annual Conference on Language, Interaction, and Culture, University of California, Los Angeles, 2006. [15] Silverstein, Michael. 1979. Language Structure and Linguistic Ideology. In The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels. R. Cline, W. Hanks, and C. Hofbauer, eds. Pp. pp. 193-247. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. [16] Rumsey, Alan. 1990. Word, meaning, and linguistic ideology. (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1525/ aa. 1990. 92. 2. 02a00060) American Anthropologist 92(2):346-361. [17] Silverstein, Michael. 1985. Language and the Culture of Gender: At the Intersection of Structure, Usage, and Ideology. In Semiotic Mediation: Sociocultural and Psychological Perspectives. E. Mertz and R. Parmentier, eds. Pp. 219-259. Orlando: Academic Press. [18] Woolard, Kathryn A. 2004. Codeswitching. In Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. A. Duranti, ed. Pp. 73-94. Malden: Blackwell. [19] Horwitz, Tony. 2006. Immigration—and the Curse of the Black Legend (Op-Ed). New York Times. Week in Review, July 9, 2006, p. 13. [20] Kroskrity, Paul V. 1998. Arizona Tewa Kiva Speech as a Manifestation of Linguistic Ideology. In Language ideologies: Practice and theory. B.B. Schieffelin, K.A. Woolard, and P. Kroskrity, eds. Pp. 103-122. New York: Oxford University Press. [21] Duranti, Alessandro. 1992. Language and Bodies in Social Space: Samoan Greetings. (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1525/ aa. 1992. 94. 3. 02a00070) American Anthropologist 94:657-691. • Linguistic anthropology [22] Errington, J. Joseph. 1988. Structure and Style in Javanese: A Semiotic View of Linguistic Etiquette. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. [23] Silverstein, Michael. 2004. "Cultural" Concepts and the Language-Culture Nexus. Current Anthropology 45(5):621-652. [24] Wilce, James M. 2006. Magical Laments and Anthropological Reflections: The Production and Circulation of Anthropological Text as Ritual Activity. Current Anthropology. 47(6):891-914. 157 Further reading • Ahearn, Laura M. 2011. Living Language: An Introduction to Linguistic Anthropology. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. • Blount, Ben G. ed. 1995. Language, Culture, and Society: A Book of Readings. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. • Bonvillain, Nancy. 1993. Language, culture, and communication: The meaning of messages. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. • Brenneis, Donald; and Ronald K. S. Macaulay. 1996. The matrix of language: Contemporary linguistic anthropology. Boulder: Westview. • Duranti, Alessandro. 1997. Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Duranti, Alessandro. ed. 2001. Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell. • Giglioli, Pier Paolo. 1972. Language and social context: Selected readings. Middlesex: Penguin Books. • Salzmann, Zdenek. 1998. Language, culture, & society. Westview Press. External links Downloadable publications of authors cited in the article • • • • • Alessandro Duranti's publications (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/duranti/publish.htm) Joel Kuipers' publications (http://home.gwu.edu/~kuipers/) Elinor Ochs' publications (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/ochs/publish.htm) Bambi Schieffelin's publications (http://homepages.nyu.edu/~bs4/) James Wilce's publications (http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jmw22/cv/index.html) Neurolinguistics 158 Neurolinguistics Neurolinguistics is the study of the neural mechanisms in the human brain that control the comprehension, production, and acquisition of language. As an interdisciplinary field, neurolinguistics draws methodology and theory from fields such as neuroscience, linguistics, cognitive science, neurobiology, communication disorders, neuropsychology, and computer science. Researchers are drawn to the field from a variety of backgrounds, bringing along a variety of experimental techniques as well as widely varying theoretical perspectives. Much work in neurolinguistics is informed by models in psycholinguistics and theoretical linguistics, and is focused on investigating how the brain can implement the processes that theoretical and psycholinguistics propose are necessary in producing and comprehending language. Neurolinguists study the physiological mechanisms by which the brain processes information related to language, and evaluate linguistic and psycholinguistic theories, using aphasiology, brain imaging, electrophysiology, and computer modeling. Surface of the human brain, with Brodmann areas numbered An image of neural pathways in the brain taken using diffusion tensor imaging History Neurolinguistics is historically rooted in the development in the 19th century of aphasiology, the study of linguistic deficits (aphasias) occurring as the result of brain damage.[1] Aphasiology attempts to correlate structure to function by analyzing the effect of brain injuries on language processing.[2] One of the first people to draw a connection between a particular brain area and language processing was Paul Broca,[1] a French surgeon who conducted autopsies on numerous individuals who had speaking deficiencies, and found that most of them had brain damage (or lesions) on the Broca's area and Wernicke's area left frontal lobe, in an area now known as Broca's area. Phrenologists had made the claim in the early 19th century that different brain regions carried out different functions and that language was mostly controlled by the frontal regions of the brain, but Broca's research was possibly the first to offer empirical evidence for such a relationship,[3][4] and has been described as "epoch-making"[5] and "pivotal"[3] to the fields of neurolinguistics and cognitive science. Neurolinguistics Later, Carl Wernicke, after whom Wernicke's area is named, proposed that different areas of the brain were specialized for different linguistic tasks, with Broca's area handling the motor production of speech, and Wernicke's area handling auditory speech comprehension.[1][2] The work of Broca and Wernicke established the field of aphasiology and the idea that language can be studied through examining physical characteristics of the brain.[4] Early work in aphasiology also benefited from the early twentieth-century work of Korbinian Brodmann, who "mapped" the surface of the brain, dividing it up into numbered areas based on each area's cytoarchitecture (cell structure) and function;[6] these areas, known as Brodmann areas, are still widely used in neuroscience today.[7] The coining of the term "neurolinguistics" has been attributed to Harry Whitaker, who founded the Journal of Neurolinguistics in 1985.[8][9] Although aphasiology is the historical core of neurolinguistics, in recent years the field has broadened considerably, thanks in part to the emergence of new brain imaging technologies (such as PET and fMRI) and time-sensitive electrophysiological techniques (EEG and MEG), which can highlight patterns of brain activation as people engage in various language tasks;[1][10][11] electrophysiological techniques, in particular, emerged as a viable method for the study of language in 1980 with the discovery of the N400, a brain response shown to be sensitive to semantic issues in language comprehension.[12][13] The N400 was the first language-relevant brain response to be identified, and since its discovery EEG and MEG have become increasingly widely used for conducting language research.[14] 159 Neurolinguistics as a discipline Interaction with other fields Neurolinguistics is closely related to the field of psycholinguistics, which seeks to elucidate the cognitive mechanisms of language by employing the traditional techniques of experimental psychology; today, psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic theories often inform one another, and there is much collaboration between the two fields.[13][15] Much work in neurolinguistics involves testing and evaluating theories put forth by psycholinguists and theoretical linguists. In general, theoretical linguists propose models to explain the structure of language and how language information is organized, psycholinguists propose models and algorithms to explain how language information is processed in the mind, and neurolinguists analyze brain activity to infer how biological structures (populations and networks of neurons) carry out those psycholinguistic processing algorithms.[16] For example, experiments in sentence processing have used the ELAN, N400, and P600 brain responses to examine how physiological brain responses reflect the different predictions of sentence processing models put forth by psycholinguists, such as Janet Fodor and Lyn Frazier's "serial" model,[17] and Theo Vosse and Gerard Kempen's "Unification model."[15] Neurolinguists can also make new predictions about the structure and organization of language based on insights about the physiology of the brain, by "generalizing from the knowledge of neurological structures to language structure."[18] Neurolinguistics research is carried out in all the major areas of linguistics; the main linguistic subfields, and how neurolinguistics addresses them, are given in the table below. Neurolinguistics 160 Subfield Phonetics Description the study of speech sounds Research questions in neurolinguistics how the brain extracts speech sounds from an acoustic signal, how the brain separates speech sounds from background noise how the phonological system of a particular language is represented in the brain Phonology the study of how sounds are organized in a language the study of how words are structured and stored in the mental lexicon the study of how multiple-word utterances are constructed the study of how meaning is encoded in language Morphology and lexicology Syntax how the brain stores and accesses words that a person knows how the brain combines words into constituents and sentences; how structural and semantic information is used in understanding sentences Semantics Topics considered Neurolinguistics research investigates several topics, including where language information is processed, how language processing unfolds over time, how brain structures are related to language acquisition and learning, and how neurophysiology can contribute to speech and language pathology. Localizations of language processes Much work in neurolinguistics has, like Broca's and Wernicke's early studies, investigated the locations of specific language "modules" within the brain. Research questions include what course language information follows through the brain as it is processed,[19] whether or not particular areas specialize in processing particular sorts of information,[20] how different brain regions interact with one another in language processing,[21] and how the locations of brain activation differs when a subject is producing or perceiving a language other than his or her first language.[22][23][24] Time course of language processes Another area of neurolinguistics literature involves the use of electrophysiological techniques to analyze the rapid processing of language in time.[1] The temporal ordering of specific patterns of in brain activity may reflect discrete computational processes that the brain undergoes during language processing; for example, one neurolinguistic theory of sentence parsing proposes that three brain responses (the ELAN, N400, and P600) are products of three different steps in syntactic and semantic processing.[25] Language acquisition Another topic is the relationship between brain structures and language acquisition.[26] Research in first language acquisition has already established that infants from all linguistic environments go through similar and predictable stages (such as babbling), and some neurolinguistics research attempts to find correlations between stages of language development and stages of brain development,[27] while other research investigates the physical changes (known as neuroplasticity) that the brain undergoes during second language acquisition, when adults learn a new language.[28] Neurolinguistics Language pathology Neurolinguistic techniques are also used to study disorders and breakdowns in language—such as aphasia and dyslexia—and how they relate to physical characteristics of the brain.[23][27] 161 Brain imaging Images of the brain recorded with PET (top) and fMRI (bottom). The red areas and the yellow areas, respectively, are the most active in these recordings. Since one of the focuses of this field is the testing of linguistic and psycholinguistic models, the technology used for experiments is highly relevant to the study of neurolinguistics. Modern brain imaging techniques have contributed greatly to a growing understanding of the anatomical organization of linguistic functions.[1][23] Brain imaging methods used in neurolinguistics may be classified into hemodynamic methods, electrophysiological methods, and methods that stimulate the cortex directly. Hemodynamic Hemodynamic techniques take advantage of the fact that when an area of the brain works at a task, blood is sent to supply that area with oxygen (in what is known as the Blood Oxygen Level-Dependent, or BOLD, response).[29] Such techniques include PET and fMRI. These techniques provide high spatial resolution, allowing researchers to pinpoint the location of activity within the brain;[1] temporal resolution (or information about the timing of brain activity), on the other hand, is poor, since the BOLD response happens much more slowly than language processing.[11][30] In addition to demonstrating which parts of the brain may subserve specific language tasks or computations,[20][25] hemodynamic methods have also been used to demonstrate how the structure of the brain's language architecture and the distribution of language-related activation may change over time, as a function of linguistic exposure.[22][28] In addition to PET and fMRI, which show which areas of the brain are activated by certain tasks, researchers also use diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), which shows the neural pathways that connect different brain areas,[31] thus providing insight into how different areas interact. Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) is another hemodynamic method used in language tasks.[32] Neurolinguistics 162 Electrophysiological Electrophysiological techniques take advantage of the fact that when a group of neurons in the brain fire together, they create an electric dipole or current. The technique of EEG measures this electrical current using sensors on the scalp, while MEG measures the magnetic fields that are generated by these currents.[33] In addition to these non-invasive methods, electrocorticography has also been used to study language processing. These techniques are able to measure brain activity from one millisecond to the next, providing excellent temporal resolution, which is important in studying processes that take place as quickly as language comprehension and production.[33] On the other hand, the location of brain activity can be difficult to identify in EEG;[30][34] consequently, this technique is used primarily to how Brain waves recorded using EEG language processes are carried out, rather than where. Research using EEG and MEG generally focuses on event-related potentials (ERPs),[30] which are distinct brain responses (generally realized as negative or positive peaks on a graph of neural activity) elicited in response to a particular stimulus. Studies using ERP may focus on each ERP's latency (how long after the stimulus the ERP begins or peaks), amplitude (how high or low the peak is), or topography (where on the scalp the ERP response is picked up by sensors).[35] Some important and common ERP components include the N400 (a negativity occurring at a latency of about 400 milliseconds),[30] the mismatch negativity,[36] the early left anterior negativity (a negativity occurring at an early latency and a front-left topography),[37] the P600,[14][38] and the lateralized readiness potential.[39] Experimental design Experimental techniques Neurolinguists employ a variety of experimental techniques in order to use brain imaging to draw conclusions about how language is represented and processed in the brain. These techniques include the subtraction paradigm, mismatch design, violation-based studies, various forms of priming, and direct stimulation of the brain. Subtraction Many language studies, particularly in fMRI, use the subtraction paradigm,[40] in which brain activation in a task thought to involve some aspect of language processing is compared against activation in a baseline task thought to involve similar non-linguistic processes but not to involve the linguistic process. For example, activations while participants read words may be compared to baseline activations while participants read strings of random letters (in attempt to isolate activation related to lexical processing—the processing of real words), or activations while participants read syntactically complex sentences may be compared to baseline activations while participants read simpler sentences. Mismatch paradigm The mismatch negativity (MMN) is a rigorously documented ERP component frequently used in neurolinguistic experiments.[36][41] It is an electrophysiological response that occurs in the brain when a subject hears a "deviant" stimulus in a set of perceptually identical "standards" (as in the sequence s s s s s s s d d s s s s s s d s s s s s d).[42][43] Since the MMN is elicited only in response to a rare "oddball" stimulus in a set of other stimuli that are perceived to be the same, it has been used to test how speakers perceive sounds and organize stimuli categorically.[44][45] For example, a landmark study by Colin Phillips and colleagues used the mismatch negativity as evidence that subjects, Neurolinguistics when presented with a series of speech sounds with acoustic parameters, perceived all the sounds as either /t/ or /d/ in spite of the acoustic variability, suggesting that the human brain has representations of abstract phonemes—in other words, the subjects were "hearing" not the specific acoustic features, but only the abstract phonemes.[42] In addition, the mismatch negativity has been used to study syntactic processing and the recognition of word category.[36][41][46] Violation-based Many studies in neurolinguistics take advantage of anomalies or violations of syntactic or semantic rules in experimental stimuli, and analyzing the brain responses elicited when a subject encounters these violations. For example, sentences beginning with phrases such as *the garden was on the worked,[47] which violates an English phrase structure rule, often elicit a brain response called the early left anterior negativity (ELAN).[37] Violation techniques have been in use since at least 1980,[37] when Kutas and Hillyard first reported ERP evidence that semantic violations elicited an N400 effect.[48] Using similar methods, in 1992, Lee Osterhout first reported the P600 response to An event-related potential syntactic anomalies.[49] Violation designs have also been used for hemodynamic studies (fMRI and PET): Embick and colleagues, for example, used grammatical and spelling violations to investigate the location of syntactic processing in the brain using fMRI.[20] Another common use of violation designs is to combine two kinds of violations in the same sentence and thus make predictions about how different language processes interact with one another; this type of crossing-violation study has been used extensively to investigate how syntactic and semantic processes interact while people read or hear sentences.[50][51] Priming In psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics, priming refers to the phenomenon whereby a subject can recognize a word more quickly if he or she has recently been presented with a word that is similar in meaning[52] or morphological makeup (i.e., composed of similar parts).[53] If a subject is presented with a "target" word such as doctor and then a "prime" word such as nurse, if the subject has a faster-than-usual response time to nurse then the experimenter may assume that word nurse in the brain had already been accessed when the word doctor was accessed.[54] Priming is used to investigate a wide variety of questions about how words are stored and retrieved in the brain[53][55] and how structurally complex sentences are processed.[56] Stimulation Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a new noninvasive[57] technique for studying brain activity, uses powerful magnetic fields that are applied to the brain from outside the head.[58] It is a method of exciting or interrupting brain activity in a specific and controlled location, and thus is able to imitate aphasic symptoms while giving the researcher more control over exactly which parts of the brain will be examined.[58] As such, it is a less invasive alternative to direct cortical stimulation, which can be used for similar types of research but requires that the subject's scalp be removed, and is thus only used on individuals who are already undergoing a major brain operation (such as individuals undergoing surgery for epilepsy).[59] The logic behind TMS and direct cortical stimulation is similar to the logic behind aphasiology: if a particular language function is impaired when a specific region of the brain is knocked out, then that region must be somehow implicated in that language function. Few neurolinguistic studies to date have used TMS;[1] direct cortical stimulation and cortical recording (recording brain activity using electrodes placed directly on the brain) have been used with macaque monkeys to make predictions about the behavior of human brains.[60] 163 Neurolinguistics 164 Subject tasks In many neurolinguistics experiments, subjects do not simply sit and listen to or watch stimuli, but also are instructed to perform some sort of task in response to the stimuli.[61] Subjects perform these tasks while recordings (electrophysiological or hemodynamic) are being taken, usually in order to ensure that they are paying attention to the stimuli.[62] At least one study has suggested that the task the subject does has an effect on the brain responses and the results of the experiment.[63] Lexical decision The lexical decision task involves subjects seeing or hearing an isolated word and answering whether or not it is a real word. It is frequently used in priming studies, since subjects are known to make a lexical decision more quickly if a word has been primed by a related word (as in "doctor" priming "nurse").[52][53][54] Grammaticality judgment, acceptability judgment Many studies, especially violation-based studies, have subjects make a decision about the "acceptability" (usually grammatical acceptability or semantic acceptability) of stimuli.[63][64][65][66][67] Such a task is often used to "ensure that subjects [are] reading the sentences attentively and that they [distinguish] acceptable from unacceptable sentences in the way the [experimenter] expect[s] them to do."[65] Experimental evidence has shown that the instructions given to subjects in an acceptability judgment task can influence the subjects' brain responses to stimuli. One experiment showed that when subjects were instructed to judge the "acceptability" of sentences they did not show an N400 brain response (a response commonly associated with semantic processing), but that they did show that response when instructed to ignore grammatical acceptability and only judge whether or not the sentences "made sense."[63] Probe verification Some studies use a "probe verification" task rather than an overt acceptability judgment; in this paradigm, each experimental sentence is followed by a "probe word", and subjects must answer whether or not the probe word had appeared in the sentence.[54][65] This task, like the acceptability judgment task, ensures that subjects are reading or listening attentively, but may avoid some of the additional processing demands of acceptability judgments, and may be used no matter what type of violation is being presented in the study.[54] Truth-value judgment Subjects may be instructed not to judge whether or not the sentence is grammatically acceptable or logical, but whether the proposition expressed by the sentence is true or false. This task is commonly used in psycholinguistic studies of child language.[68][69] Active distraction and double-task Some experiments give subjects a "distractor" task to ensure that subjects are not consciously paying attention to the experimental stimuli; this may be done to test whether a certain computation in the brain is carried out automatically, regardless of whether the subject devotes attentional resources to it. For example, one study had subjects listen to non-linguistic tones (long beeps and buzzes) in one ear and speech in the other ear, and instructed subjects to press a button when they perceived a change in the tone; this supposedly caused subjects not to pay explicit attention to grammatical violations in the speech stimuli. The subjects showed a mismatch response (MMN) anyway, suggesting that the processing of the grammatical errors was happening automatically, regardless of attention[36]—or at least that subjects were unable to consciously separate their attention from the speech stimuli. Another related form of experiment is the double-task experiment, in which a subject must perform an extra task (such as sequential finger-tapping or articulating nonsense syllables) while responding to linguistic stimuli; this kind of experiment has been used to investigate the use of working memory in language processing.[70] Neurolinguistics 165 Further reading • Ahlsén, Elisabeth (2006). Introduction to Neurolinguistics [71]. John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp. 212. ISBN 90-272-3233-4. • Moro, Andrea (2008). The Boundaries of Babel. The Brain and the Enigma of Impossible Languages [72]. MIT Press. pp. 257. ISBN 978-0-262-13498-9. • Stemmer, Brigitte; Harry A. Whitaker (1998). Handbook of Neurolinguistics [73]. Academic Press. pp. 788. ISBN 0-12-666055-7. Some relevant journals include the Journal of Neurolinguistics [74] and Brain and Language subscription access journals, though some abstracts may be generally available. [75] . Both are Notes [1] Phillips, Colin; Kuniyoshi L. Sakai (2005). "Language and the brain" (http:/ / mind. c. u-tokyo. ac. jp/ Sakai_Lab_files/ Staff/ KLS_Paper/ KLS2005. pdf). Yearbook of Science and Technology. McGraw-Hill Publishers. pp. 166–169. . [2] Wiśniewski, Kamil (12 August 2007). "Neurolinguistics" (http:/ / www. tlumaczenia-angielski. info/ linguistics/ neurolinguistics. htm). Język angielski online. . Retrieved 31 January 2009. [3] Dronkers, N.F.; O. Plaisant; M.T. Iba-Zizen; E.A. Cabanis (2007). "Paul Broca's historic cases: high resolution MR imaging of the brains of Leborgne and Lelong" (http:/ / brain. oxfordjournals. org/ cgi/ reprint/ 130/ 5/ 1432). Brain 130 (Pt 5): 1432–3, 1441. doi:10.1093/brain/awm042. PMID 17405763. . Retrieved 25 January 2009. [4] Teter, Theresa (May 2000). "Pierre-Paul Broca" (http:/ / www. muskingum. edu/ ~psych/ psycweb/ history/ broca. htm). Muskingum College. . Retrieved 25 January 2009. [5] "Pierre Paul Broca" (http:/ / www. whonamedit. com/ doctor. cfm/ 1982. html). Who Named It?. . Retrieved 25 January 2009. [6] McCaffrey, Patrick (2008). "CMSD 620 Neuroanatomy of Speech, Swallowing and Language" (http:/ / www. csuchico. edu/ ~pmccaffrey/ syllabi/ CMSD 320/ 362unit4. html). Neuroscience on the Web. California State University, Chico. . Retrieved 22 February 2009. [7] Garey, Laurence. "Brodmann's" (http:/ / www. springer. com/ biomed/ neuroscience/ book/ 978-0-387-26917-7). . Retrieved 22 February 2009. [8] Ingram (2007), p. 3. [9] Peng, F.C.C. (1985). "What is neurolinguistics?". Journal of Neurolinguistics 1 (1): 7. doi:10.1016/S0911-6044(85)80003-8. [10] Brown, Colin M.; and Peter Hagoort (1999). "The cognitive neuroscience of language." in Brown & Hagoort, The Neurocognition of Language. p. 6. [11] Weisler (1999), p. 293. [12] Hagoort, Peter (2003). "How the brain solves the binding problem for language: a neurocomputational model of syntactic processing". NeuroImage 20: S18–29. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.09.013. PMID 14597293. [13] Hall, Christopher J (2005). An Introduction to Language and Linguistics (http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=RWspkUKj274C& pg=PA69& lpg=PA69& dq=neurolinguistics+ and+ psycholinguistics). Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 274. ISBN 0-8264-8734-3. . [14] Hagoort, Peter; Colin M. Brown; Lee Osterhout (1999). "The neurocognition of syntactic processing." in Brown & Hagoort. The Neurocognition of Language. p. 280. [15] Hagoort, Peter (2003). "How the brain solves the binding problem for language: a neurocomputational model of syntactic processing". NeuroImage 20: S19–S20. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.09.013. PMID 14597293. [16] Pylkkänen, Liina. "What is neurolinguistics?" (http:/ / www. psych. nyu. edu/ pylkkanen/ Neural_Bases/ 01_Intro. pdf). p. 2. . Retrieved 31 January 2009. [17] See, for example, Friederici, Angela D. (2002). "Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing". TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 6 (2): 78. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01839-8., which discusses how three brain responses reflect three stages of Fodor and Frazier's model. [18] Weisler (1999), p. 280. [19] Hickock, Gregory; David Poeppel (2007). "Opinion: The cortical organization of speech processing" (http:/ / www. nature. com/ nrn/ journal/ v8/ n5/ abs/ nrn2113. html). Nature Reviews Neuroscience 8 (5): 393–402. doi:10.1038/nrn2113. PMID 17431404. . [20] Embick, David; Alec Marantz; Yasushi Miyashita; Wayne O'Neil; Kuniyoshi L. Sakai (2000). "A syntactic specialization for Broca's area" (http:/ / www. pnas. org/ content/ 97/ 11/ 6150. abstract?ck=nck). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97 (11): 6150–6154. doi:10.1073/pnas.100098897. PMC 18573. PMID 10811887. . [21] Brown, Colin M.; and Peter Hagoort (1999). "The cognitive neuroscience of language." in Brown & Hagoort. The Neurocognition of Language. p. 7. [22] Wang Yue; Joan A. Sereno; Allard Jongman; and Joy Hirsch (2003). "fMRI evidence for cortical modification during learning of Mandarin lexical tone". Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 15 (7): 1019–1027. doi:10.1162/089892903770007407. PMID 14614812. [23] Menn, Lise. "Neurolinguistics" (http:/ / www. lsadc. org/ info/ ling-fields-neuro. cfm). Linguistic Society of America. . Retrieved 18 December 2008. Neurolinguistics [24] "The Bilingual Brain" (http:/ / www. sfn. org/ index. cfm?pagename=brainBriefings_thebilingualbrain). Brain Briefings. Society for Neuroscience. February 2008. . Retrieved 1 February 2009. [25] Friederici, Angela D. (2002). "Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing". TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 6 (2): 78–84. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01839-8. [26] Caplan (1987), p. 11. [27] Caplan (1987), p. 12. [28] Sereno, Joan A; Yue Wang (2007). "Behavioral and cortical effects of learning a second language: The acquisition of tone". In Ocke-Schwen Bohn and Murray J. Munro. Language Experience in Second Language Speech Learning. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. [29] Ward, Jamie (2006). "The imaged brain". The Student's Guide to Cognitive Neuroscience. Psychology Press. ISBN 1-84169-534-3. [30] Kutas, Marta; Kara D. Federmeier (2002). "Electrophysiology reveals memory use in language comprehension". TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 4 (12). [31] Filler AG, Tsuruda JS, Richards TL, Howe FA: Images, apparatus, algorithms and methods. GB 9216383, UK Patent Office, 1992. [32] Ansaldo, Ana Inés; Kahlaoui, Karima; Joanette, Yves (2011). "Functional near-infrared spectroscopy: Looking at the brain and language mystery from a different angle". Brain and Language 121 (2). doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2012.03.001. [33] Pylkkänen, Liina; Alec Marantz (2003). "Tracking the time course of word recognition with MEG". TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 7 (5): 187–189. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00092-5. [34] Van Petten, Cyma; Luka, Barbara (2006). "Neural localization of semantic context effects in electromagnetic and hemodynamic studies". Brain and Language (96): 281. [35] Coles, Michael G.H.; Michael D. Rugg (1996). "Event-related brain potentials: an introduction" (http:/ / l3d. cs. colorado. edu/ ~ctg/ classes/ lib/ cogsci/ Rugg-ColesChp1. pdf). Electrophysiology of Mind. Oxford Scholarship Online Monographs. pp. 1–27. ISBN 0-19-852135-9. . [36] Pulvermüller, Friedemann; Yury Shtyrov; Anna S. Hasting; Robert P. Carlyon (2008). "Syntax as a reflex: neurophysiological evidence for the early automaticity of syntactic processing". Brain and Language 104 (3): 244–253. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2007.05.002. PMID 17624417. [37] Frisch, Stefan; Anja Hahne; Angela D. Friederici (2004). "Word category and verb–argument structure information in the dynamics of parsing". Cognition 91 (3): 191–219. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2003.09.009. PMID 15168895. [38] Kaan, Edith; Swaab, Tamara (2003). "Repair, revision, and complexity in syntactic analysis: an electrophysiological differentiation". Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 15 (1): 98–110. doi:10.1162/089892903321107855. PMID 12590846. [39] van Turrenout, Miranda; Hagoort, Peter; Brown, Colin M (1998). "Brain activity during speaking: from syntax to phonology in 40 milliseconds". Science 280 (5363): 572–4. doi:10.1126/science.280.5363.572. PMID 9554845. [40] Grabowski, T., and Damasio, A.” (2000). Investigating language with functional neuroimaging. San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press. 14, 425-461. [41] Pulvermüller, Friedemann; Yury Shtyrov (2003). "Automatic processing of grammar in the human brain as revealed by the mismatch negativity". NeuroImage 20 (1): 159–172. doi:10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00261-1. PMID 14527578. [42] Phillips, Colin; T. Pellathy; A. Marantz; E. Yellin; K. Wexler; M. McGinnis; D. Poeppel; T. Roberts (2001). "Auditory cortex accesses phonological category: an MEG mismatch study". Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12 (6): 1038–1055. doi:10.1162/08989290051137567. [43] Shtyrov, Yury; Olaf Hauk; Friedmann Pulvermüller (2004). "Distributed neuronal networks for encoding category-specific semantic information: the mismatch negativity to action words". European Journal of Neuroscience 19 (4): 1083–1092. doi:10.1111/j.0953-816X.2004.03126.x. PMID 15009156. [44] Näätänen, Risto; Lehtokoski, Anne; Lennes, Mietta; Cheour, Marie; Huotilainen, Minna; Iivonen, Antti; Vainio, Martti; Alku, Paavo et al. (1997). "Language-specific phoneme representations revealed by electric and magnetic brain responses". Nature 385 (6615): 432–434. doi:10.1038/385432a0. PMID 9009189. [45] Kazanina, Nina; Colin Phillips; William Idsardi (2006). "The influence of meaning on the perception of speech sounds". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103 (30): 11381–11386. doi:10.1073/pnas.0604821103. PMC 3020137. PMID 16849423. [46] Hasing, Anna S.; Sonja A. Kotz; Angela D. Friederici (2007). "Setting the stage for automatic syntax processing: the mismatch negativity as an indicator of syntactic priming". Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19 (3): 386–400. doi:10.1162/jocn.2007.19.3.386. PMID 17335388. [47] Example from Frisch et al. (2004: 195). [48] Kutas, M.; S.A. Hillyard (1980). "Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity". Science 207 (4427): 203–205. doi:10.1126/science.7350657. PMID 7350657. [49] Osterhout, Lee; Phillip J. Holcomb (1992). "Event-related Potentials Elicited by Grammatical Anomalies". Psychophysiological Brain Research: 299–302. [50] Martín-Loeches, Manuel; Roland Nigbura; Pilar Casadoa; Annette Hohlfeldc; Werner Sommer (2006). "Semantics prevalence over syntax during sentence processing: a brain potential study of noun–adjective agreement in Spanish". Brain Research 6 (1): 178–189. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.03.094. PMID 16678138. [51] Frisch, Stefan; Anja Hahne; Angela D. Friederici (2004). "Word category and verb–argument structure information in the dynamics of parsing". Cognition 91 (3): 191–219. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2003.09.009. PMID 15168895. [52] "Experiment Description: Lexical Decision and Semantic Priming" (http:/ / psych. athabascau. ca/ html/ Psych355/ Exp/ lexical. shtml?sso=true). Athatbasca University. 27 June 2005. . Retrieved 14 December 2008. 166 Neurolinguistics [53] Fiorentino, Robert; David Poeppel (2007). "Processing of compound words: an MEG study". Brain and Language 103: 8–249. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2007.07.009. [54] Friederici, Angela D.; Karsten Steinhauer; Stefan Frisch (1999). "Lexical integration: sequential effects of syntactic and semantic information". Memory & Cognition 27 (3): 438–453. doi:10.3758/BF03211539. [55] Devlin, Joseph T.; Helen L. Jamison; Paul M. Matthews; Laura M. Gonnerman (2004). "Morphology and the internal structure of words". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101 (41): 14984–14988. doi:10.1073/pnas.0403766101. PMC 522020. PMID 15358857. [56] Zurif, E.B.; D. Swinney; P. Prather; J. Solomon; C. Bushell (1993). "An on-line analysis of syntactic processing in Broca's and Wernicke's aphasia". Brain and Language 45 (3): 448–464. doi:10.1006/brln.1993.1054. PMID 8269334. [57] "Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation - Risks" (http:/ / www. mayoclinic. com/ health/ transcranial-magnetic-stimulation/ MY00185/ DSECTION=risks). Mayo Clinic. . Retrieved 15 December 2008. [58] "Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS)" (http:/ / www. nami. org/ Content/ ContentGroups/ Helpline1/ Transcranial_Magnetic_Stimulation_(rTMS). htm). National Alliance on Mental Illness. . Retrieved 15 December 2008. [59] A.R. Wyler; A.A. Ward, Jr (1981). "Neurons in human epileptic cortex. Response to direct cortical stimulation". Journal of Neurosurgery 55 (6): 904–8. doi:10.3171/jns.1981.55.6.0904. PMID 7299464. [60] Hagoort, Peter (2005). "On Broca, brain, and binding: a new framework". TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 9 (9): 416–23. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.07.004. PMID 16054419. [61] One common exception to this is studies using the mismatch paradigm, in which subjects are often instructed to watch a silent movie or otherwise not pay attention actively to the stimuli. See, for example: • Pulvermüller, Friedemann; Ramin Assadollahi (2007). "Grammar or serial order?: discrete combinatorial brain mechanicsms reflected by the syntactic mismatch negativity". Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19 (6): 971–980. doi:10.1162/jocn.2007.19.6.971. PMID 17536967. 167 Pulvermüller, Friedemann; Yury Shtyrov (2003). "Automatic processing of grammar in the human brain as revealed by the mismatch negativity". NeuroImage 20 (1): 159–172. doi:10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00261-1. PMID 14527578. [62] Van Petten, Cyma (1993). "A comparison of lexical and sentence-level context effects in event-related potentials". Language and Cognitive Processes 8 (4): 490–91. [63] Hahne, Anja; Angela D. Friederici (2002). "Differential task effects on semantic and syntactic processes as revealed by ERPs". Cognitive Brain Research 13 (3): 339–356. doi:10.1016/S0926-6410(01)00127-6. [64] Zheng Ye; Yue-jia Luo; Angela D. Friederici; Xiaolin Zhou (2006). "Semantic and syntactic processing in Chinese sentence comprehension: evidence from event-related potentials". Brain Research 1071 (1): 186–196. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2005.11.085. PMID 16412999. [65] Frisch, Stefan; Anja Hahne; Angela D. Friederici (2004). "Word category and verb–argument structure information in the dynamics of parsing". Cognition 91 (3): 200–201. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2003.09.009. PMID 15168895. [66] Osterhout, Lee (1997). "On the brain response to syntactic anomalies: manipulations of word position and word class reveal individual differences". Brain and Language 59 (3): 494–522. doi:10.1006/brln.1997.1793. PMID 9299074. [67] Hagoort, Peter (2003). "Interplay between syntax and semantics during sentence comprehension: ERP effects of combining syntactic and semantic violations". Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 15 (6): 883–899. doi:10.1162/089892903322370807. PMID 14511541. [68] Gordon, Peter. "The Truth-Value Judgment Task" (http:/ / faculty. tc. columbia. edu/ upload/ pg328/ TRUTHVALUECHAPT. pdf). In D. McDaniel, C. McKee, H. Cairns. Methods for assessing children's syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. p. 1. . [69] Crain, Stephen, Luisa Meroni, and Utako Minai. " If Everybody Knows, then Every Child Knows (http:/ / www. maccs. mq. edu. au/ ~scrain/ papers/ GALA'04. pdf)." University of Maryland at College Park. Retrieved on 14 December 2008. [70] Rogalsky, Corianne; William Matchin; Gregory Hickok (2008). "Broca's Area, Sentence Comprehension, and Working Memory: An fMRI Study". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 2: 14. doi:10.3389/neuro.09.014.2008. PMC 2572210. PMID 18958214. [71] http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=jVR1AAAACAAJ& dq=Introduction+ to+ Neurolinguistics [72] http:/ / mitpress. mit. edu/ catalog/ item/ default. asp?ttype=2& tid=11488 [73] http:/ / books. google. com/ ?id=4tkFAAAACAAJ& dq=Handbook+ of+ Neurolinguistics [74] http:/ / www. elsevier. com/ wps/ find/ journaldescription. cws_home/ 866/ description#description [75] http:/ / www. elsevier. com/ wps/ find/ journaldescription. cws_home/ 622799/ description#description • Neurolinguistics 168 References • Colin M. Brown and Peter Hagoort, ed. (1999). The Neurocognition of Language. New York: Oxford University Press. • Caplan, David (1987). Neurolinguistics and Linguistic Aphasiology: An Introduction (http://books.google.com/ ?id=E3XrTCsU7bkC). Cambridge University Press. pp. 498. ISBN 0-521-31195-0. • Ingram, John C.L. (2007). Neurolinguistics: An Introduction to Spoken Language Processing and Its Disorders (http://books.google.com/?id=CQ8agSNL9MYC). Cambridge University Press. pp. 420. ISBN 0-521-79190-1. • Weisler, Stephen; Slavoljub P. Milekic (1999). "Brain and Language" (http://books.google.com/ ?id=wIaGLUFHtxsC&pg=PA273&lpg=PA273&dq=what+is+neurolinguistics). Theory of Language. MIT Press. pp. 344. ISBN 0-262-73125-8. External links • Society for Neuroscience (SfN) (http://www.sfn.org/) • Talking Brains (http://talkingbrains.blogspot.com/), blog by neurolinguists Greg Hickock and David Poeppel Psycholinguistics Psycholinguistics or psychology of language is the study of the psychological and neurobiological factors that enable humans to acquire, use, comprehend and produce language. Initial forays into psycholinguistics were largely philosophical ventures, due mainly to a lack of cohesive data on how the human brain functioned. Modern research makes use of biology, neuroscience, cognitive science, linguistics, and information theory to study how the brain processes language. There are a number of subdisciplines with non-invasive techniques for studying the neurological workings of the brain; for example, neurolinguistics has become a field in its own right. Psycholinguistics covers the cognitive processes that make it possible to generate a grammatical and meaningful sentence out of vocabulary and grammatical structures, as well as the processes that make it possible to understand utterances, words, text, etc. Developmental psycholinguistics studies children's ability to learn language. Areas of study Psycholinguistics is an interdisciplinary field. Hence, it is studied by researchers from a variety of different backgrounds, such as psychology, cognitive science, linguistics, and speech and language pathology. Psycholinguists study many different topics, but these topics can generally be divided into answering the following questions: (1) how do children acquire language (language acquisition)?; (2) how do people process and comprehend language (language comprehension)?; (3) how do people produce language (language production)?; and (4) how do adults acquire a new language (second language acquisition)? Subdivisions in psycholinguistics are also made based on the different components that make up human language. Linguistics-related areas: • Phonetics and phonology are concerned with the study of speech sounds. Within psycholinguistics, research focuses on how the brain processes and understands these sounds. • Morphology is the study of word structures, especially the relationships between related words (such as dog and dogs) and the formation of words based on rules (such as plural formation). • Syntax is the study of the patterns which dictate how words are combined to form sentences. • Semantics deals with the meaning of words and sentences. Where syntax is concerned with the formal structure of sentences, semantics deals with the actual meaning of sentences. • Pragmatics is concerned with the role of context in the interpretation of meaning. Psycholinguistics A researcher interested in language comprehension may study word recognition during reading to examine the processes involved in the extraction of orthographic, morphological, phonological, and semantic information from patterns in printed text. A researcher interested in language production might study how words are prepared to be spoken starting from the conceptual or semantic level. Developmental psycholinguistics study infants' and children's ability to learn and process language.[1] 169 Theories In this section, some influential theories are discussed for each of the fundamental questions listed in the section above. Language acquisition There are essentially two schools of thought as to how children acquire or learn language, and there is still much debate as to which theory is the correct one. The first theory states that all language must be learned by the child. The second view states that the abstract system of language cannot be learned, but that humans possess an innate language faculty, or an access to what has been called universal grammar. The view that language must be learned was especially popular before 1960 and is well represented by the mentalistic theories of Jean Piaget and the empiricist Rudolf Carnap. Likewise, the school of psychology known as behaviorism (see Verbal Behavior (1957) by B.F. Skinner) puts forth the point of view that language is a behavior shaped by conditioned response, hence it is learned. The innatist perspective began with Noam Chomsky's highly critical review of Skinner's book in 1959.[2] This review helped to start what has been termed "the cognitive revolution" in psychology. Chomsky posited humans possess a special, innate ability for language and that complex syntactic features, such as recursion, are "hard-wired" in the brain. These abilities are thought to be beyond the grasp of the most intelligent and social non-humans. According to Chomsky, children acquiring a language have a vast search space to explore among all possible human grammars, yet at the time there was no evidence that children receive sufficient input to learn all the rules of their language (see poverty of the stimulus). Hence, there must be some other innate mechanism that endows a language ability to humans. Such a language faculty is, according to the innateness hypothesis, what defines human language and makes it different from even the most sophisticated forms of animal communication. The field of linguistics and psycholinguistics since then has been defined by reactions to Chomsky, pro and con. The pro view still holds that the human ability to use language (specifically the ability to use recursion) is qualitatively different from any sort of animal ability.[3] This ability may have resulted from a favorable mutation or from an adaptation of skills evolved for other purposes. The view that language can be learned has had a recent resurgence inspired by emergentism. This view challenges the "innate" view as scientifically unfalsifiable; that is to say, it can't be tested. With the amount of computer power increasing since the 1980s, researchers have been able to simulate language acquisition using neural network models.[4] These models provide evidence that there may, in fact, be sufficient information contained in the input to learn language, even syntax. If this is true, then an innate mechanism is no longer necessary to explain language acquisition. Language comprehension One question in the realm of language comprehension is how people understand sentences as they read (also known as sentence processing). Experimental research has spawned a number of theories about the architecture and mechanisms of sentence comprehension. Typically these theories are concerned with what types of information contained in the sentence the reader can use to build meaning, and at what point in reading does that information become available to the reader. Issues such as "modular" versus "interactive" processing have been theoretical divides in the field. Psycholinguistics A modular view of sentence processing assumes that the stages involved in reading a sentence function independently in separate modules. These modulates have limited interaction with one another. For example, one influential theory of sentence processing, the garden-path theory,[5] states that syntactic analysis takes place first. Under this theory as the reader is reading a sentence, he or she creates the simplest structure possible in order to minimize effort and cognitive load. This is done without any input from semantic analysis or context-dependent information. Hence, in the sentence "The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable," by the time the reader gets to the word "examined" he or she has committed to a reading of the sentence in which the evidence is examining something because it is the simplest parse. This commitment is made despite the fact that it results in an implausible situation; we know from experience that evidence can rarely if ever examine something. Under this "syntax first" theory, semantic information is processed at a later stage. It is only later that the reader will recognize that he or she needs to revise the initial parse into one in which "the evidence" is being examined. In this example, readers typically recognize their misparse by the time they reach "by the lawyer" and must go back and re-parse the sentence.[6] This reanalysis is costly and contributes to slower reading times. In contrast to a modular account, an interactive theory of sentence processing, such as a constraint-based lexical approach[7] assumes that all available information contained within a sentence can be processed at any time. Under an interactive account, for example, the semantics of a sentence (such as plausibility) can come into play early on in order to help determine the structure of a sentence. Hence, in the sentence above, the reader would be able to make use of plausibility information in order to assume that "the evidence" is being examined instead of doing the examining. There are data to support both modular and interactive accounts; which account is the correct one is still up for debate. 170 Methodologies Behavioral tasks Many of the experiments conducted in psycholinguistics, especially earlier on, are behavioral in nature. In these types of studies, subjects are presented with linguistic stimuli and asked to perform an action. For example, they may be asked to make a judgment about a word (lexical decision), reproduce the stimulus, or name a visually presented word aloud). Reaction times to respond to the stimuli (usually on the order of milliseconds) and proportion of correct responses are the most often employed measures of performance in behavioral tasks. Such experiments often take advantage of priming effects, whereby a "priming" word or phrase appearing in the experiment can speed up the lexical decision for a related "target" word later.[8] As an example of how behavioral methods can be used in psycholinguistics research, Fischler (1977) investigated word encoding using the lexical decision task. He asked participants to make decisions about whether two strings of letters were English words. Sometimes the strings would be actual English words requiring a "yes" response, and other times they would be nonwords requiring a "no" response. A subset of the licit words were related semantically (e.g., cat-dog) while others were unrelated (e.g., bread-stem). Fischler found that related word pairs were responded to faster when compared to unrelated word pairs. This facilitation suggests that semantic relatedness can facilitate word encoding.[9] Eye-movements Recently, eye tracking has been used to study online language processing. Beginning with Rayner (1978)[10] the importance and informativity of eye-movements during reading was established. Later, Tanenhaus et al. (1995)[11] used the visual-world paradigm to study the cognitive processes related to spoken language. Assuming that eye movements are closely linked to the current focus of attention, language processing can be studied by monitoring eye movements while a subject is presented auditorily with linguistic input. Psycholinguistics 171 Language Production Errors The analysis of systematic errors in speech, writing and typing of language as it is produced can provide evidence of the process which has generated it. Neuroimaging Until the recent advent of non-invasive medical techniques, brain surgery was the preferred way for language researchers to discover how language works in the brain. For example, severing the corpus callosum (the bundle of nerves that connects the two hemispheres of the brain) was at one time a treatment for some forms of epilepsy. Researchers could then study the ways in which the comprehension and production of language were affected by such drastic surgery. Where an illness made brain surgery necessary, language researchers had an opportunity to pursue their research. Newer, non-invasive techniques now include brain imaging by positron emission tomography (PET); functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI); event-related potentials (ERPs) in electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG); and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Brain imaging techniques vary in their spatial and temporal resolutions (fMRI has a resolution of a few thousand neurons per pixel, and ERP has millisecond accuracy). Each type of methodology presents a set of advantages and disadvantages for studying a particular problem in psycholinguistics. Computational modeling Computational modeling—e.g. the DRC model of reading and word recognition proposed by Coltheart and colleagues[12]—is another methodology. It refers to the practice of setting up cognitive models in the form of executable computer programs. Such programs are useful because they require theorists to be explicit in their hypotheses and because they can be used to generate accurate predictions for theoretical models that are so complex that they render discursive analysis unreliable. Another example of computational modeling is McClelland and Elman's TRACE model of speech perception.[13] Issues and areas of research Psycholinguistics is concerned with the nature of the computations and processes that the brain undergoes to comprehend and produce language. For example, the cohort model seeks to describe how words are retrieved from the mental lexicon when an individual hears or sees linguistic input.[8][14] Recent research using new non-invasive imaging techniques seeks to shed light on just where certain language processes occur in the brain. There are a number of unanswered questions in psycholinguistics, such as whether the human ability to use syntax is based on innate mental structures or emerges from interaction with other humans, and whether some animals can be taught the syntax of human language. Two other major subfields of psycholinguistics investigate first language acquisition, the process by which infants acquire language, and second language acquisition. In addition, it is much more difficult for adults to acquire second languages than it is for infants to learn their first language (bilingual infants are able to learn both of their native languages easily). Thus, sensitive periods may exist during which language can be learned readily.[15] A great deal of research in psycholinguistics focuses on how this ability develops and diminishes over time. It also seems to be the case that the more languages one knows, the easier it is to learn more.[16] The field of aphasiology deals with language deficits that arise because of brain damage. Studies in aphasiology can both offer advances in therapy for individuals suffering from aphasia, and further insight into how the brain processes language. Psycholinguistics 172 References [1] Houston, D.M.; Jusczyk, P.W. (2000). "The ROle of Talker-Specific Information in Word Segmentation by Infants" (http:/ / www. iupui. edu/ ~babytalk/ pdfs/ Houston_2011. pdf). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26 (5): 1570–1582. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.26.5.1570. . Retrieved 1 March 2012. [2] Chomsky, N; Skinner, B. F. (1959). "A Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior". Language (Linguistic Society of America) 35 (1): 26–58. doi:10.2307/411334. ISSN 0097-8507. JSTOR 411334. [3] Hauser M.D., Chomsky N., Fitch W. (2002). Science 298 (5598): 1569–79. doi:10.1126/science.298.5598.1569. PMID 12446899. [4] Elman, Jeffrey; Bates Elizabeth, Johnson Mark, Karmiloff-Smith Annette, Parisi Domenico, Plunkett Kim (1998). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. The MIT Press. [5] Frazier L., Rayner, K. (1982). "Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences". Cognitive psychology 14 (2): 178–210. [6] Rayner K., Carlson M., Frazier L. (1983). "The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences". Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior 22 (3): 358–374. [7] Trueswell J., Tanenhaus M. (1994). "Toward a lexical framework of constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution". Perspectives on sentence processing: 155–179. [8] Packard, Jerome L (2000). "Chinese words and the lexicon." The Morphology of Chinese: A Linguistic and Cognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 284-309. [9] {Fischler I. (1977). "Semantic facilitation without association in a lexical decision task". Memory & Cognition 5 (3): 335-339. [10] Rayner K. (1978). "Eye movements in reading and information processing". Psychological Bulletin 85 (3): 618–660. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.85.3.618. PMID 353867. [11] Tanenhaus M. K., Spivey-Knowlton M. J., Eberhard K. M., Sedivy J. E. (1995). "Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension". Science 268 (5217): 1632–1634. doi:10.1126/science.7777863. PMID 7777863. [12] Coltheart M., Rastle K., Perry C., Langdon R., Ziegler J. (2001). "DRC: "A dual route cascaded of visual word recognition and reading aloud". Psychological Review 108: 204–256. [13] McClelland, J.L., & Elman, J.L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1-86. [14] Altmann, Gerry T.M. (1997). "Words, and how we (eventually) find them." The Ascent of Babel: An Exploration of Language, Mind, and Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 65-83. [15] Seidner, Stanley S.(1982). Ethnicity, Language, and Power from a Psycholinguistic Perspective. Bruxelles: Centre de recherche sur le pluralinguisme. pp. 4-7. [16] Seidner, Stanley S.(1982). Ethnicity, Language, and Power from a Psycholinguistic Perspective. Bruxelles: Centre de recherche sur le pluralinguisme. p. 11. Further reading A short list of books that deal with psycholinguistics, written in language accessible to the non-expert, includes: • Belyanin V.P. Foundations of Psycholinguistic Diagnostics (Models of the World). Moscow, 2000 (in Russian) (http://www.textology.ru/belyanin/bel_ann1.html) • Chomsky, Noam. (2000) New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Harley, Trevor. (2008) The Psychology of Language: From data to theory (3rd. ed.) (http://www.psypress.com/ harley/) Hove: Psychology Press. • Harley, Trevor. (2009) Talking the talk: Language, psychology and science. Hove: Psychology Press. • Lakoff, George. (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. • Piattelli-Palmarini, Massimo. (ed.) (1980) Language and learning: the debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. • Pinker, Steven. (1994) The Language Instinct. New York: William Morrow. • Rayner, K. and Pollatsek, A. (1989) The Psychology of Reading. New York:Prentice Hall. • Steinberg, Danny D., Hiroshi Nagata, and David P. Aline, ed. (2001) Psycholinguistics: Language, Mind and World, 2nd ed. Longman (http://www.ling.ed.ac.uk/linguist/issues/13/13-55.html) • Steinberg, Danny D. & Sciarini, Natalia. (2006) Introduction to Psycholinguistics 2nd edition. London: Longman. • Aitchison, Jean. (1998). The Articulate Mammal: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. Routledge. • Scovel, Thomas. (1998). Psycholinguistics. Oxford University Press. Psycholinguistics 173 External links • Psycholinguistics (http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Social_Sciences/Linguistics/Psycholinguistics/) at the Open Directory Project History of linguistics Linguistics as a study endeavors to describe and explain the human faculty of language. In ancient civilization, linguistic study was originally motivated by the correct description of classical liturgical language, notably that of Sanskrit grammar by Pāṇini (fl. 4th century BCE), or by the development of logic and rhetoric among Greeks. Beginning around the 4th century BCE, China also developed its own grammatical traditions and Arabic grammar and Hebrew grammar developed during the Middle Ages. Modern linguistics began to develop in the 18th century, reaching the "golden age of philology" in the 19th century. The first half of the 20th century was marked by the structuralist school, based on the work of Ferdinand de Saussure in Europe and Edward Sapir and Leonard Bloomfield in the United States. The 1960s saw the rise of many new fields in linguistics, such as Noam Chomsky's generative grammar, William Labov's sociolinguistics, Michael Halliday's systemic functional linguistics and also modern psycholinguistics. Antiquity Across cultures, the early history of linguistics is associated with a need to disambiguate discourse, especially for ritual texts or in arguments. This often led to explorations of sound-meaning mappings, and the debate over conventional versus naturalistic origins for these symbols. Finally this led to the processes by which larger structures are formed from units. India Linguistics in ancient India derives its impetus from the need to correctly recite and interpret the Vedic texts. Already in the oldest Indian text, the Rigveda, vāk ("speech") is deified. By 1200 BCE,[1] the oral performance of these texts becomes standardized, and treatises on ritual recitation suggest splitting up the Sanskrit compounds into words, stems, and phonetic units, providing an impetus for morphology and phonetics. Over the next few centuries, clarity was reached in the organization of sound units, and the stop consonants were organized in a 5x5 square (c. 800 BCE, Pratisakhyas), eventually leading to a systematic alphabet, Brāhmī, around the 6th century BCE. In semantics, the early Sanskrit grammarian Śākaṭāyana (before c. 500 BCE) proposes that verbs represent ontologically prior categories, and that all nouns are etymologically derived from actions. The etymologist Yāska (c. 5th century BCE) posits that meaning inheres in the sentence, and that word meanings are derived based on sentential usage. He also provides four categories of words—nouns, verbs, pre-verbs, and particles/invariants—and a test for nouns both concrete and abstract: words which can be indicated by the pronoun that. Pāṇini (c. 4th century BCE) opposes the Yāska view that sentences are primary, and proposes a grammar for composing semantics from morphemic roots. Transcending the ritual text to consider living language, Pāṇini specifies a comprehensive set of about 4,000 aphoristic rules (sutras) that: 1. Map the semantics of verb argument structures into thematic roles 2. Provide morphosyntactic rules for creating verb forms and nominal forms whose seven cases are called karaka (similar to case) that generate the morphology 3. Take these morphological structures and consider phonological processes (e.g., root or stem modification) by which the final phonological form is obtained History of linguistics In addition, the Pāṇinian school also provides a list of 2000 verb roots which form the objects on which these rules are applied, a list of sounds (the so-called Shiva-sutras), and a list of 260 words not derivable by the rules. The extremely succinct specification of these rules and their complex interactions led to considerable commentary and extrapolation over the following centuries. The phonological structure includes defining a notion of sound universals similar to the modern phoneme, the systematization of consonants based on oral cavity constriction, and vowels based on height and duration. However, it is the ambition of mapping these from morpheme to semantics that is truly remarkable in modern terms. Grammarians following Pāṇini include Kātyāyana (c. 3rd century BCE), who wrote aphorisms on Pāṇini (the Varttika) and advanced mathematics; Patañjali (2nd century BCE), known for his commentary on selected topics in Pāṇini's grammar (the Mahabhasya) and on Kātyāyana's aphorisms, as well as, according to some, the author of the Yoga Sutras, and Pingala, with his mathematical approach to prosody. Several debates ranged over centuries, for example, on whether word-meaning mappings were conventional (Vaisheshika-Nyaya) or eternal (Kātyāyana-Patañjali-Mīmāṃsā). The Nyaya Sutras specified three types of meaning: the individual (this cow), the type universal (cowhood), and the image (draw the cow). That the sound of a word also forms a class (sound-universal) was observed by Bhartṛhari (c. 500 CE), who also posits that language-universals are the units of thought, close to the nominalist or even the linguistic determinism position. Bhartṛhari also considers the sentence to be ontologically primary (word meanings are learned given their sentential use). Of the six canonical texts or Vedangas that formed the core syllabus in Brahminic education from the 1st century CE until the 18th century, four dealt with language: • • • • Shiksha (śikṣā): phonetics and phonology (sandhi), Gārgeya and commentators Chandas (chandas): prosody or meter, Pingala and commentators Vyakarana (vyākaraṇa): grammar, Pāṇini and commentators Nirukta (nirukta): etymology, Yāska and commentators 174 Bhartrihari around 500 CE introduced a philosophy of meaning with his sphoṭa doctrine. This body of work became known in 19th century Europe, where it influenced modern linguistics initially through Franz Bopp, who mainly looked at Pāṇini. Subsequently, a wider body of work influenced Sanskrit scholars such as Ferdinand de Saussure, Leonard Bloomfield, and Roman Jakobson. Frits Staal[2] discussed the possible European impact of Indian ideas on language. After outlining the various aspects of the contact, Staal posits the theory that the idea of formal rules in language, first proposed by de Saussure in 1894, and finally developed by Chomsky in 1957, based on which formal rules were also introduced in computational languages, may indeed lie in the European exposure to the formal rules of Paninian grammar. In particular, de Saussure, who lectured on Sanskrit for three decades, may have been influenced by Pāṇini and Bhartrihari; his idea of the unity of signifier-signified in the sign is somewhat similar to the notion of Sphoṭa. More importantly, the very idea that formal rules can be applied to areas outside of logic or mathematics, may itself have been catalyzed by Europe's contact with the work of Sanskrit grammarians. The Pali Grammar of Kacchayana, dated to the early centuries CE, describes the language of the Buddhist canon. The Tolkāppiyam (dated to 7th century CE) presents a grammar of Tamil, derivatives of which are still used today. The Kavirajamarga is a treatise on Kannada grammar that is comparable in age to the Tolkappiyam. History of linguistics 175 Greece The first important advancement of the Greeks was the creation of the alphabet based on a system previously used by the Phoenicians, adding vowels and other consonants needed in Greek (see Robins, 1997). As a result of the introduction of writing, poetry such as the Homeric poems became written and several editions were created and commented on, forming the basis of philology and criticism. Along with written speech, the Greeks commence its study in grammatical and philosophical bases. A philosophical discussion about the nature and origins of language can be found as early as the works of Plato. A subject of concern was whether language was man-made, a social artifact, or supernatural in origin. Plato in his Cratylus presents the naturalistic view, that word meanings emerge out of a natural process, independent of the language user. His arguments are partly based on examples of compounding, where the meaning of the whole is usually related to the constituents, although by the end he admits a small role for convention. The sophists and Socrates introduced also dialectics as a new text genre. In his platonic dialogs there are definitions about the meter of the poems and tragedy, the form and the structure of those texts (see the Republic and Phaidros, Ion etc.).[3] Aristotle supports the conventional origins of meaning. He defined the logic of speech and the argument. Furthermore Aristotle's works on rhetoric and poetics were of the utmost importance for the understating of tragedy, poetry, public discussions etc. as text genres. Aristotle's work on logic interrelates with his special interest in language, and his work on this area was fundamentally important for the development of the study of language (logos in Greek means both language and logic reasoning). In Categories, Aristotle defines what is meant by "synonymous," or univocal words, what is meant by "homonymous," or equivocal words, and what is meant by "paronymous," or denominative words. It then divides forms of speech as being: • Either simple, without composition or structure, such as "man," "horse," "fights," etc. • Or having composition and structure, such as "a man fights," "the horse runs," etc. Next, he distinguishes between a subject of predication, namely that of which anything is affirmed or denied, and a subject of inhesion. A thing is said to be inherent in a subject, when, though it is not a part of the subject, it cannot possibly exist without the subject, e.g., shape in a thing having a shape. The categories are not abstract platonic entities but are found in speech, these are substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action and affection. In de Interpretatione, Aristotle analyzes categoric propositions, and draws a series of basic conclusions on the routine issues of classifying and defining basic linguistic forms, such as simple terms and propositions, nouns and verbs, negation, the quantity of simple propositions (primitive roots of the quantifiers in modern symbolic logic), investigations on the excluded middle (what to Aristotle isn't applicable to future tense propositions — the Problem of future contingents), and on modal propositions. Stoics made linguistics an important part of their understanding about the cosmos and the human. The important role of the Stoics in defining the linguistic sign terms adopted later on by Ferdinand de Saussure like "significant" and "signifie".[4] The Stoics studied phonetics grammar and etymology as separate levels of study. In phonetics and phonology the articulators were defined. The syllable became an important structure for the understanding of speech organization. One of the most important offers of the Stoics in language study was the gradual definition of the terminology and theory echoed in modern linguistics. Alexandrian grammarians also studied speech sounds and prosody, defined parts of speech with notions such as noun, verb, etc. There was also a discussion about the role of analogy in language, in this discussions the grammatici in Alexandria supported that language and especially morphology is based on analogy or paradigm, whereas the grammatic in schools Asia Minor consider that language is not based on analogical bases but rather on exceptions. Alexandrians, like their predecessors, were very interested in the meter and its relation with poetry. The metrical "feet" in the Greek was based on the length of time taken to pronounce each syllable, which were categorized according to their weight as either "long" syllables or "short" syllables (also known as "heavy" and "light" syllables, respectively, to distinguish from long and short vowels). The foot is often compared to a musical measure and the long and short syllables to whole notes and half notes. The basic unit in Greek and Latin prosody is a mora, which is History of linguistics defined as a single short syllable. A long syllable is equivalent to two moras. A long syllable contains either a long vowel, a diphthong, or a short vowel followed by two or more consonants. Various rules of elision sometimes prevent a grammatical syllable from making a full syllable, and certain other lengthening and shortening rules (such as correption) can create long or short syllables in contexts where one would expect the opposite. The most important Classical meter as defined by the Alexandrian grammarians was the dactylic hexameter, the meter of Homeric poetry. This form uses verses of six feet. The first four feet are dactyls, but can be spondees. The fifth foot is almost always a dactyl. The sixth foot is either a spondee or a trochee. The initial syllable of either foot is called the ictus, the basic "beat" of the verse. There is usually a caesura after the ictus of the third foot. Subsequently, the text Tékhnē grammatiké (c. 100 BCE, Gk. gramma meant letter, and this title means "Art of letters"), possibly written by Dionysius Thrax, lists eight parts of speech, and lays out the broad details of Greek morphology including the case structures. This text was intended as a pedagogic guide (as was Panini), and also covers punctuation and some aspects of prosody. Other grammars by Charisius (mainly a compilation of Thrax, as well as lost texts by Remmius Palaemon and others) and Diomedes (focusing more on prosody) were popular in Rome as pedagogic material for teaching Greek to native Latin speakers. One of the most prominent scholars of Alexandria and of the antiquity was Apollonius Dyscolus.[5] Apollonius wrote more than thirty treatises on questions of syntax, semantics, morphology, prosody, orthography, dialectology, and more. Happily, four of these are preserved—we still have a Syntax in four books, and three one-book monographs on pronouns, adverbs, and connectives, respectively. Lexicography become an important study domain as dictionaries, thesauri and lists of special words "λέξεις" that were old, or dialectical or special such as medical words, botanic words were made at that period by many grammarians. In the early medieval times we find more categories of dictionaries like the dictionary of Suida that is considered the first encyclopedic dictionary, etymological dictionaries etc. At that period, the Greek language was considered a lingua franca, i.e. the language spoken in the known world (for the Greeks and Romans) of that time and, as a result, modern linguistics struggles to overcome this. With the Greeks a tradition commenced in the study of language. The Romans and the medieval world followed and their laborious work is considered today as a part of our everyday language. Think, for example, of notions such as the word, the syllable, the verb, the subject etc. 176 Rome In the 4th century, Aelius Donatus compiled the Latin grammar Ars Grammatica that was to be the defining school text through the Middle Ages. A smaller version, Ars Minor, covered only the eight parts of speech; eventually when books came to be printed in the 15th c., this was one of the first books to be printed. Schoolboys subjected to all this education gave us the current meaning of "grammar" (attested in English since 1176). China Similar to the Indian tradition, Chinese philology, Xiaoxue (小 學 "elementary studies"), began as an aid to understanding classics in the Han dynasty (c. 3rd century BCE). Xiaoxue came to be divided into three branches: Xungu (訓 詁 "exegesis"), Wenzi (文 字 "script [analysis]") and Yinyun (音 韻 "[study of] sounds") and reached its golden age in the 17th century CE (Qing Dynasty). The glossary Erya (c. 3rd century BCE), comparable to the Indian Nighantu, is regarded as the first linguistic work in China. Shuowen Jiezi (c. 2nd century BCE), the first Chinese dictionary, classifies Chinese characters by radicals, a practice that would be followed by most subsequent lexicographers. Two more pioneering works produced during the Han Dynasty are Fangyan, the first Chinese work concerning dialects, and Shiming, devoted to etymology. As in ancient Greece, early Chinese thinkers were concerned with the relationship between names and reality. Confucius (6th century BCE) famously emphasized the moral commitment implicit in a name, (zhengming) stating that the moral collapse of the pre-Qin was a result of the failure to rectify behaviour to meet the moral commitment History of linguistics inherent in names: "Good government consists in the ruler being a ruler, the minister being a minister, the father being a father, and the son being a son... If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things." (Analects 12.11,13.3). However, what is the reality implied by a name? The later Mohists or the group known as School of Names (ming jia, 479-221 BCE), consider that ming (名 "name") may refer to three kinds of shi (實 "actuality"): type universals (horse), individual (John), and unrestricted (thing). They adopt a realist position on the name-reality connection universals arise because "the world itself fixes the patterns of similarity and difference by which things should be divided into kinds".[6] The philosophical tradition is well known for conundra resembling the sophists, e.g. when Gongsun Longzi (4th century BCE) questions if in copula statements (X is Y), are X and Y identical or is X a subclass of Y. This is the famous paradox "a white horse is not a horse". Xun Zi (3d century BCE) revisits the principle of zhengming, but instead of rectifying behaviour to suit the names, his emphasis is on rectifying language to correctly reflect reality. This is consistent with a more "conventional" view of word origins (yueding sucheng 約 定 俗 成). The study of phonology in China began late, and was influenced by the Indian tradition, after Buddhism had become popular in China. The rime dictionary is a type of dictionary arranged by tone and rime, in which the pronunciations of characters are indicated by fanqie spellings. Rime tables were later produced to aid the understanding of fanqie. Philological studies flourished during the Qing Dynasty, with Duan Yucai and Wang Niansun as the towering figures. The last great philologist of the era was Zhang Binglin, who also helped lay the foundation of modern Chinese linguistics. The Western comparative method was brought into China by Bernard Karlgren, the first scholar to reconstruct Middle Chinese and Old Chinese with Latin alphabet (not IPA). Important modern Chinese linguists include Y. R. Chao, Luo Changpei, Li Fanggui and Wang Li. The ancient commentators on the classics paid much attention to syntax and the use of particles. But the first Chinese grammar, in the modern sense of the word, was produced by Ma Jianzhong (late 19th century). His grammar was based on the Latin (prescriptive) model. 177 Middle Ages Middle East Due to the rapid expansion of Islam in the 8th century, many people learned Arabic as a lingua franca. For this reason, the earliest grammatical treatises on Arabic are often written by non-native speakers. The earliest grammarian who is known to us is ʿAbd Allāh ibn Abī Isḥāq al-Ḥaḍramī (died 735-736 CE, 117 AH). The efforts of three generations of grammarians culminated in the book of the Persian linguist Sibāwayhi (c. 760-793). Sibawayh made a detailed and professional description of Arabic in 760 in his monumental work, Al-kitab fi al-nahw (‫ ,ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻮ‬The Book on Grammar). In his book he distinguished phonetics from phonology. Europe The Irish Sanas Cormaic 'Cormac's Glossary' is Europe's first etymological and encyclopedic dictionary in any non-Classical language. The Modistae or "speculative grammarians" in the 13th century introduced the notion of universal grammar. In De vulgari eloquentia ("On the Eloquence of Vernacular"), Dante expanded the scope of linguistic enquiry from Latin/ Greek to include the languages of the day. Other linguistic works of the same period concerning the vernaculars include the First Grammatical Treatise (Icelandic) or the Auraicept na n-Éces (Irish). The Renaissance and Baroque period saw an intensified interest in linguistics, notably for the purpose of Bible translations by the Jesuits, and also related to philosophical speculation on philosophical languages and the origin of History of linguistics language. 178 Modern linguistics Modern linguistics does not begin until the late 18th century, and the romantic or animist theses of Johann Gottfried Herder and Johann Christoph Adelung remained influential well into the 19th century. Historical linguistics In the 18th century James Burnett, Lord Monboddo analyzed numerous languages and deduced logical elements of the evolution of human language. His thinking was interleaved with his precursive concepts of biological evolution. Some of his early concepts have been validated and are considered correct today. In his The Sanscrit Language (1786), Sir William Jones proposed that Sanskrit and Persian had resemblances to classical Greek, Latin, Gothic, and Celtic languages. From this idea sprung the field of comparative linguistics and historical linguistics. Through the 19th century, European linguistics centered on the comparative history of the Indo-European languages, with a concern for finding their common roots and tracing their development. In the 1820s, Wilhelm von Humboldt observed that human language was a rule-governed system, anticipating a theme that was to become central in the formal work on syntax and semantics of language in the 20th century. Of this observation he said that it allowed language to make "infinite use of finite means" (Über den Dualis 1827). It was only in the late 19th century that the Neogrammarian approach of Karl Brugmann and others introduced a rigid notion of sound law. Descriptive linguistics In Europe there was a parallel development of structural linguistics, influenced most strongly by Ferdinand de Saussure, a Swiss professor of Indo-European and general linguistics whose lectures on general linguistics, published posthumously by his students, set the direction of European linguistic analysis from the 1920s on; his approach has been widely adopted in other fields under the broad term "Structuralism". During the second World War, Leonard Bloomfield and several of his students and colleagues developed teaching materials for a variety of languages whose knowledge was needed for the war effort. This work led to an increasing prominence of the field of linguistics, which became a recognized discipline in most American universities only after the war. In 1965, William Stokoe, a linguist from Gallaudet University published an analysis [7] which proved that American Sign Language fits the criteria for a natural language. Other subfields From roughly 1980 onwards, pragmatic, functional, and cognitive approaches have steadily gained ground, both in the United States and in Europe. Notes [1] Staal, J. F., The Fidelity of Oral Tradition and the Origins of Science. North-Holland Publishing Company, 1986. p. 27 [2] The science of language, Chapter 16, in Gavin D. Flood, ed. The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism Blackwell Publishing, 2003, 599 pages ISBN 0-631-21535-2, ISBN 978-0-631-21535-6. p. 357-358 [3] http:/ / plato-dialogues. org/ works. htm [4] http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ stoicism/ #Log [5] http:/ / schmidhauser. us/ apollonius/ [6] Chris Fraser. "Mohist Canons" (http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ mohist-canons/ ). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. . [7] http:/ / www. amazon. com/ dictionary-linguistic-principles-Gallaudet-publication/ dp/ B0007DK1X6 History of linguistics 179 References • Keith Allan (2007). The Western Classical Tradition in Linguistics. London: Equinox. • Roy Harris and Talbot J. Taylor (1989). Landmarks in Linguistic Thought: The Western Tradition from Socrates to Saussure. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-00290-7. • John E. Joseph, Nigel Love, and Talbot J. Taylor (2001). Landmarks in Linguistic Thought II: The Western Tradition in the Twentieth Century. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-06396-5. • W. P. Lehmann, (ed.) (1967). A Reader in Nineteenth Century Historical Indo-European Linguistics (http:// www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/readT.html). Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-34840-4. • Bimal Krishna Matilal (1990). The Word and the World: India's Contribution to the Study of Language. Delhi; New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-562515-3. • Frederick J. Newmeyer (2005). The History of Linguistics (http://www.lsadc.org/info/ling-fields-history.cfm). Linguistic Society of America. ISBN 0-415-11553-1. • Mario Pei (1965). Invitation to Linguistics. Doubleday & Company. ISBN 0-385-06584-1. • Robert Henry Robins (1997). A Short History of Linguistics. London: Longman. ISBN 0-582-24994-5. • Pieter A. M. Seuren (1998). Western linguistics: An historical introduction. Wiley-blackwell. ISBN 0-631-20891-7. • Kees Versteegh (1997). Landmarks in Linguistic Thought III: The Arabic Linguistic Tradition. London; New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-14062-5. • Randy Allen Harris (1995) The Linguistics Wars, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-509834-X Linguistic prescription In linguistics, prescription or prescriptivism is the practice of championing one variety or manner of speaking of a language against another. It may imply a view that some forms are incorrect or improper or illogical, or lacking in communicative effect, or of low aesthetic value.[1] Sometimes it is informed by linguistic purism.[2] Normative practices may prescribe on such aspects of language use as spelling, grammar, pronunciation, and syntax. Linguistic prescriptivism includes judgments on what usages are socially proper and politically correct. Its aims may be to establish a standard language, to teach what is perceived within a particular society to be correct forms of language, or to advise on effective communication. If usage preferences are conservative, prescription might (appear to) be resistant to language change; if the usage preferences are radical, prescription may produce neologisms.[3] Prescriptive approaches to language, concerned with how the prescriptivist recommends language should be used, are often contrasted with the alternative approach of descriptive linguistics, which observes and records how language actually is used.[4] The basis of linguistic research is text (corpus) analysis and field studies, both of which are descriptive activities; but description includes each researcher’s observations of his or her own language usage. Despite apparent opposition, prescription and description can inform each other,[3] since comprehensive descriptive accounts must take into account speaker attitudes, while some understanding of how language is actually used is necessary for prescription to be effective. Aims The main aims of linguistic prescription are to specify standard language forms either generally (what is Standard English?) or for specific purposes (what style and register is appropriate in, for example, a legal brief?) and to formulate these in such a way as to make them easily taught or learned.[5] Prescription can apply to most aspects of language: spelling, grammar, semantics, pronunciation and register. Most people would agree that in all of these areas it is meaningful to describe some usages as, at least, inappropriate in particular contexts. One main aim of prescription is to draw workable guidelines for language users seeking advice in such matters. Linguistic prescription Standardized languages are useful for interregional communication: speakers of divergent dialects may understand a standard language used in broadcasting more readily than they would understand each other's dialects. It can be argued that such a lingua franca, if needed, will evolve by itself, but the desire to formulate and define it is very widespread in most parts of the world. Writers or communicators who wish to use words clearly, powerfully, or effectively often use prescriptive rules, believing that these may make their communications more widely understood and unambiguous. A complementary aim of linguistic prescription may be the imposition of a political ideology. During the second half of the 20th century, politically motivated linguistic prescription recommended by various advocacy groups had considerable influence on language use in the context of political correctness, imposing special rules for anti-sexist, anti-racist or generically anti-discriminatory language (e.g. "people-first language" as advocated by disability rights organizations). George Orwell in Politics and the English Language (1946) criticized the use of euphemisms and convoluted phrasing as a means of hiding insincerity. Orwell's fictional "Newspeak" (1949) is a parody of ideologically motivated linguistic prescriptivism. 180 Authority Prescription presupposes an authority whose judgment may be followed by other members of a speech community. Such an authority may be a prominent writer or educator such as Henry Fowler, whose Modern English Usage defined the standard for British English for much of the 20th century.[6] The Duden grammar (first edition 1880) has a similar status for German. Although dictionary makers often see their work as purely descriptive, their dictionaries are widely used as prescriptive authorities by the community at large. Popular books such as Lynne Truss's Eats, Shoots & Leaves, which argues for stricter adherence to prescriptive punctuation rules, have phases of fashion and are authoritative to the extent that they attract a significant following. In some language communities, linguistic prescription is regulated formally. The Académie française in Paris is an example of a national body The Royal Spanish Academy, Madrid whose recommendations are widely respected though not legally enforceable. In Germany and the Netherlands, recent spelling reforms were devised by teams of linguists commissioned by the government and were then implemented by statute. Some were met with significant political dissent, as in the case of the German orthography reform of 1996. Other kinds of authorities exist in specific settings, such as publishers laying down a house style which, for example, may either prescribe or proscribe particular spellings or grammatical forms, such as serial commas. Some authorities may be self-appointed campaigners whose rules are propagated in the popular press, as in "proper Cantonese pronunciation". Examples of prescriptive bodies include: • The Académie française is the national language-governing academic body whose recommendations, though legally unenforceable, are respected for maintaining standard French. • The Canadian province of Québec, where French is perceived to be particularly threatened by the incursion of English, has its own Office québécois de la langue française. • The German-speaking nations (Germany, Austria, Liechtenstein, Switzerland) established national, normative spelling usages for their respective varieties of the language by statute with the German orthography reform of 1996. This reform has remained so controversial that in a plebiscite in Schleswig Holstein in 1998, the vast majority of voters decided that the reform was not to be executed in the Federal State; however the Linguistic prescription Schleswig-Holstein parliament overruled this decision in 1999. Many major German newspapers chose to implement the reform only in part (e.g. Axel Springer AG, Der Spiegel) or not at all, ending a period where unified German spelling (German: Rechtschreibung, verbatim: right [=correct] writing), although officially only mandatory in government and educational use, was the de facto standard in German spelling. • In the Netherlands, standardized spelling norms were compulsory for Dutch government publications — yet popular and mass communications media language applied an adapted spelling reform, see Wordlist of the Dutch language and the White Booklet. • During the era of the Soviet Union the Union of Soviet Writers policed the Russian language with prescriptive linguistics to establish a standardized Russian language. • The standard of Spanish is maintained in 21 countries by the Real Academia Española in affiliation with the Association of Spanish Language Academies. • The Albanian standard language (the Tosk variety) is regulated by the Social Sciences and Albanological Section of the Academy of Sciences of Albania. • The regulating body for standard Romanian is the Romanian Academy; its resolutions and recommendations are acknowledged by the Romanian state and other entities where Romanian is officially recognised (e.g., the European Union and Vojvodina). In the Republic of Moldova, the only country besides Romania where Romanian is the official language of the state, the language is officially called "Moldovan" and it is regulated by the Academy of Sciences of Moldova, through its Institute of Linguistics. 181 Origins Historically, linguistic prescriptivism originates in a standard language when a society establishes social stratification and a socio-economic hierarchy. The spoken and written language usages of the authorities (state, military, church) are preserved as the standard language to emulate for social success; see social class. To distinguish itself from contemporary colloquial language, standard language usage includes archaisms and honorific colours. Like-wise, the style of language used in ritual also differs from quotidian speech.[7] Special ceremonial languages known only to a select few spiritual leaders within a community are found throughout the world. When a culture develops a writing system, orthographic rules for the consistent transcription of linguistic outputs allows for a large number of speakers to understand written communications with minimal difficulty. Linguists largely disregard native writing systems, replacing the conventional symbols of the language they are researching with phonetic transcriptions, but they nonetheless rely on some shared orthographic representation in order to preserve semantic identities with data sets. This is most commonly achieved by providing the conventional orthographic representation of the English translation of a word alongside the IPA transcription of the word's pronunciation when spoken by a native speaker. Early historical trends in literacy and alphabetization were closely tied to the influence of various religious institutions: Western Christianity propagated the Latin alphabet; Eastern Orthodoxy, the Greek and Cyrillic alphabets; Judaism, the Hebrew alphabet; Islam, the Arabic alphabet; and Hinduism, the Devanagari script;.[8] In certain traditions, strict adherence to prescribed spellings and pronunciations was and remains of great spiritual importance. Islamic naming conventions and greetings are notable examples of linguistic prescription being prerequisite to spiritual righteousness. Another commonly cited example of prescriptive language usage closely associated with social propriety is the system of Japanese honorifics. Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese characters Linguistic prescription 182 Government bureaucracy tends toward prescriptivism as a means of enforcing functional continuity. Such prescriptivism dates from ancient Egypt, where bureaucrats preserved the spelling of the Middle Kingdom of Egypt into the Ptolemaic period through the standard usage of Egyptian hieroglyphics.[9] Most, if not all, languages with a significant number of speakers demonstrate some degree of social codification through speaker adherence or non-adherence to prescriptive rules. Linguistic prestige is a central research Ptolemaic hieroglyphics from the Temple topic within sociolinguistics. Notions of linguistic prestige apply to different of Kom Ombo dialects of the same language and also to separate, distinct languages in multilingual regions. Prestige level disparity often leads to the phenomenon known as diglossia, wherein speakers make a conscious decision not to use a dialect of language with a prestige level perceived to be lower than that of an alternative dialect or language in certain social contexts, even if this "lower prestige" language is their native one. Sources From the earliest attempts at prescription in classical times, grammarians have observed what is in fact usual in a prestige variety of a language and based their norms upon this. Modern prescription of the type that is in school textbooks draws heavily on the results of descriptive linguistic analysis. As prescription generally manifests itself negatively, i.e. in the prohibition of some alternate form such that it is rejected in favor of the desired form, it is very rare for a form to be prescribed which does not already exist in the language. However, prescription also involves conscious choices, privileging some existing forms over others. Such choices are often strategic, aimed at maximizing clarity and precision in language use. Sometimes they may be based on entirely subjective judgments about what constitutes good taste. Sometimes there is a conscious decision to promote the language of one class or region within a language community, and this can become politically controversial—see below. Prescription can be motivated by an ethical position, as with the prohibition of swear words. The desire to avoid language which refers too specifically to matters of sexuality or toilet hygiene may result in a sense that the words themselves are obscene. Similar is the condemnation of expletives which offend against religion, or more recently of language which is not considered politically correct.[10] It is sometimes claimed that in centuries past, English prescription was based on the norms of Latin grammar, but this is doubtful. Robert Lowth is frequently cited as one who did this, but, in fact, he specifically condemned "forcing the English under the rules of a foreign Language".[11] It is true that analogies with Latin were sometimes used as substantiating arguments, but only when the forms being thus defended were in any case the norm in the prestige form of English. Problems While many people would agree that some kinds of prescriptive teaching or advice are desirable, prescriptivism is often subject to criticism. Many linguists, such as Geoffrey Pullum and other posters to Language Log, are highly skeptical of the quality of advice given in many usage guides, including highly regarded books like Strunk and White's Elements of Style.[12] In particular, linguists point out that popular books on English usage written by journalists or novelists (e.g. Simon Heffer's Strictly English : the correct way to write ... and why it matters) often make basic errors in linguistic analysis.[13][14] One problem is that prescription has a tendency to favour the language of one particular region or social class over others, and thus militates against linguistic diversity.[15] Frequently, a standard dialect is associated with the upper class, as for example Great Britain's Received Pronunciation. RP has now lost much of its status as the Anglophone Linguistic prescription standard, being replaced by the dual standards of General American and British NRP (non-regional pronunciation). While these have a more democratic base, they are still standards which exclude large parts of the English-speaking world: speakers of Scottish English, Hiberno-English, Australian English, or African-American Vernacular English may feel the standard is slanted against them.[16][17] Thus prescription has clear political consequences. In the past, prescription was used consciously as a political tool; today, prescription usually attempts to avoid this pitfall, but this can be difficult to do. A second problem with prescription is that prescriptive rules quickly become entrenched and it is difficult to change them when the language changes. Thus there is a tendency for prescription to be excessively conservative. When in the early 19th century, prescriptive use advised against the split infinitive, the main motivation was that this construction was not in fact a frequent feature of the varieties of English favoured by those prescribing. The prescriptive rule was based on a descriptive observation. Today the construction has become common in most varieties of English, and a prohibition is no longer supported by observation. However, the rule endured long after the justification for it had disappeared. In this way, prescription can appear to be antithetical to natural language evolution, although this is usually not the intention of those formulating the rules. A further problem is the difficulty of specifying legitimate criteria. Although prescribing authorities almost invariably have clear ideas about why they make a particular choice, and the choices are therefore seldom entirely arbitrary, they often appear arbitrary to others who do not understand or are not sympathetic to the goals of the authorities. Judgments which seek to resolve ambiguity or increase the ability of the language to make subtle distinctions are easier to defend. Judgments based on the subjective associations of a word are more problematic. Finally, there is the problem of inappropriate dogmatism. While competent authorities tend to make careful statements, popular pronouncements on language are apt to condemn. Thus wise prescriptive advice may identify a form as non-standard and suggest it be used with caution in some contexts; repeated in the school room this may become a ruling that the non-standard form is automatically wrong, a view which linguists reject. (Linguists may accept that a form is incorrect if it fails to communicate, but not simply because it diverges from a norm.) A classic example from 18th-century England is Robert Lowth's tentative suggestion that preposition stranding in relative clauses sounds colloquial; from this grew a grammatical dogma that a sentence should never end with a preposition. For these reasons, some writers have argued that linguistic prescription is foolish or futile; Samuel Johnson, commented as follows on the tendency of some prescription to resist language change: When we see men grow old and die at a certain time one after another, from century to century, we laugh at the elixir that promises to prolong life to a thousand years; and with equal justice may the lexicographer be derided, who being able to produce no example of a nation that has preserved their words and phrases from mutability, shall imagine that his dictionary can embalm his language, and secure it from corruption and decay, that it is in his power to change sublunary nature, and clear the world at once from folly, vanity, and affectation. With this hope, however, academies have been instituted, to guard Samuel Johnson, ca. 1772 the avenues of their languages, to retain fugitives, and repulse intruders; but their vigilance and activity have hitherto been vain; sounds are too volatile and subtile for legal restraints; to enchain syllables, and to lash the wind, are equally the undertakings of pride, unwilling to measure its desires by its strength. The French language has visibly changed under the inspection of the academy; the stile of Amelot's translation of Father Paul is observed, by Le Courayer to be un peu passé; and no Italian will maintain that the diction of any modern writer is not perceptibly different from that of Boccace, Machiavel, or Caro. 183 Linguistic prescription — Preface to a Dictionary of the English Language [18] (Project Gutenberg) 184 Prescription and description Linguistic prescription is typically contrasted with the alternative approach linguistic description.[4][19] Linguistic description (observation and explanation of how language exists and is used) establishes conceptual categories without establishing formal usage rules (prescriptions). About normative rules, the introduction to the Merriam–Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (1994) reports that: “Possible is sometimes considered to be an absolute adjective”. In 1572 the fundation of the Accademia della Crusca set the model for future purist and prescriptivist institutions in Europe. It was met with the opposition of Cesare Beccaria and the Verri brothers (Pietro and Alessandro), which through their journal Il Caffè programmatically insulted the Accademia and its pedantic, archaic grammar in the name of Galileo and Newton and of a modern and cosmopolitan intellectual thought.[20] Another typical criticism directed toward prescriptivism is verbosity. The discipline of modern linguistics originated in the 16th and 17th centuries from the comparative method of lexicography that was principally about classical languages, the results of which formed the bases, in the 18th and 19th centuries, of contemporary linguistics; by the early 20th century, descriptive research concentrated upon modern languages. Despite the demotic intent of General American and Non-regional Pronunciation Englishes as “standard language”, upon being established as such, they are prescriptively exclusive of other Anglophone languages such as Scottish English, Hiberno-English, Australian English, and AAVE. Notes [1] John Edwards (2009) Language and Identity: An introduction p.259 (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=wwvOjiqyU-EC& pg=PA259) [2] Janicki, Karol (2006) Language misconceived: arguing for applied cognitive sociolinguistics (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=lWAz__vpe88C& pg=PA155) p.155 [3] McArthur (1992) [4] McArthur (1992) p. 286 entry for "Descriptivism and prescriptivism" quotation: "Contrasting terms in linguistics." [5] McArthur (1992) pp. 979, 982–83 [6] McArthur (1992) p. 414 [7] See, generally, Marianne Mithun, The Languages of Native North America (Cambridge University Press, 1999; ISBN 0-521-23228-7) for North American examples of ritual speech. [8] David Diringer, The Alphabet: A Key to the History of Mankind (1947; South Asia, reprinted 1996); ISBN 81-215-0748-0 [9] Allen, James P., Middle Egyptian — An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs, (Cambridge University Press, 1999) ISBN 0-521-65312-6 [10] McArthur (1992) p. 794 [11] A Short Introduction to English Grammar, p. 107, condemning Richard Bentley's "corrections" of some of Milton's constructions. [12] Pullum, Geoffrey (April 17, 2009), "50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice" (http:/ / chronicle. com/ article/ 50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/ 25497/ ), The Chronicle of Higher Education, , retrieved July 25, 2011 [13] Pullum, Geoffrey (September 11, 2010), English grammar: not for debate (http:/ / languagelog. ldc. upenn. edu/ nll/ ?p=2623), , retrieved July 25, 2011 [14] Pullum, Geoffrey (November 15, 2010), Strictly incompetent: pompous garbage from Simon Heffer (http:/ / languagelog. ldc. upenn. edu/ nll/ ?p=2780), , retrieved July 25, 2011 [15] McArthur (1992) pp. 984–85 [16] McArthur (1992) pp. 850–53 [17] Fowler’s Modern English Usage, Second Edition, Ernest Gowers, Ed., Oxford University Press:1965, pp. 505–06 [18] http:/ / www. gutenberg. org/ etext/ 5430 [19] Kordić, Snježana (2010) (in Serbo-Croatian). Jezik i nacionalizam [Language and Nationalism] (http:/ / www. webcitation. org/ 690BiBe4T). Rotulus Universitas. Zagreb: Durieux. pp. 58–68. ISBN 978-953-188-311-5. LCCN 2011520778. OCLC 729837512. OL{{{1}}}. Archived from the original (http:/ / bib. irb. hr/ datoteka/ 475567. Jezik_i_nacionalizam. pdf) on 8 July 2012. . Retrieved 23 August 2012. [20] Alberto Arbasino. "Genius Loci" (http:/ / www. arts. ed. ac. uk/ italian/ gadda/ Pages/ resources/ archive/ classics/ arbasinogeniuslocii. html) (in Italian). . Retrieved 2011-03-30. Linguistic prescription 185 References • McArthur, Tom (Ed.) (1992) The Oxford Companion to the English Language, Oxford University Press • Strunk and White's The Elements of Style Further reading • Simon Blackburn, 1996 [1994], "descriptive meaning", Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, pp. 101–102 for possible difficulty of separating the descriptive and evaluative Additional resources • Ideology, Power and Linguistic Theory (pdf format) (http://people.ucsc.edu/~pullum/MLA2004.pdf) a paper about descriptivism and prescriptivism by Geoffrey Pullum. • Language Police (http://wiki.oxus.net/Language_Police) at Kerim's Wiki • Prescriptive versus descriptive grammar (http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/syntax-textbook/ch1. html#prescriptive) List of linguists A linguist in the academic sense is a person who studies natural language (an academic discipline known as linguistics). Ambiguously, the word is sometimes also used to refer to a polyglot (one who knows several languages), or a grammarian (a scholar of grammar), but these two uses of the word are distinct (and one does not have to be a polyglot in order to be an academic linguist).[1] The following is a list of linguists in the academic sense. A • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Abel, Carl, Germany, comparative lexicography Abdul Haq, Maulvi (India, 1870–1961), Urdu language Abramson, Arthur S. (United States), phonetics Adams, Douglas Q. (United States), English language, comparative linguistics, Tocharian languages Adler, George J. (Germany/United States, 1821–1868), lexicography, German language, English language Aikhenvald, Alexandra Yurievna (Russia, 1957–), syntax, typology, Amazonian languages, Papuan languages, Hebrew language, Russian language Aitken, Adam Jack (UK, 1921–1998), lexicography Ajduković, Jovan (Serbia, 1968–), Slavic languages, sociolinguistics, contact linguistics, Russian language, Serbian language Albright, William Foxwell (United States, 1891–1971), Semitic languages Allan, Keith (Australia), semantics Alleyne, Mervyn Coleridge (Trinidad & Tobago/Jamaica, 1933–), creole languages Amerias (Greece), Ancient Macedonian language, lexicography Anderson, Gregory D.S. (United States), Munda languages Aoun, Joseph (Lebanon/United States), oriental languages, syntax Arisaka Hideyo (Japan, 1908–1952), Japanese language Aristar, Anthony (South Africa/United States, 1948–), linguistic infrastructure Aronoff, Mark (Canada, 1949–), morphology • Ascoli, Graziadio Isaia (Italy, 1829–1907), Substrata, ladin language • Austin, John Langshaw (UK, 1911–1960), philosophy of language, speech act List of linguists • Azad, Humayun (Bangladesh, 1947–2004), Bengali language 186 B • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Bach, Emmon (United States, 1929–), syntax, phonology, Haisla language Badshah Munir Bukhari (Pakistan, 1978–) applied linguistics, languages of Northern Pakistan and Afghanistan Baker, Mark (United States), Mohawk language, generative grammar Bally, Charles (Switzerland, 1865–1947), French language, phraseology Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen (United States, 1954–) second language acquisition, tense and aspect, pragmatics Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua (Israel, 1915–1975), machine translation, categorial grammar Barker, (Philip) Muhammad Abd-al-Rahman (United States, 1930–), Urdu language, Indian languages Barlow, Robert Hayward (United States, 1918–1951), Nahuatl language Barnhart, David K. (United States, 1941–), lexicography, English language Barnhart, Robert (United States, 1933–2007), lexicography, English language Barsky, Robert (United States), discourse analysis Bartlett, John Russell (United States, 1805–1886), Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan Niecisław (Poland, 1845–1929), phonology, Polish language Beckman, Mary E. (United States), phonetics, phonology Beckwith, Christopher (United States, 1945–), Asian languages, Tibetan language Bello, Andrés (Venezuela), Spanish language, Philology Bellugi, Ursula (United States), sign language, neurolinguistics Ben-Yehuda, Eliezer (Israel), Lexicography, Revival of the Hebrew language Bender, M. Lionel (United States), African languages Benedict, Paul K. (United States), Sino-Tibetan languages, Tai–Kadai languages, historical linguistics Berlitz, Charles Frambach (United States, 1914–2003), language acquisition Berlitz, Maximilian Delphinius (United States, 1852–1921), language acquisition Bhartrihari (India, 450–510), Sanskrit Bickel, Balthasar (Switzerland, 1965–), language typology, Kiranti languages Bickerton, Derek (United States, 1926–), creole languages, origin of language Bleek, Wilhelm Heinrich Immanuel (Germany, 1827–1875), languages of Africa Bloch, Bernard (United States, 1907–1965), Japanese language Bloch, Jules (France, 1880–1953), languages of India Bloomfield, Leonard (United States, 1887–1949), structural linguistics Blust, Robert (United States), Austronesian languages Boas, Franz (United States, 1858–1942), indigenous languages of the Americas Boersma, Paul (Netherlands, 1959–), phonetics Bolinger, Dwight Le Merton (United States, 1907–1992), semantics, Spanish language Bomhard, Allan R. (United States, 1943–), Nostratic languages, historical linguistics Bopp, Franz (Germany, 1791–1867), Indo-European languages, comparative linguistics Boyd, Julian Charles (United States, 1931–2005), English language Bowerman, Melissa psycholinguistics, Language acquisition Bresnan, Joan (United States, 1945–), syntax Bright, William (United States, 1928–2006), Native American languages, South Asian languages Brody, Michael (Hungary, 1954–), syntax Browman, Catherine (phonetics, phonology) • Brugmann, Karl (Germany, 1849–1919), Indo-European languages, Sanskrit, comparative linguistics • Bucholtz, Mary (United States), sociolinguistics • Burgess, Anthony (UK, 1917–1993), English language, phonetics List of linguists • Burling, Robbins (United States, 1926–), languages of India • Burridge, Kate (Australia), Germanic languages • Butzkamm, Wolfgang (Germany, 1938–), applied linguistics, English language 187 C • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Campbell, Lyle (United States), Native American languages Canger, Una (Denmark, 1938–), Mesoamerican languages Capell, Arthur (Australia, 1902–1986), Australian languages, Austronesian languages, Papuan languages Cardona, George (United States, Indo-European studies Carnap, Rudolf (Germany, 1891–1970), syntax, constructed languages Carnie, Andrew (Canada, 1969–), syntax Caro, Miguel A. (Colombia, 1843–1909), Spanish language, Colombian Spanish Carpenter, William Henry (United States, 1853–1936), Icelandic language Chadwick, John (UK, 1920–1998), Linear B Chafe, Wallace (United States, 1927–), cognitive linguistics, semantics Chao Yuen Ren (PR China, 1892–1982), Chinese language Chakrabarti, Byomkes (India, 1923–1981), Santali language, Bengali language, comparative linguistics Champollion, Jean-François (France, 1790–1832), Egyptian hieroglyphs Chambers, Jack (Canada, 1938–), sociolinguistics Chatterji, Suniti Kumar (India, 1890–1977), Bengali language Choijinzhab (PR China, 1931–), Mongolian language Chomsky, Noam (United States, 1928–), syntax, universal grammar Choueiri, Lina (Lebanon), syntax, Lebanese Arabic Chyet, Michael L. (United States, 1957–), Kurdish language Clyne, Michael George (Australia), Germanic languages Cohen, Paul S. (United States), 1942–), phonology, etymology Collitz, Hermann (Germany/United States, 1855–1935), historical linguistics Comrie, Bernard (UK, 1947–), typology Cook, Guy (UK, 1951–), applied linguistics Coşeriu, Eugen (Romania/Germany, 1921–2002), Romance languages Cowgill, Warren (United States, 1929–1985), Indo-European studies Cowper, Elizabeth (Canada), syntax Creissels, Denis (France), syntax, phonology, Niger–Congo languages, Nakh-Daghestanian languages Croft, William (United States, 1956–), syntax, cognitive linguistics Crystal, David (UK, 1941–), English language, language death, applied linguistics Cuervo, Rufino Jose (Colombia, 1844–1911), Spanish language, Colombian Spanish Culicover, Peter W. (United States), syntax, language change Culioli, Antoine (France, 1924–), general linguistics Curme, George Oliver, Sr. (United States, 1860–1948), German language, English language List of linguists 188 D • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Dal, Vladimir (Russia, 1801–1872), lexicography, Russian language Dani, Ahmad Hasan (Pakistan, 1920–2009), South Asian languages Daniels, Peter T. (United States), writing systems Deacon, Terrence (United States), language change, origin of language, cognitive linguistics Dehkhoda, Ali-Akbar (Iran, 1879–1959), lexicography, Persian language Delbrück, Berthold (Germany, 1842–1922), Indo-European languages, syntax, comparative linguistics Dempwolff, Otto (Germany, 1871–1938), Austronesian languages Diderichsen, Paul (Denmark, 1905–1964) Danish Diffloth, Gérard (United States), Mon–Khmer languages van Dijk, Teun Adrianus (Netherlands, 1943–), pragmatics, discourse analysis, text linguistics Dixon, Robert Malcolm Ward (Australia, 1939–), syntax, typology, Australian languages, Amazonian languages Dobrovský, Josef (Czech Republic, 1753–1829), Slavic languages, Czech language, lexicography Doke, Clement Martyn (South Africa, 1893–1980), Bantu languages, Lamba language Dolgopolsky, Aharon (Russia/Israel, 1930–), Nostratic languages Dorian, Nancy (United States), language death, Scottish Gaelic Dougherty, Ray C. (United States), transformational grammar, computational linguistics Dowty, David (United States), semantics, syntax Dozier, Edward P. (United States, 1916–1971), Native American languages, languages of the Philippines Dressler, Wolfgang U. (Austria, 1939–), phonology, morphology, text linguistics van Driem, George (Netherlands), Tibeto-Burman languages, symbiosism, Dzongkha language Duden, Konrad (Germany, 1829–1911), lexicography, German language Dunn, John Asher (United States), Tsimshian language E • Edmondson, Jerold A. (United States), Tai–Kadai languages, languages of Southeast Asia • Edwards, Jonathan, Jr. (United States, 1745–1801), North American languages, historical linguistics, Mohegan language • Ehret, Christopher (United States), languages of Africa, historical linguistics • Elgin, Suzette Haden (United States, 1936–), constructed languages, transformational grammar • Ellis, Rod (UK), second language acquisition • Elman, Jeffrey L. (United States), language processing, neurolinguistics • Emeneau, Murray Barnson (United States, 1904–2005), Dravidian languages, linguist areas • Esenç, Tevfik (Turkey 1904–1992), Ubykh language • Evans, Nicholas (Australia, 1956–) Indigenous Australian languages, Papuan languages, typology • Even-Shoshan, Avraham (Belarus/Israel, 1906–1984), Hebrew language, lexicography • Everett, Daniel Leonard (United States, 1951–), languages of Brazil, Pirahã language • Everson, Michael (United States/Ireland, 1963–), writing systems, historical linguistics List of linguists 189 F • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Fillmore, Charles J. (USA, 1929–), syntax, lexical semantics, cognitive linguistics, lexicography Firth, John Rupert (UK, 1890–1960), phonetics, phonology, prosody Fischer-Jørgensen, Eli (Denmark 1911–), phonetics, phonology, Danish language Fishman, Joshua (United States, 1926–), Sociology of language Fiske, Willard (United States, 1831–1904), Northern European languages, Icelandic language Fodor, Janet Dean (United States), psycholinguistics, semantics, syntax Fodor, Jerry Alan (United States, 1935–), psycholinguistics, language of thought Foley, William (Australia), Papuan languages, Austronesian languages Ford, Jeremiah Denis Mathias (United States, 1873–1958), Spanish language Fowler, Carol A. (United States), phonetics, phonology François, Alexandre (France), Austronesian languages, historical linguistics, language contact Freiman, Aleksandr Arnoldovich (Poland/Russia, 1879–1968), Iranian languages French, David Heath (United States, 1918–1994), Native American languages Friedrich, Johannes (Germany, 1893–1972), Hittite language Fromkin, Victoria (United States, 1923–2000), theoretical linguistics, constructed languages Fujitani Nariakira (Japan, 1738–1779), Japanese language G • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Galloway, Brent D. (United States, 1944–), Amerindian languages, Halkomelem language Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. (Georgia, 1929–), Indo-European studies, Georgian language Gans, Eric (United States, 1941–), origin of language Garnier, Romain (France), Indo-European linguistics Gazdar, Gerald (UK, 1950–), computational linguistics, syntax, semantics Gebauer, Jan (Czech Republic, 1838–1907), Czech language Geeraerts, Dirk (Belgium, 1955–), semantics, lexicography Giles, Howard, sociolinguistics Givón, Talmy (Israel/United States, 1936–), syntax, semantics, pragmatics, typology, functionalism Giegerich, Heinz (Germany/UK), English language, phonology Gleason, Jean Berko (United States), psycholinguistics, language acquisition Goatly, Andrew (UK), English language, Chinese language Goddard, Cliff (Australia), semantics, pragmatics Goddard, R.H. Ives, III (United States), Algonquian languages, historical linguistics Gode, Alexander (Germany/United States, 1906–1970), constructed languages, Germanic languages Goldberg, Adele (United States, 1963–), syntax, psycholinguistics Goldsmith, John Anton (United States, 1951–), phonology, computational linguistics Goldstein, Louis M. (United States), phonetics, phonology Gong Hwang cherng (Republic of China, 1934–2010), Sino-Tibetan languages, Old Chinese, Tangut language Gordon, Cyrus Herzl (United States, 1908–2001), ancient languages, cuneiform script Gray, Louis Herbert (United States, 1875–1955), Indo-Iranian languages, phonology Greenberg, Joseph Harold (United States, 1915–2001), typology, language universals, languages of Africa Grice, (Herbert) Paul (UK/United States, 1913–1988), pragmatics Grierson, George Abraham (Ireland, 1851–1941), languages of India • Gries, Stefan Th. (Germany/United States, 1970–), corpus linguistics, computational linguistics, cognitive linguistics, construction grammar List of linguists • Grimm, Jakob Ludwig Carl (Germany, 1785–1863), historical linguistics, comparative linguistics, German language • Grinder, John Thomas (United States, 1940–), neurolinguistics • Grube, Wilhelm (Germany, 1855–1908), Tungusic languages, Nivkh language, Jurchen language • Gumperz, John Joseph (United States, 1922–), sociolinguistics, discourse analysis, linguistic anthropology • Gutiérrez Eskildsen, Rosario María (Mexico, 1899–1979), Spanish language, dialectology • Guy, Gregory (United States), sociolinguistics, historical linguistics, phonetics, phonology 190 H • Haarmann, Harald (Germany, 1946–), evolutionary linguistics, language contact • Haas, Mary Rosamund (United States, 1910–1996), Native American languages, Thai language, historical linguistics • Hagberg, Carl August (Sweden, 1810–1864), Scandinavian languages • Hajič, Jan (Czech Republic), computational linguistics • Hajičová, Eva (Czech Republic), (1935–), corpus linguistics • Hale, Kenneth Locke (United States, 1934–2001), syntax, phonology • Hall, Kira (United States), sociocultural linguistics • Hall, Richard Michael Ryan (United States, 1927–1996), historical linguistics, Indo-European studies, Nilotic languages • Hall, Robert A., Jr. (United States, 1911–1997), Romance languages, Pidgins and Creoles • Halle, Morris (Latvia/United States, 1923–), phonology, morphology • Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood (UK/Australia, 1925–), systemic functional grammar, ecolinguistics, applied linguistics • Hammond, Michael (United States, 1957–), phonology, computational linguistics, syntax • Hamp, Eric P. (United States, 1920–), Indo-European languages, Native American languages • Haq, Mehr Abdul, (Pakistan, 1915–1995), Saraiki language • Harder, Peter (Denmark, 1950–), English language, functional linguistics • Harkavy, Alexander (Belarus/United States, 1863–1939), Yiddish language, lexicography • Harley, Heidi B. (United States, 1969–), distributed morphology, syntax • Harrington, John Peabody (United States, 1884–1961), Native American languages, phonetics • Harris, Roy (UK, 1931–), semiology, integrational linguistics • Harris, Zellig Sabbetai (Ukraine/United States, 1909–1992), structural linguistics, discourse analysis, Semitic languages • Harrison, David K. (United States, 1966–), phonology, endangered languages, language extinction • Hartmann, Reinhard Rudolf Karl (Austria/UK, 1938–) lexicography, contrastive linguistics • Hasan, Ruqaiya (India/Australia, 1931–), systemic functional grammar, sociolinguistics, applied linguistics • Hashimoto Mantarō (Japan, 1932–1987), Japanese language • Hashimoto Shinkichi (Japan, 1882–1945), Old Japanese language, Japanese language • Haspelmath, Martin (Germany, 1963–), typology, language change, language contact, Lezgian language • Haugen, Einar Ingvald (United States, 1906–1994), sociolinguistics, Old Norse • Hawkins, Bruce Wayne (United States), cognitive linguistics • Hawkins, John A. (UK), psycholinguistics, historical linguistics • Hayakawa, Samuel Ichiye (Canada/United States, 1906–1992), semantics • Hayes, Bruce (United States), phonology • Hays, David Glenn (United States, 1928–1995), computational linguistics, machine translation, dependency grammar, corpus linguistics, natural language processing, cognitive science • Heath, Jeffrey (United States), historical linguistics, morphology, linguistic anthropology List of linguists • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Heim, Irene Roswitha (Germany/United States), semantics Heine, Bernd (Germany, 1939–), languages of Africa, sociolinguistics, language contact Herbert, Robert Knox (United States, 1952–2007), phonology, languages of Africa, sociolinguistics Hetzron, Robert (Hungary/United States, 1937–1997), Afro-Asiatic languages Hewitt, John Napoleon Brinton (United States, 1859–1937), Iroquoian languages Hjelmslev, Louis (Denmark, 1899–1965), comparative linguistics, semantics Hobbs, Jerry R. (United States, 1942–), computational linguistics, discourse analysis, syntax, semantics Hock, Hans Henrich (Germany/United States), historical linguistics, comparative linguistics, Sanskrit Michael Hoey (United Kingdom), lexical priming, textual interaction, corpus linguistics Hepburn, James Curtis (United States, 1815–1911), Japanese language, lexicography Hockett, Charles Francis (United States, 1916–2000), phonology, morphology Hoffmann, John-Baptist (Germany, 1857–1928), Mundari language Hoijer, Harry (United States, 1904–1976), Athabaskan languages, Tonkawa language Hopper, Paul (UK/United States), historical linguistics, emergent grammar Hornstein, Norbert (United States), syntax Hrozný, Bedřich (Czech Republic, 1879–1952), Hittite language, ancient languages von Humboldt, Wilhelm (Germany, 1787–1835), Basque language 191 Huddleston, Rodney D. (UK/Australia), English language Hudson, Richard (UK, 1939–), syntax, word grammar, linguistics in education Hupel, August Wilhelm (Germany/Estonia, 1737–1819), Estonian language, lexicography Hurford, James R. (UK, United States) phonetics, semantics, grammar, computational linguistics, evolutionary linguistics • Hyman, Larry M. (United States, 1947–), phonology, languages of Africa • Hymes, Dell Hathaway (United States, 1927–), sociolinguistics, Kathlamet language I • • • • Illich-Svitych, Vladislav Markovich (Ukraine/Russia, 1934–1966), comparative linguistics, Nostratic languages Ivanov, Aleksei Ivanovich (Russia, 1878–1937), Chinese language, Tangut language Ivanov, Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich (Russia, 1929–), Indo-European studies Ivić, Pavle (Serbia, 1924–1999), South Slavic languages, phonology, Serbocroatian language J • • • • • • • • • • • • Jackendoff, Ray (United States, 1945–), syntax, lexical semantics Jackson, Abraham Valentine Williams (United States, 1862–1937), Indo-Iranian languages, Avestan language Jackson, Kenneth Hurlstone (UK, 1909–1991), Brythonic languages, Gaelic languages Jacques, Guillaume (France), Old Chinese, Rgyalrongic languages, Tangut language Jagić, Vatroslav (Croatia, 1838–1923), Croatian language, Slavic languages Jakobson, Roman Osipovich (Russia/Czech Republic/United States, 1896–1982), structuralism, phonology Jarring, Gunnar (Sweden, 1907–2002), Turkic languages Jasanoff, Jay (USA, 1942–), Indo-European linguistics Jaszczolt, Katarzyna (UK), semantics, pragmatics, philosophy of language Jaunius, Kazimieras (Lithuania, 1848–1908), Lithuanian language, comparative linguistics Jendraschek, Gerd (Germany), Basque language, Turkish language, Iatmul language Jespersen, Otto (Denmark, 1860–1943), English language, phonetics, constructed languages • Johnson, David E. (United States, 1946–), syntax • Jones, Daniel (UK, 1881–1967), phonetics List of linguists • • • • Jones, Sir William (UK, 1746–1794), Indo-European studies, Sanskrit, comparative linguistics Joshi, Aravind Krishana (India/United States, 1929–), computational linguistics Junast (PR China, 1934–), Mongolian language, Monguor language, Eastern Yugur language, Phags-pa script Jurafsky, Daniel (United States), computational linguistics 192 K • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Kaplan, Ronald M. (United States), computational linguistics Karadžić, Vuk Stefanović (Serbia, 1787–1864), Serbian language, lexicography Kari, James (United States), Native American languages Kasravi, Ahmad (Iran, 1890–1946), ancient languages, Iranian languages Katz, Jerrold J. (United States, 1932–2002), semantics, generative grammar Kaufman, Terrence (United States), historical linguistics, contact linguistics, Mesoamerican languages Kay, Martin (UK, United States), computational linguistics Kay, Paul (United States), construction grammar Kayne, Richard (United States), syntax, transformational grammar Kazama Kiyozō (Japan, 1928–), Japanese language Kazama Shinjirō (Japan, 1965–), Japanese language Keating, Patricia (United States), phonetics Keenan, Edward (United States), typology, semantics, Malagasy language Kellogg, Samuel H. (United States), Hindi language Kenyon, John Samuel (United States, 1874–1959), English language, lexicography, phonology Keyser, Samuel Jay (United States, 1935–), phonology, English language Kiesling, Scott Fabius (United States), sociolinguistics Kindaichi Haruhiko (Japan, 1913–2004), Japanese language Kindaichi Kyōsuke (Japan, 1882–1971), Ainu language Kinkade, M. Dale (United States, 1933–2004), Salishan languages Kiparsky, Paul (Finland/United States, 1941–), phonology, morphology Kirby, Simon (UK) computational linguistics, evolutionary linguistics Klima, Edward (United States, 1931–2008), sign language Knechtges, David R. (United States), East Asian languages, Chinese language Knorozov, Yuri Valentinovich (Russia, 1922–1999), Maya hieroglyphics, writing systems Kober, Alice (UK/United States, 1906–1950), Linear B Kordić, Snježana (Croatia, 1964-), Serbo-Croatian language, syntax, sociolinguistics Kornai András (Hungary/United States, 1957–), mathematical linguistics, phonology, morphology, Hungarian language, syntax Kornfilt, Jaklin, theoretical linguistics, syntax, morphology, Turkic languages, Germanic languages Korsakov, Andrey Konstantinovich (Russia/Ukraine, 1916–2007), Germanic languages, English language, morphology, syntax Korzybski, Alfred Habdank Skarbek (Poland/United States, 1879–1950), general semantics Koster, Jan (Netherlands, 1945–), generative grammar Krahe, Hans (Germany, 1898–1965), Indo-European languages, Illyrian language Krashen, Stephen (United States, 1941–), second language acquisition Kratzer, Angelika (United States/Germany), semantics Krauss, Michael E. (United States, 1941–), Native American languages • Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju (India, 1929–), Dravidian languages • Kroeber, Alfred Louis (United States, 1876–1960), Native American languages • Kucera, Henry (Czech Republic/United States, 1925–), computational linguistics List of linguists • • • • • Kuno Susumu (Japan/United States, 1933–), Dravidian languages, Japanese language, syntax Kurath, Hans (Austria/United States, 1891–1992), English language, lexicography, dialectology Kuroda Shigeyuki (Japan, 1934–2009), Japanese language Kuryłowicz, Jerzy (Poland, 1895–1978), Indo-European languages, syntax, morphology Kychanov, Evgenij Ivanovich (Russia, 1932–), Tangut language 193 L • • • • • Labov, William (United States, 1927–), sociolinguistics, phonology, English language Lado, Robert (United States, 1915–1995), applied linguistics, contrastive analysis Ladefoged, Peter Nielsen (UK/United States, 1925–2006), phonetics, endangered languages Laird, Charlton (United States, 1901–1984), lexicography, English language Lakoff, George P. (United States, 1941–), cognitive linguistics, transformational grammar, generative semantics, syntax • Lakoff, Robin Tolmach (United States, 1942–), sociolinguistics • Lamb, Sydney MacDonald (United States, 1929–), stratificational grammar, Native American languages, historical linguistics, computational linguistics • Lambdin, Thomas Oden (United States), Semitic languages, Egyptian language • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Lane, Harlan (United States, 1936-), speech, Deaf culture, sign language Langacker, Ronald W. (United States, 1942–), cognitive linguistics Langdon, Margaret (United States, d. 2005), Native American languages LaPolla, Randy J. (United States), morpho-syntax, Chinese, Qiang, Rawang Lasersohn, Peter (United States), semantics Lasnik, Howard (United States, 1945–), syntax Lawler, John (United States), syntax, semantics, computational linguistics Laycock, Donald (Australia, —1988), languages of Papua New Guinea Lee, Joan H. (Canada, 1981-), text messaging Leech, Geoffrey (UK) applied linguistics, English language Lees, Robert (United States, 1922–1996), machine translation Lehiste, Ilse (United States, 1922–2010), Phonetics, Estonian language, Serbo-Croatian, phonology Lehmann, Winfred P. (United States, 1916–2007), historical linguistics, Proto-Indo-European language Lepsius, Karl Richard (Germany, 1810–1884), Egyptian language, Nubian languages, phonology Leskien, August (Germany, 1840–1916), comparative linguistics, Baltic languages, Slavic languages Levinson, Stephen C. (UK/Netherlands), pragmatics Levstik, Fran (Slovenia, 1831–1881), Slovene language Li Fanwen (PR China, 1932–), Tangut language Li Fanggui (PR China/United States, 1902–1987), Mattole language, Tai languages, Old Chinese, Tibetan language Li, Paul Jen-kuei (Taiwan), Formosan languages, Austronesian languages, historical linguistics, lexicography Liberman, Alvin Meyer (United States, 1917–2000), speech perception, phonology Liberman, Anatoly (Russia/United States), etymology, Germanic languages Liberman, Mark (United States), phonetics, prosody Lieber, Rochelle (United States, 1954–), morphology, syntax, lexical semantics Lieberman, Philip (United States, phonetics, language evolution Lisker, Leigh (United States, 1918–2006), phonetics, Dravidian languages • Local, John (UK, 1947–), phonetics, phonology, conversation analysis • Lounsbury, Floyd Glenn (United States, 1914–1998), Native American languages, Mayan languages • Lowman, Guy Sumner, Jr. (United States, 1909–1941), phonetics List of linguists • • • • Ludlow, Peter (United States, 1957–), syntax, semantics Lukoff, Fred (United States, 1920–2000), Korean language, phonology Lunde, Ken (United States, 1965–), East Asian languages Lynch, John (Australia, 1946–), Austronesian languages, historical linguistics 194 M • • • • • • MacWhinney, Brian (United States, 1945–), language acquisition, second language acquisition, corpus linguistics Maddieson, Ian (United States), phonetics Malkiel, Yakov (United States, 1914–1998), etymology, philology Manaster Ramer, Alexis (United States/Poland), phonology, syntax, poetics, etymology Marantz, Alec (United States), distributed morphology March, Francis Andrew (United States, 1825–1911), comparative linguistics, lexicography, Old English language, English language • Margolis, Max Leopold (Lithuania/United States, 1866–1932), Semitic languages • Marr, Nikolay Yakovlevich (Georgia/Russia, 1865–1934), historical linguistics, comparative linguistics, origin of language • Martin, James (Sydney, Australia), genre • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Martin, Samuel Elmo (United States, 1924–2009), Korean language, Japanese language Martinet, André (France, 1908–1999), structuralism, historical linguistics, constructed languages Martinet, Jeanne (France, 1920–), semiotics, constructed languages Mathesius, Vilém (Czech Republic, 1882–1945), phonology, syntax, English language, Czech language Matisoff, James A. (United States, 1937–), Tibeto-Burman languages, phonology Matthews, Peter Hugoe (UK, 1934–), morphology, syntax Matthews, Stephen (UK/PR China), typology, syntax, semantics, Cantonese language Mattingly, Ignatius G. (United States, 1927–2004), phonetics, speech synthesis, speech perception Matveyev, Aleksandr (Russia, 1926–2010), onomastics, etymology McCarthy, John J. (United States, 1953–), phonology, morphology, optimality theory McCawley, James D. (UK/United States, 1938–1999), syntax, semantics, phonology McCune, George McAfee (North Korea/United States, 1908–1988), Korean language McNamara, Barbara (United States), Chinese language McWhorter, John Hamilton (United States, 1965–), creole languages, Saramaccan language Meinhof, Carl Friedrich Michael (Germany, 1857–1944), languages of Africa Melchert, H. Craig (United States), Anatolian languages Michaelis, Laura A. (United States), syntax, English language Miklošič, Franc (Slovenia/Austria, 1813–1891), Slavic languages Miller, Wick R. (United States, 1932–1994), Keresan languages, Uto-Aztecan languages Miller, Roy Andrew (United States, 1924–), Tibetan language, Japanese language Mithun, Marianne (United States, 1946–), Native American languages Mitxelena Elissalt, Koldo (Spain, 1915–1987), Basque language Miura Tsutomu (Japan, 1911–1989), Japanese language Miyake, Marc (United States, 1971–), historical linguistics, Old Japanese, Tangut language Mönkh-Amgalan, Yümjiriin (Mongolia), pragmatics, semantics, syntax, Mongolian language, dialectology Mori Hiromichi (Japan, 1949–), Japanese language Motoori Norinaga (Japan, 1730–1801), Japanese language • Motoori Haruniwa (Japan, 1763–1828), Japanese language • Montague, Richard Merett (United States, 1930–1971), semantics, philosophy of language • Moro, Andrea (Italy, 1962–), syntax, copula, expletive, antisymmetry, neurolinguistics List of linguists • • • • • • • Moser, Edward W. (United States), Seri language Mufwene, Salikoko (United States), creole languages, African American Vernacular English, language evolution Munro, Pamela (United States), Native American languages, lexicography Murayama Shichirō (Japan, 1908–1995), Japanese language Murray, James (UK, 1837–1915), lexicography, English language, etymology Muti’I, Ibrahim (China, 1920–2010), Uyghur language Myers-Scotton, Carol (United States, 1934–), language contact 195 N • • • • • • • • • • • • Nábělková, Mira (Slovakia), lexical semantics, sociolinguistics Nádasdy Ádám (Hungary), phonology, morphophonology Napoli, Donna Jo (United States), 1948–), syntax, phonetics, phonology, Japanese language Neeleman, Ad (Netherlands/UK, 1964–), syntax, semantics, phonology, generative grammar Nelson, Andrew Nathaniel (United States, 1893–1975), Japanese language, lexicography Nevsky, Nikolai Aleksandrovich (Russia, 1892–1937), Tangut language Newmeyer, Frederick J. (United States, 1944–), syntax, origin of language Nichols, Johanna (United States), languages of the Caucasus, Chechen language, Ingush language, typology Nishida Tatsuo (Japan, 1928–), Tangut language Nolan, Francis (UK), phonetics Noreen, Adolf Gotthard (Sweden, 1854–1925), dialectology, historical linguistics, Germanic languages Nunberg, Geoffrey (United States), lexical semantics, English language O • • • • • • • • • Odden, David A. (United States), phonology, African linguistics, Bantu languages Ohala, John (United States), phonetics, phonology Okrand, Marc (United States, 1948–), Klingon language, Mutsun language Ōno Susumu (Japan, 1919–2008), Japanese language, Tamil language Orešnik, Janez (Slovenia, 1935–), comparative linguistics Orikuchi Shinobu (Japan, 1887–1953), Japanese language Orton, Harold (UK, 1898–1975), phonology, dialectology, English dialects Osthoff, Hermann (Germany, 1847–1909), Indo-European studies, historical linguistics Ōtsuki Fumihiko (Japan, 1847–1928), Japanese language P • • • • • • • • Pāṇini (India, ca. 520–460 BC), Sanskrit, morphology, descriptive linguistics, generative linguistics Partee, Barbara Hall (United States, 1940–), semantics Paul, Hermann Otto Theodor (Germany, 1846–1921), lexicography, German language Pawley, Andrew Kenneth (Australia/New Zealand, 1941), Austronesian languages, Papuan languages, lexicography, phraseology Pedersen, Holger (Denmark, 1867–1953), Celtic languages, historical linguistics, Nostratic languages Pedersen, Johannes (Demark, 1883–1977), Hebrew language Pei, Mario Andrew (Italy/United States, 1901–1978), Italian language, Indo-European languages Pesetsky, David Michael (United States, 1957–), transformational grammar • Phillipson, Robert (UK/Denmark, 1942–), language policy • Pierrehumbert, Janet (United States), phonetics, phonology • Pinault, Georges-Jean (France), Tokharian, Indo-European linguistics List of linguists • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Pike, Kenneth Lee (United States, 1912–2000), English language, constructed languages, tagmemics Pilch, Herbert (Germany, 1927–), Old English, Celtic languages, phonetics Pimsleur, Paul (United States), language acquisition, French language, phonetics Pinker, Steven (Canada/United States, 1954–), language acquisition, syntax, semantics Piron, Claude (Switzerland, 1931–2008), Esperanto, psycholinguistics Pollard, Carl Jesse (United States, 1947–), syntax, semantics Pollock, Jean-Yves (France), syntax Poppe, Nicholas (Russia, 1897–1991), Mongolic languages Postal, Paul M. (United States, 1936–), syntax, semantics Primer, Sylvester (United States, 1842–1912), English language, dialectology, phonetics, Germanic languages Prince, Alan Sanford (United States, 1946–), optimality theory, phonology Pulgram, Ernst (Austria/United States, 1915–2005), Romance languages, Italic languages Pullum, Geoffrey K. (UK/United States, 1945–), syntax, English language Pustejovsky, James D. (United States), natural language processing, computational linguistics, semantics 196 Q • Quirk, Charles Randolph (UK/Germany, 1920–), English language R • • • • • • • • • • • • Rael, Juan Bautista (United States, 1900–1993), phonology, morphology, New Mexican Spanish Rask, Rasmus Christian (Denmark, 1787–1832), lexicography, comparative linguistics, Indo-European language Ratliff, Martha (United States), Hmong–Mien languages, historical linguistics Read, Allen Walker (United States, 1906–2002), etymology, lexicography, English language Reinhart, Tanya (Israel, 1943–2007), syntax Rickford, John Russell (United States), sociolinguistics, African American Vernacular English Rizzi, Luigi (Italy, 1952–), syntax, language acquisition Roberts, Ian G. (UK, 1957–), syntax Rock, Joseph Francis Charles (Austria/United States/PR China, 1884–1962), Naxi language, lexicography Rosenblat, Ángel (Poland/Venezuela, 1902–1984), Lexicography, Venezuelan Spanish, Philology Ross, John Robert (United States, 1938–), semantics, syntax Ross, Malcolm David (Australia, 1942–), Austronesian languages, Papuan languages, historical linguistics, language contact • Rubach, Jerzy (Poland/United States, 1948–), phonology, Polish language • Rubin, Philip E. (United States, 1949–), articulatory synthesis, phonology • Ruhlen, Merritt (United States), typology, historical linguistics List of linguists 197 S • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Sacks, Harvey (United States, 1935–1975), conversation analysis Sadock, Jerrold (United States), syntax, morphology, pragmatics, Greenlandic language, Yiddish language Sag, Ivan (United States, 1949–), syntax, construction grammar Sagart, Laurent (France), Chinese linguistics and Austronesian languages Sakaguchi, Alicja (Poland/Germany, 1954–), interlinguistics, Esperanto Salo, David (United States, 1969–), constructed languages, Tocharian languages, Elvish languages Sampson, Geoffrey (UK, 1944–), philosophy of language Sánchez Carrión, José María (Spain, 1952–), Basque language, sociolinguistics, historical linguistics Sankrityayan, Rahul (India, 1893–1963), Tibetan language, Hindi language Sapir, Edward (Germany/United States, 1884–1939), Native American languages, constructed languages, semantics Saunders, Irene (United States/PR China), lexicography, Chinese language de Saussure, Ferdinand (Switzerland/France, 1857–1913), semantics, Indo-European studies, structural linguistics Sayce, Archibald Henry (UK, 1846–1933), Akkadian language Schegloff, Emanuel (United States), conversation analysis Schleicher, August (Germany, 1821–1868), Indo-European studies, language development, historical linguistics Schmidt, Johannes (Germany, 1843–1901), historical linguistics, Indo-European studies Schmidt, Richard (United States), second-language acquisition Schmidt, Wilhelm (Germany/Austria/Switzerland, 1868–1954), Mon–Khmer languages Schwarzschild, Roger (United States), semantics, pragmatics Searle, John Rogers (United States, 1932–), philosophy of language, pragmatics Sen, Sukumar (India, 1900–1992), Bengali language Sequoyah (United States, 1767–1843), Cherokee language Setälä, Eemil Nestor (Finland, 1864–1935), Finnish language, Uralic languages Sgall, Petr (Czech republic, 1926–), syntax Shackle, Christopher (UK, 1942–), Urdu language, Saraiki language Shepard-Kegl, Judy (United States), Nicaraguan Sign Language Shevoroshkin, Vitaly Victorovich (Russia/United States), Slavic languages, Nostratics Shinmura Izuru (Japan, 1876–1967), Japanese language Sibawayh (Iran, ca. 760–796), Arabic language Sidwell, Paul (Australia), Mon–Khmer languages, historical linguistics Sievers, Eduard (Germany, 1850–1932), Germanic languages, historical linguistics Siewierska, Anna (Poland/Netherlands/UK, 1955–2011), language typology Sihler, Andrew Littleton (United States, 1941), comparative linguistics, Indo-European languages Sinclair, John McHardy (UK, 1933–2007), applied linguistics, corpus linguistics, discourse analysis Skeat, Walter W. (UK, 1835–1912), Old English, Middle English, etymology, philology Skinner, B.F. (United States, 1905–1992), Verbal behavior Skousen, Royal (United States, 1945–), language modeling Smith, Neilson Voyne (UK, 1939–), syntax, language acquisition Smolensky, Paul (United States, 1955–), phonology, optimality theory, syntax Stachowski, Marek (Poland) historical linguistics, Turkic languages Starostin, Georgiy Sergeevich (Russia, 1976–), comparative linguistics, historical linguistics, Nostratics, Proto-World • Starostin, Sergei Anatolyevich (Russia, 1953–2005), comparative linguistics, historical linguistics, Nostratics, Proto-World • Steels, Luc (Belgium), computational linguistics, evolutionary linguistics List of linguists • • • • • • Stetson, Raymond Herbert (United States, —1950), phonetics Stieber, Zdzisław (Poland, 1903–1980), Slavic languages, phonology Stokoe, William (United States, 1919–2000), American Sign Language, cherology. Stollznow, Karen (United States) lexical semantics, sociolinguistics, cognitive linguistics. Suzuki Takao (Japan, 1926–), Japanese language, sociolinguistics Swadesh, Morris (United States, 1909–1967), typology, historical linguistics, Native American languages, lexicostatistics • Sweet, Henry (UK, 1845–1912), Germanic languages, phonetics • Sweetser, Eve (United States), cognitive linguistics, semantics, historical linguistics, Celtic languages 198 T • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Talmy, Leonard (United States), cognitive linguistics, semantics, Yiddish language, Native American languages Tannen, Deborah Frances (United States, 1945–), discourse analysis Tarpent, Marie-Lucie (Canada), Tsimshianic languages Teeter, Karl van Duyn (United States, 1929–2007), Algic languages, endangered languages Thieberger, Nicholas (Australia), Indigenous Australian languages Thomas, Calvin (United States, 1854–1919), Germanic languages, German language Thomason, Sarah Grey (United States), language contact, historical linguistics, typology, Montana Salish Thompson, John Eric Sidney (UK, 1898–1975), Maya languages, Maya hieroglyphics Thompson, Sandra A. (United States), syntax, discourse analysis, Mandarin language Tokieda Motoki (Japan, 1900–1967), Japanese language Tolkien, John Ronal Reuel (UK, 1892–1973), Old English language, constructed languages, Sindarin, Quenya Toporišič, Jože (Slovenia, 1926–), Slovene language Trager, George Leonard (United States, 1906–1992), phonemics, paralanguage, semantics Trask, Robert Lawrence (United States, 1944–2004), Basque language, historical linguistics, origin of language Trubetzkoy, Nikolai Sergeyevich (Russia/Austria, 1890–1938), structural linguistics, morphology, phonology Trudgill, Peter (UK, 1943–), sociolinguistics, English language, dialectology Tuite, Kevin (United States, 1954–), Caucasian languages, Georgian language Turner, Mark (United States), cognitive linguistics U • Ullendorff, Edward (UK, 1920–), Semitic languages • Unger, James Marshall (United States, 1947–), Japanese language, historical linguistics, writing systems • Upton, Clive (UK), English language, sociolinguistics, dialectology V • • • • • • • Vajda, Edward (United States), Ket language, historical linguistics, Na-Dené languages, comparative linguistics van Valin, Robert D. (United States, 1952–), syntax, semantics, cognitive linguistics Valli, Clayton (United States, —2003), American Sign Language, Vasmer, Max (Russia/Germany, 1886–1962), etymology, historical linguistics, Russian language Vaux, Bert (United States, 1968–), phonology, morphology, Armenian language Veltman, Calvin (United States/Canada/France), sociolinguistics Vendler, Zeno (United States, 1921–2004), philosophy of language, event structure • Ventris, Michael George Francis (UK, 1922–1956), Linear B, Archaic Greek • Verner, Karl (Denmark, 1846–1896), phonology, comparative linguistics, historical linguistics • Voloshinov, Valentin Nikolaevich (Russia, 1895–1936), semantics List of linguists • Vovin, Alexander (Russia/United States), Japanese language, Siberian languages, Korean language, Ainu language, Central Asian languages 199 W • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Wackernagel, Jacob (Switzerland, 1853–1938), Indo-European studies, Sanskrit Wang Li (PR China, 1900–1986), Chinese language Watanabe Shōichi (Japan, 1930–), Japanese language Watkins, Calvert (United States), comparative linguistics, Indo-European languages Weeks, Raymond (United States, 1863–1954), phonetics, French language Weinreich, Max (Latvia/United States, 1893–1969), Yiddish language Weinreich, Uriel (Poland/United States, 1926–1967), sociolinguistics, dialectology, semantics, Yiddish language Wells, John Christopher (UK, 1939–), phonetics, Esperanto, Westermann, Diedrich Hermann (Germany, 1875–1956), languages of Africa, typology Westphal, Ernst Oswald Johannes (South Africa/UK, 1919–1990), Bantu languages, Khoisan languages Whalen, Douglas H. (United States), phonology, endangered languages Wheeler, Benjamin Ide (United States, 1954–1927), historical linguistics, comparative linguistics, Greek language White, Lydia (United Kingdom/Canada), second language acquisition Whitney, William Dwight (United States, 1827–1894), lexicography, Sanskrit, English language Whorf, Benjamin Lee (United States, 1897–1941), Native American languages, Maya script, Linguistic relativity Wichmann, Søren (Denmark, 1964–), Mesoamerican languages, Mixe–Zoque languages, Mayan languages, Maya script Widdowson, Henry G. (UK), English language, discourse analysis Wierzbicka, Anna (Poland/Australia, 1938–), semantics, pragmatics Williams, Nicholas Jonathan Anselm (UK/Ireland, 1942–), Cornish language, Irish language, Manx language, phonology, Williams, Samuel Wells (United States/China, 1812–1884), Chinese language, lexicography Wilson, Robert Dick (United States, 1856–1930), comparative linguistics, Hebrew language, Syriac language Wittmann, Henri (France/Canada, 1937–), French language, creole languages, morphology, comparative linguistics Wolvengrey, Arok (Canada), Cree language, syntax, Native American languages, lexicography Wurm, Stephen Adolphe (Hungary/Australia, 1922–2001), Australian Aboriginal languages, Papuan languages Y • • • • Yamada Yoshio (Japan, 1873–1958), Japanese language Yiakoumetti, Androula (Cyprus), Greek language, dialectology Yngve, Victor (United States, 1920–), computational linguistics, natural language processing Young, Robert W. (United States, 1912–2007), Navajo language, lexicography Z • Zamenhof, Ludwik Łazarz (Poland, 1859–1917), Esperanto • Zepeda, Ofelia (United States, 1952–), O'odham language • Zhang, Niina Ning (PR China), formal syntax, morphology • Zhou Youguang (PR China, 1903–), orthography, Romanization of Chinese • Zuazo, Koldo (Spain, 1956–), Basque dialectology, sociolinguistics • Zuckermann, Ghil'ad (Israel, Italy, UK, Australia, 1971–), contact linguistics, lexicology, revival linguistics List of linguists • Zwicky, Arnold (United States, 1940–), syntax, morphology 200 Notes [1] The word linguistician has been coined to refer to one who studies linguistics, in order to avoid this ambiguity, although this word is vanishingly rare and has no currency in the field (http:/ / www. linguistlist. org/ issues/ 5/ 5-1147. html). List of unsolved problems in linguistics This article discusses currently unsolved problems in linguistics. Some of the issues below are commonly recognized as unsolved problems; i.e., it is generally agreed that no solution is known. Others may be described as controversies; i.e., while there is no common agreement about the answer, there are established schools of thought that believe they have a correct answer. Concepts • Is there a universal definition of word? • Is there a universal definition of sentence? • Are there any universal grammatical categories? • Can the elements contained in words (morphemes) and the elements contained in sentences (syntactic constituents) be shown to follow the same principles? • Is it possible to formally circumscribe languages from each other? That is to say, is it possible to use linguistic (rather than social) criteria to draw a clear boundary between two closely related languages with a dialect continuum between their respective standard forms (e.g. Occitan and Catalan)? • How does grammaticalization function? • How do creole languages emerge? Languages • Origin of language and origin of speech are major unsolved problems, despite centuries of interest in these topics.[1][2][3][4] • Unclassified languages (languages whose genetic affiliation has not been established, mostly due to lack of reliable data) make up about 38 of the 6,000-7,000 languages spoken in the world.[5] An additional 45 languages are classified as language isolates, with no demonstrable relationship to other languages.[5] • Undeciphered writing systems Psycholinguistics • Language emergence: • Emergence of grammar[6] • Language acquisition: • Controversy: infant language acquisition / first language acquisition. How are infants able to learn language? One line of debate is between two points of view: that of psychological nativism, i.e., the language ability is somehow "hardwired" in the human brain, and that of the "tabula rasa" or blank slate, i.e., language is acquired due to brain's interaction with environment. Another formulation of this controversy is "nature versus nurture". • Is the human ability to use syntax based on innate mental structures or is syntactic speech the function of intelligence and interaction with other humans? The question is closely related to those of language emergence List of unsolved problems in linguistics and acquisition. • The language acquisition device: How localized is language in the brain? Is there a particular area in the brain responsible for the development of language abilities or is it only partially localized? • What fundamental reasons explain why ultimate attainment in second language acquisition is typically some way short of the native speaker's ability, with learners varying widely in performance? • Animals and language: How much language (e.g. syntax) can animals be taught to use? How much of animal communication can be said to have the same properties as human language (e.g. syntax)? 201 Translation • What should the translator adhere to: fidelity or transparency? • Is there an objective gauge for the quality of translation?[7] References [1] [2] [3] [4] Givon, Talmy; Bertram F. Malle (2002). The Evolution of Language Out of Pre-language. John Benjamins. ISBN 1-58811-237-3. Deacon, Terrence (1997). The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain. W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-571-17396-9. MacNeilage, Peter, 2008. The Origin of Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Botha, R. and C. Knight (eds) 2009. The Cradle of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [5] Lewis, M. Paul, ed. (2009). Ethnologue: Languages of the World (http:/ / www. ethnologue. com/ ) (16 ed.). Dallas: SIL International. ISBN 1-55671-216-2. . [6] "Simulated Evolution of Language: a Review of the Field", Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation vol. 5, no. 2 (http:/ / jasss. soc. surrey. ac. uk/ 5/ 2/ 4. html) [7] Robert Spence, "A Functional Approach to Translation Studies. New systemic linguistic challenges in empirically informed didactics", 2004, ISBN 3-89825-777-0, thesis. A pdf file (http:/ / www. dissertation. de/ FDP/ 3898257770. pdf) Philology Philology is the study of language in written historical sources; it is a combination of literary studies, history, and linguistics.[1] It is also more commonly defined as the study of literary texts and written records, the establishment of their authenticity and their original form, and the determination of their meaning. Classical philology is the philology of Greek and Classical Latin. Classical philology is historically primary, originating in Pergamum and Alexandria[2] around the 4th century BC, continued by Greeks and Romans throughout the Roman and Byzantine Empires, and eventually taken up by European scholars of the Renaissance, where it was soon joined by philologies of other languages both European (Germanic, Celtic, Slavistics, etc.) and non-European (Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic, Chinese, etc.). Indo-European studies involves the comparative philology of all Indo-European languages. Any classical language can be studied philologically, and indeed describing a language as "classical" is to imply the existence of a philological tradition associated with it. Because of its focus on historical development (diachronic analysis), philology came to be used as a term contrasting with linguistics. This is due to a 20th-century development triggered by Ferdinand de Saussure's insistence on the importance of synchronic analysis, and the later emergence of structuralism and Chomskyan linguistics with its emphasis on syntax. Philology 202 Etymology The term philology is derived from the Greek φιλολογία (philologia),[3] from the terms φίλος (philos), meaning "love, affection, loved, beloved, dear, friend" and λόγος (logos), meaning "word, articulation, reason", describing a love of learning, of literature as well as of argument and reasoning, reflecting the range of activities included under the notion of λόγος. The term changed little with the Latin philologia, and later entered the English language in the 16th century, from the Middle French philologie, in the sense of "love of literature". The adjective φιλόλογος (philologos) meant "fond of discussion or argument, talkative", in Hellenistic Greek also implying an excessive ("sophistic") preference of argument over the love of true wisdom, φιλόσοφος (philosophos). As an allegory of literary erudition, Philologia appears in 5th-century post-classical literature (Martianus Capella, De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii), an idea revived in Late Medieval literature (Chaucer, Lydgate). The meaning of "love of learning and literature" was narrowed to "the study of the historical development of languages" (historical linguistics) in 19th-century usage of the term. Due to the rapid progress made in understanding sound laws and language change, the "golden age of philology" lasted throughout the 19th century, or "from Friedrich Schlegel to Nietzsche".[4] In the Anglo-Saxon world, the term philology to describe work on languages and literatures, which had become synonymous with the practices of German scholars, was abandoned as a consequence of anti-German feeling following World War I. Most continental European countries still maintain the term to designate departments, colleges, position titles, and journals. J. R. R. Tolkien opposed the nationalist reaction against philological practices, claiming that "the philological instinct" was "universal as is the use of language".[5][6] In British English usage, and in British academia, "philology" remains largely synonymous with "historical linguistics", while in US English, and US academia, the wider meaning of "study of a language's grammar, history and literary tradition" remains more widespread.[7][8] Branches of philology Comparative philology The comparative linguistics branch of philology studies the relationship between languages. Similarities between Sanskrit and European languages were first noted in the early 16th century[9] and led to speculation of a common ancestor language from which all these descended. It is now named Proto-Indo-European. Philology's interest in ancient languages led to the study of what were, in the 18th century, "exotic" languages, for the light they could cast on problems in understanding and deciphering the origins of older texts. Textual philology editing Philology also includes the study of texts and their history. It includes elements of textual criticism, trying to reconstruct an author's original text based on variant copies of manuscripts. This branch of research arose among Ancient scholars in the 4th century BC Greek-speaking world, who desired to establish a standard text of popular authors for the purposes of both sound interpretation and secure transmission. Since that time, the original principles of textual criticism have been improved and applied to other widely-distributed texts such as the Bible. Scholars have tried to reconstruct the original readings of the Bible from the manuscript variants. This method was applied to Classical Studies and to medieval texts as a way to reconstruct the author's original work. The method produced so-called "critical editions", which provided a reconstructed text accompanied by a "critical apparatus", i.e., footnotes that listed the various manuscript variants available, enabling scholars to gain insight into the entire manuscript tradition and argue about the variants.[10] A related study method known as higher criticism studies the authorship, date, and provenance of text to place such text in historical context.[10] As these philological issues are often inseparable from issues of interpretation, there is no clear-cut boundary between philology and hermeneutics.[10] When text has a significant political or religious Philology influence (such as the reconstruction of Biblical texts), scholars have difficulty reaching objective conclusions. Some scholars avoid all critical methods of textual philology,[10] especially in historical linguistics, where it is important to study the actual recorded materials. The movement known as New Philology has rejected textual criticism because it injects editorial interpretations into the text and destroys the integrity of the individual manuscript, hence damaging the reliability of the data. Supporters of New Philology insist on a strict "diplomatic" approach: a faithful rendering of the text exactly as found in the manuscript, without emendations. 203 Cognitive philology Another branch of philology, cognitive philology, studies written and oral texts, considering them as results of human mental processes. This science compares the results of textual science with the results of experimental research of both psychology and artificial intelligence production systems. Decipherment In the case of Bronze Age literature, philology includes the prior decipherment of the language under study. This has notably been the case with the Egyptian, Sumerian, Assyrian, Hittite, Ugaritic and Luwian languages. Beginning with the famous decipherment and translation of the Rosetta Stone by Jean-François Champollion in 1822, a number of individuals attempted to decipher the writing systems of the Ancient Near East and Aegean. In the case of Old Persian and Mycenaean Greek, decipherment yielded older records of languages already known from slightly more recent traditions (Middle Persian and Alphabetic Greek). Work on the ancient languages of the Near East progressed rapidly. In the mid-19th century, Henry Rawlinson and others deciphered the Behistun Inscription, which records the same text in Old Persian, Elamite, and Akkadian, using a variation of cuneiform for each language. The elucidation of cuneiform led to the decipherment of Sumerian. Hittite was deciphered in 1915 by Bedřich Hrozný. Linear B, a script used in the ancient Aegean, was deciphered in 1952 by Michael Ventris, who demonstrated that it recorded an early form of Greek, now known as Mycenaean Greek. Linear A, the writing system that records the still-unknown language of the Minoans, resists deciphering, despite many attempts. Work continues on scripts such as the Maya, with great progress since the initial breakthroughs of the phonetic approach championed by Yuri Knorozov and others in the 1950s. Since the late 20th century, the Maya code has been almost completely deciphered, and the Mayan languages are among the most documented and studied in Mesoamerica. The code is described as a logosyllabic style of writing, which could be used to fully express any spoken thought. Notes [1] Philology (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=2joVAAAAYAAJ& dq=philology& printsec=frontcover& source=bl& ots=REA2bM6Pf_& sig=Ws1UMX0ld3eeYXO2IxcBXD4WhNs& hl=en& ei=VJowSqeaCYTAMtiD_ccH& sa=X& oi=book_result& ct=result& resnum=9#PPA5,M1). Books.google.com. 2008-02-09. . Retrieved 2011-07-16. [2] Hall, F. W. (1968). A Companion to Classical Texts. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press. pp. 22–52. [3] "''φιλολογία'', Liddell and Scott, "A Greek-English Lexicon", at Perseus" (http:/ / www. perseus. tufts. edu/ cgi-bin/ ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999. 04. 0057:entry=#111282). Perseus.tufts.edu. . Retrieved 2011-07-16. [4] so Nikolaus Wegmann, Princeton University Department of German (http:/ / scholar. princeton. edu/ nwegmann/ ) [5] "Philology: General Works", The Year's Work of English Studies 4 (1923), 36–37. [6] Richard Utz, "Englische Philologie vs. English Studies: A Foundational Conflict", in Das Potential europäischer Philologien: Geschichte, Leistung, Funktion, ed. Christoph König (Göttingen: Wallstein, 2009), pp. 34–44. [7] A. Morpurgo Davies, Hist. Linguistics (1998) 4 I. 22. [8] M. M. Bravmann, Studies in Semitic Philology. (1977) p. 457. [9] This is noted in Juan Mascaro's introduction to his translation of the Bhagavad Gita, in which he dates the first Gita translation to 1785 (by Charles Williams). Mascaro claims Alexander Hamilton stopped in Paris in 1802 after returning from India, and taught Sanskrit to the German critic Friedrich von Schlegel. Mascaro says this is the beginning of modern study of the roots of the Indo-European languages. Philology [10] Textual Philology and Text Editing (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=Cu4G-D1bNPcC& pg=PA9& lpg=PA9& dq=Branches+ of+ philology+ Textual+ philology+ and+ text+ editing& source=bl& ots=647MRHwJLT& sig=XFlQ93KiBqfd10ZzXGz8ZtyknS8& hl=en& ei=upUwSrj0GZLCM_7U6M8H& sa=X& oi=book_result& ct=result& resnum=10). Books.google.com. . Retrieved 2011-07-16. 204 External links • Philology in Runet (http://ruthenia.ru/tiutcheviana/search/en/metlit.html)—(A special web search through the philological sites of Runet) • Wikiversity: Topic:German philology • (Italian) Rivista di Filologia Cognitiva (http://w3.uniroma1.it/cogfil/homepage.html) • CogLit: Literature and Cognitive Linguistics (http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Culture/coglit.html) • Institute for Psychological Study of the Arts (http://www.clas.ufl.edu/ipsa/intro.htm), University of Florida • A Bibliography of Literary Theory, Criticism, and Philology (ed. José Ángel García Landa, University of Zaragoza, Spain) (http://www.unizar.es/departamentos/filologia_inglesa/garciala/bibliography.html) • Asociación de Jóvenes Investigadores Filólogos de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid (AJIF-UCM) (http:// ajif-ucm.com/) Outline of linguistics The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to linguistics: Linguistics is the scientific study of natural language. Someone who engages in this study is called a linguist. Linguistics can be theoretical or applied. Nature of linguistics Linguistics can be described as all of the following: • Academic discipline – body of knowledge given to - or received by - a disciple (student); a branch or sphere of knowledge, or field of study, that an individual has chosen to specialise in. • Field of science – widely-recognized category of specialized expertise within science, and typically embodies its own terminology and nomenclature. Such a field will usually be represented by one or more scientific journals, where peer reviewed research is published. There are many sociology-related scientific journals. • Social science – field of academic scholarship that explores aspects of human society. Branches of linguistics Subfields of linguistics • Theoretical linguistics • • • • • Cognitive linguistics Generative linguistics Functional theories of grammar Quantitative linguistics Phonology • Graphemics • Morphology • Syntax • Lexis Outline of linguistics • Semantics • Pragmatics • Descriptive linguistics • • • • Anthropological linguistics Comparative linguistics Historical linguistics Phonetics 205 • Graphetics • Etymology • Sociolinguistics • Applied linguistics • • • • • • • • • • • • Computational linguistics Evolutionary linguistics Forensic linguistics Internet linguistics Language acquisition Language assessment Language development Language education Linguistic anthropology Neurolinguistics Psycholinguistics Second-language acquisition Subfields, by linguistic structures studied Sub-fields of structure-focused linguistics include: • Phonetics – study of the physical properties of speech (or signed) production and perception • Phonology – study of sounds (or signs) as discrete, abstract elements in the speaker's mind that distinguish meaning • Morphology – study of internal structures of words and how they can be modified • Syntax – study of how words combine to form grammatical sentences • Semantics – study of the meaning of words (lexical semantics) and fixed word combinations (phraseology), and how these combine to form the meanings of sentences • Pragmatics – study of how utterances are used in communicative acts – and the role played by context and nonlinguistic knowledge in the transmission of meaning • Discourse analysis – analysis of language use in texts (spoken, written, or signed) Outline of linguistics Subfields, by nonlinguistic factors studied • Applied linguistics – study of language-related issues applied in everyday life, notably language policies, planning, and education. (Constructed language fits under Applied linguistics.) • Biolinguistics – study of natural as well as human-taught communication systems in animals, compared to human language. • Clinical linguistics – application of linguistic theory to the field of Speech-Language Pathology. • Computational linguistics – study of linguistic issues in a way that is 'computationally responsible', i.e., taking careful note of computational consideration of algorithmic specification and computational complexity, so that the linguistic theories devised can be shown to exhibit certain desirable computational properties implementations. • Developmental linguistics – study of the development of linguistic ability in individuals, particularly the acquisition of language in childhood. • Evolutionary linguistics – study of the origin and subsequent development of language by the human species. • Historical linguistics – study of language change over time. Also called diachronic linguistics. • Language geography – study of the geographical distribution of languages and linguistic features. • Linguistic typology – study of the common properties of diverse unrelated languages, properties that may, given sufficient attestation, be assumed to be innate to human language capacity. • Neurolinguistics – study of the structures in the human brain that underlie grammar and communication. • Psycholinguistics – study of the cognitive processes and representations underlying language use. • Sociolinguistics – study of variation in language and its relationship with social factors. • Stylistics – study of linguistic factors that place a discourse in context. 206 Other subfields of linguistics • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Contrastive linguistics Corpus linguistics Dialectology Discourse analysis Grammar Interlinguistics Language didactics Language learning Language teaching Language for specific purposes Lexicology Linguistic statistics Orthography Rhetoric Text linguistics Outline of linguistics 207 Schools, movements, and approaches of linguistics • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Cognitive linguistics Danish School Functionalism Generative linguistics Geneva School Neo-Grammarians Prague School Prescription and description Soviet linguistics Stratificational linguistics Structuralism Systemic linguistics SIL International Tagmemics Related fields • Semiotics – investigates the relationship between signs and what they signify more broadly. From the perspective of semiotics, language can be seen as a sign or symbol, with the world as its representation. History of linguistics Main article: History of linguistics • Unsolved problems in linguistics Timeline of discovery of basic linguistics concepts When were the basic concepts first described and by whom? • • • • • • • • • • • Ancient Sanskrit grammarians Ancient Greek study of language Roman elaborations of Greek study Medieval philosophical work in Latin Beginnings of modern linguistics in the 19th century Behaviorism and mental tabula rasa hypothesis Chomsky and functionalism Generative grammar leads to generative phonology and semantics Alternate syntactic systems develop in 80s Computational linguistics becomes feasible the late 80s Neurolinguistics and the biological basis of cognition Outline of linguistics 208 Questions in linguistics 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. What is language? How did it/does it evolve? How does language serve as a medium of communication? How does language serve as a medium of thinking? What is common to all languages? How do languages differ? Basic concepts What basic concepts / terms do I have to know to talk about linguistics? • Morphology • morpheme, inflection, paradigm, declension, derivation, compound • Phonology • phoneme, allophone, segment, mora, syllable, foot, stress, tone • Grammar • tense, aspect, mood and modality, grammatical number, grammatical gender, case • Syntax • phrase, clause, grammatical function, grammatical voice • Lexicology • word, lexeme, lemma, lexicon, vocabulary, terminology • Semantics • meaning, sense, entailment, truth condition, compositionality • Pragmatics • presupposition, implicature, deixis Languages of the world Linguistics scholars People who had a significant influence on the development of the field • • • • • • • • • • • • John Langshaw Austin Leonard Bloomfield Franz Bopp Noam Chomsky David Crystal Daniel Everett M.A.K. Halliday Louis Hjelmslev Roman Jakobson Sir William Jones Pāṇini Kenneth L. Pike • Rasmus Rask • Edward Sapir • Ferdinand de Saussure Outline of linguistics • • • • • • August Schleicher John R. Searle Claude Lévi-Strauss Nikolai Trubetzkoy Noah Webster Benjamin Lee Whorf 209 Linguistics lists • Languages • Language families and languages • ISO 639 • Official languages • Definitions by language • Alphabets & Orthography Arabic Aramaic Armenian Korean Katakana Braille Hebrew Coptic IPA Cyrillic English IPA Georgian Gothic Kannada Hiragana Runic Morse code ICAO spelling Phoenician Thai SAMPA Chart English SAMPA Shavian • Common misspellings • English words without rhymes • Acronym • Wiktionary:Definitions of acronyms and abbreviations External links Glottopedia, MediaWiki-based encyclopedia of linguistics, under construction [1] Subfields according to the Linguistic Society of America [2] Glossary of linguistic terms [3] and FrenchEnglish glossary [4] at SIL International "Linguistics" section [5] of A Bibliography of Literary Theory, Criticism and Philology, ed. J. A. García Landa (University of Zaragoza, Spain) • Linguistics and language-related wiki articles on Scholarpedia [6] and Citizendium [7] • • • • References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] http:/ / www. glottopedia. org http:/ / www. lsadc. org/ info/ ling-fields. cfm http:/ / www. sil. org/ linguistics/ GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/ index. htm http:/ / www. sil. org/ linguistics/ glossary_fe/ http:/ / www. unizar. es/ departamentos/ filologia_inglesa/ garciala/ bibliography. html http:/ / www. scholarpedia. org/ article/ Language http:/ / en. citizendium. org/ wiki/ Linguistics Index of linguistics articles 210 Index of linguistics articles Linguistics is the scientific study of human language. Someone who engages in this study is called a linguist. See also the Outline of linguistics, the List of phonetics topics, the List of linguists, and the List of cognitive science topics. Articles related to linguistics include: A Abbreviation - Abessive case - Ablaut - Absolutive case - Abugida - Accusative case - Acute accent - Accent (phonetics) - Accent (sociolinguistics) - Acronym - Adessive case - Adjective - Adjunct - Adposition - Adpositional phrase - Adverb - Adverbial - Adverbial phrase - Affix - Affricate consonant - Agglutination - Agglutinative language - Allative case - Allomorph - Allophone - Alphabet - Analytic language - Anaphora - Animacy Anthropological linguistics - Alveolar consonant - Antonym - Aorist - Applied linguistics - Approximant - Areal feature - Article - Articulatory gestures - Articulatory phonetics - Aspect - Asterisk - Attrition - Augment - Auxiliary verb B Back-formation - Backronym - Bilabial consonant - Breathy voice - Breve C Calque - Capitalization - Capitonym - Cardinal vowel - Case - Case in tiers - Cedilla - Chiasmus - Circumfix Circumflex - Clefting - Click consonant - Closed-class word - Cognate - Cognitive science - Coherence Colloquialism - Comitative case - Communication skill Comparative - Comparative linguistics - Comparative method - Compound noun and adjective - Compound verb - Computer-assisted language learning - Computational linguistics - Conjugation - Conjunct - Conjunction - Consonant - Constructed language - Context - Contrastive analysis - Contrastive linguistics - Copula - Corpus linguistics - Cranberry morpheme - Creaky voice - Creole language - Cryptanalysis - Cuneiform D Dangling modifier - Dative case - Decipherment - Declension - Defective verb - Descriptive linguistics - Dental consonant - Derivation - Determiner - Diacritic - Diaeresis - Dialect - Dictionary - Diphthong - Discourse - Disjunct - Dislocation - Double acute accent - Dual grammatical number E Eggcorn - Ecolinguistics - Elative case - Endangered language - English pronunciation - Entailment - Ergative case Error - Essive case - Ethnologue - Etymology - Etymologist - Eurolinguistics - Evolutionary linguistics Example-based machine translation - Expletive attributive Index of linguistics articles 211 F False cognate - False friend - Formal language - Fricative consonant - Function word - Fusional language - Future perfect - Future tense G Gender - General semantics - Genitive case - Germanic umlaut - Gerund - Glottal consonant - Glottal stop Glottochronology - Government - Grammar - Grammatical gender - Grammatical mood - Grammatical number Grammatical voice - Grave accent - Great consonant shift - Great Vowel Shift - Grimm's law - Guttural consonant H Hacek - Heaps' law - Hiatus (linguistics) - High rising terminal - Historical-comparative linguistics - Historical linguistics - History of linguistics - Homonym - Hypernym - Hyponym I I-mutation - Ideogram - Idiolect - Idiom - Illative case - Impersonal pronoun - Impersonal verb - Implication (pragmatics) - Indo-European languages - Inessive case - Infinitive - Infix - Inflected language - Inflection Initialism - Initial-stress-derived noun - Instructive case - Interjection - International Phonetic Alphabet - IPA chart for English Irregular verb L Labiodental consonant - Language - Language acquisition - Language attrition - Language education - Language families and languages - Language game - The Language Instinct - Language isolate - Laryngeal theory - Lateral consonant - Lemma - Lexeme - Lexical semantics - Lexicography - Lexicology - Lexicon - Linguist - Linguistic anthropology - Linguistic ecology - Linguistic layers - Linguistic relativity - Linguistics - Linguistics basic topics Liquid consonant - List of linguists - Loanword - Locative case M Machine translation - Macron - Manner of articulation - Meaning - Meronymy - Metathesis - Minimal pair Mispronunciation - Modality - Mood - Mora - Morpheme - Morphology N Naming - Nasal consonant - Nasal stop - Natural language - Natural language processing - Natural language understanding - Neologism - Neurolinguistics - Nominative case - Noun - Noun phrase - Null morpheme O Onomasiology - Onomatopoeia - Open class word - Optimality theory - Origin of language - Orthography Object–subject–verb - Object–verb–subject - Oxytone Index of linguistics articles 212 P Palatal consonant - Paradigm - Paroxytone - Part of speech - Participle - Particle - Partitive case - Past tense - Perfect (grammar) - Persuasion - Pharyngeal consonant - Philology - Philosophy of language - Phonation - Phone Phonetics - Phonetic complement - Phonetic transcription - Phonology - Phoneme - Phonemics - Phrase - Phrase structure rules - Pidgin - Place–manner–time - Place of articulation - Pleonasm - Pluperfect - Polysemy Polysynthetic language - Portmanteau - Possessive case - Postalveolar consonant - Postposition - Pragmatics - Prefix - Preposition - Prepositional phrase - Prescription and description - Present tense - Presupposition - Preterite Profanity - Prolative case - Pronoun - Pronunciation - Prosody (linguistics) - Proparoxytone - Pseudo-acronym Pseudo-Anglicism - Psycholinguistics - Punctuation Q Quendecincy - Quirky subject R Radical - Regimen - Retroflex consonant - Retronym - Rhotics - Romanization - Rounded vowel S SAMPA - Schwa - Second language - Semantics - Semantic class - Semantic feature - Semantic property - Semiotics - Semivowel - Sentence - Sentence function - Shall - Sign - Sign language - Sociolinguistics - Slack voice - Slang Sociolect - Sound change - Sound pattern of English - SOV - Speaker recognition - Specialised lexicography Speech communication - Speech act - Speech disorder - Speech processing - Speech recognition - Speech synthesis Speech therapy - Spiritus asper - Split infinitive - Standard language - Stop consonant - Stratificational linguistics Structuralism - Stylistics - Superlative - Suppletion - Subject - SVO - Supine - Syllabary - Syllable - Synonym Syntactic ambiguity - Syntactic categories - Syntactic expletive - Syntax - Synthetic language T Tagmemics - Telicity - Tense - Tense–aspect–mood - Terminology - Text linguistics - Text types - Thematic role Theoretical linguistics - Thesaurus - Thou - Time–manner–place - Tonal language - Tone (linguistics) Tongue-twister - Transcription - Transformational-generative grammar - Translation - Translative case - Truth condition - T-V distinction - Typology U Uninflected word - Universal grammar - Unsolved problems in linguistics - Uvular consonant Index of linguistics articles 213 V V2 word order - Variety - Velar consonant - Verb - Verb–object–subject - Verb phrase - Verb–subject–object Verbal noun - Verner's law - Vocative case - Vowel - Vowel harmony - Vowel stems - W Weak suppletion - Will (verb) - Word - Word sense disambiguation - Writing - Writing systems - Wug test X X-bar theory Z Zipf's law Index of cognitive science articles Cognitive science is usually defined as the scientific study either of mind or of intelligence (e.g. Luger 1994). Practically every formal introduction to cognitive science stresses that it is a highly interdisciplinary research area in which psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, philosophy, computer science, anthropology, and biology are its principal specialized or applied branches. Therefore we may distinguish cognitive studies of either human or animal brains, mind and brain A Alan Turing - anthropological linguistics - artificial intelligence - artificial life - attention - autism B Brain–computer interface C cognition - cognitive therapy - cognitive behaviour therapy - cognitive neuroscience - cognitive psychology cognitive ergonomics - cognitive science - cognitive science of mathematics - Cognitive Science Society - collective intelligence - comparative linguistics - comparative method - computational linguistics - computational semiotics conceptual metaphor - connotation - constructed language - corpus linguistics - Creole language - cryptanalysis cybernetics Index of cognitive science articles 214 D decipherment - descriptive linguistics E embodied philosophy - enaction - ethnologue - etymology - evolutionary linguistics F figure of speech - formal language G George Lakoff - general semantics H H. Christopher Longuet-Higgins - Herbert A. Simon - historical-comparative linguistics - historical linguistics history of linguistics - human–computer interaction I Intelligence - International Phonetic Alphabet J Jerry Fodor L language - language acquisition - language families and languages - lexicography - lexicology - linguistic layers linguistics - linguistics basic topics - Linguistic relativity - List of famous linguists - List of linguistic topics - literal and figurative language - logical language M machine learning - Marvin Minsky - metaphor - metonymy - Moral Politics - motor control - morpheme N naming - natural language understanding - neural network - neurolinguistics - neurophilosophy - neuroscience Noam Chomsky O orthography P perception - philology - philosophy of language - philosophy of mind - phonetics - phonology - pidgin - pragmatics prescription and description - profanity - psycholinguistics - psychology of reasoning Index of cognitive science articles 215 Q qualia R robotics S Oliver Sacks- SAMPA - semantics - semiotics - sociolinguistics - speaker recognition - speech communication speech processing - speech recognition - speech synthesis - speech therapy - stratificational linguistics - structuralism - syntax T theoretical linguistics - theory of computation - tongue-twister - transformational-generative grammar - Turing test U unconscious mind W Where Mathematics Comes From - writing systems Speech-language pathology Speech-language pathology professionals (speech-language pathologists (SLPs), or informally speech therapists) specialize in communication disorders as well as swallowing disorders. The main components of speech production include: phonation, the process of sound production; resonance; intonation, the variation of pitch; and voice, including aeromechanical components of respiration. The main components of language include: phonology, the manipulation of sound according to the rules of the language; morphology, the understanding and use of the minimal units of meaning; syntax, the grammar rules for constructing sentences in language; semantics, the interpretation of meaning from the signs or symbols of communication; and pragmatics, the social aspects of communication.[1] National approaches to speech and language pathology Speech-language pathology is known by a variety of names in various countries around the world: • Speech-language pathology (SLP) in the United States [2], Canada [3], Malta [4], Italy [5], and in the Philippines • Speech and language therapy (SLTs) in the United Kingdom, Ireland [6], and South Africa [7]. Within the United Kingdom a Speech and Language Therapy team is sometimes referred to as the "SALT" team, to avoid confusion with Senior Leadership Team. S< is preferable however, and closer to the official abbreviation SLT used by RCSLT (Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists) [8]. • Speech pathology in Australia [9], and the Philippines • Speech-language therapy in New Zealand • Speech therapy in India [10], Hong Kong [11] and other Asian countries. Speech-language pathology • Speech and language pathologist in the Netherlands, the title for graduates from University who can participate in research. • Speech and language therapist (logopedist) are educated to give therapy in the Netherlands. Prior to 2006, the practice of Speech-Language Pathology in the United States was regulated by the individual states. Since January 2006, the 2005 "Standards and Implementation Procedures for the Certificate of Clinical Competence in Speech-Language Pathology" guidelines as set out by The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) have determined the qualification requirements to obtain "Speech-Language Pathology Clinical Fellowship". First, the individual must obtain an undergraduate degree, which may be in a field related to speech-language-hearing sciences. Second, the individual must graduate from an accredited master's program in speech language pathology. Many graduate programs will allow coursework not done in undergraduate years to be completed during graduate study. Various states have different regulations regarding licensure. The Certificate of Clinical Competence (CCC) is granted after the clinical fellowship year (CFY) when the individual provides services under the supervision of an experienced and licensed SLP. After a Certificate of Clinical Competence in Speech-Language Pathology is awarded. Continuing education is required for maintenance of the Certificate of Clinical Competence, every three years.[12] Post master's graduate study for a Speech-Language Pathologist may consist of academic, research, and clinical practice . A doctoral degree (Ph.D or Speech-Language Pathology Doctorate) is currently optional for clinicians wishing to serve the public. 216 The Speech-Language Pathology vocation Speech-Language Pathologists provide a wide range of services, mainly on an individual basis, but also as support for individuals, families, support groups, and providing information for the general public. Speech services begin with initial screening for communication and swallowing disorders and continue with assessment and diagnosis, consultation for the provision of advice regarding management, intervention and treatment, and provision counseling and other follow up services for these disorders. • cognitive aspects of communication (e.g., attention, memory, problem solving, executive functions). • speech (i.e., phonation, articulation, fluency, resonance, and voice including aeromechanical components of respiration); • language (i.e., phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatic/social aspects of communication) including comprehension and expression in oral, written, graphic, and manual modalities; language processing; preliteracy and language-based literacy skills, phonological awareness. • swallowing or other upper aerodigestive functions such as infant feeding and aeromechanical events (evaluation of esophageal function is for the purpose of referral to medical professionals); • voice (i.e. hoarseness (dysphonia), poor vocal volume (hypophonia), abnormal (e.g. rough, breathy, strained) vocal quality). Research has been proven to demonstrate voice therapy to be especially helpful with certain patient populations, such as individuals with Parkinson's Disease, who often develop voice issues as a result of their disease. • sensory awareness related to communication, swallowing, or other upper aerodigestive functions. Speech-language pathology 217 Multi-discipline collaboration Speech-Language Pathologists collaborate with other health care professionals often working as part of a multidisciplinary team, providing referrals to audiologists and others; providing information to health care professionals (including doctors, nurses, occupational therapist, and dietitians), educators, and parents as dictated by the individual client's needs. In relation to Auditory Processing Disorders[13] collaborating in the assessment and providing intervention where there is evidence of speech, language, and/or other cognitive-communication disorders. The treatment for patients with cleft lip and palate has an obvious interdisciplinary character. The speech therapy outcome is even better as the surgical treatment is performed earlier.[14] Healthcare • Promote healthy lifestyle practices for the preservation of communication, hearing, or swallowing, or for the treatment of other upper aerodigestive disorders. • Recognizing the need to provide and appropriately accommodate diagnostic and treatment services to individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds and adjust treatment and assessment services accordingly. • Advocating for individuals through community awareness, education, and training programs to promote and facilitate access to full participation in communication, including the elimination of societal barriers. Research • Conduct research related to communication sciences and disorders, swallowing disorders, or other upper aerodigestive functions. Training Education: • Master's degree in Speech-Language Pathology (M.A. or M.S.) or a clinical doctorate in Speech Language Pathology (SLP-D). • Passing score on the National Speech-Language Pathology board exam (PRAXIS). • Successful completion of a clinical fellowship year (CFY). • American Speech and Hearing Association (ASHA) certificate of clinical competence (CCCs) and full state licensure to practice, following successful completion of clinical fellowship year (CFY). • Credentials of a clinical fellow typically read as M.A. CFY-SLP. • Credentials of a licensed SLP are commonly written as M.A/M.S.. CCC-SLP or Ph.D. CCC-SLP. to indicate the practitioner's graduate degree and successful completion of the fellowship year/board exams to obtain the certificate of clinical competence (CCC). Continuing Education and Training Obligations: • • • • • Educate, supervise, and mentor future Speech-Language Pathologists.[15] Participate in continuing education. Educate and provide in-service training to families, caregivers, and other professionals. Train, supervise, and manage Speech-Language Pathology Assistants and other support personnel. Educating and counseling individuals, families, co-workers, educators, and other persons in the community regarding acceptance, adaptation, and decisions about communication and swallowing.[16] Speech-language pathology 218 Working environments Speech-Language Pathologists work in a variety of clinical and educational settings. SLPs work in public and private hospitals, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), long-term acute care (LTAC) facilities, hospice,[17] and home healthcare. SLPs may also work as part of the support structure in the education system, working in both public and private schools, colleges, and universities.[18] Some speech-language pathologists also work in community health, providing services at prisons and young offenders' institutions or providing expert testimony in applicable court cases.[19] Subsequent to ASHA's 2005 approval of the delivery of Speech-Language Pathology services via video conference, or telepractice,[20] SLPs have begun delivering services via this service delivery method. Methods of assessment Assessment of speech, language, cognition, and swallowing can consist of informal (non-standard or criterion based) assessments, formal standardized tests, instrumental measures, language sample analyses, and oral motor mechanism exam. Informal assessments rely on a clinician's knowledge and experience to evaluate an individual's abilities across areas of concern. Formal standardized testing is used to measure an individuals' abilities against peers. Instrumental measures (e.g., nasometer)utilizes equipment to measure physiological or anatomical impairments (e.g., Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES) or Modified Barium Swallow Study (MBS)). Oral motor assessments review the strength, co-ordination, range of movement, symmetry and speed of cranial nerves V, VII, IX, X and XII. The Australian National Guidelines for Stroke Management state that the presence or absence of a gag reflex in an oro-motor examination is not sufficient evidence to determine if someone has a swallowing disorder. Referrals to Speech and Language Pathologists should be made if there are any concerns regarding slow or limited communication development in children, cognition (limited attention, disorganization etc. following by a Traumatic Brain Injury), difficulty with word-finding, errors in speech sound production, or for Augmentative Alternative Communication needs. Clients and patients requiring speech and language pathology services Speech-Language Pathologists work with clients and patients who can present a wide range of issues. Infants and children • Infants with injuries due to complications at birth, feeding and swallowing difficulties, including dysphagia • Children with mild, moderate or severe: • Genetic disorders that adversely affect speech, language and/or cognitive development including cleft palate, Down syndrome, DiGeorge syndrome • Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder[21][22] • Autism,[23] including Asperger syndrome[24] • Developmental delay • Cranial nerve damage • Hearing loss • Craniofacial anomalies that adversely affect speech, language and/or cognitive development • Language delay • Specific language impairment • Specific difficulties in producing sounds, called articulation disorders, (including vocalic /r/ and lisps) • Pediatric traumatic brain injury • Childhood apraxia of speech Some children are eligible to receive speech therapy services, including assessment and lessons through the public school system. If not, private therapy is readily available through personal lessons with a qualified Speech-Language Speech-language pathology Pathologist or the growing field of telepractice.[25] More at-home or combination treatments have become readily available to address specific types of articulation disorders. The use of mobile applications in speech therapy is also growing as an avenue to bring treatment into the home. 219 Children and adults • • • • Cerebral Palsy Head Injury (Traumatic brain injury) Hearing Loss and Impairments Learning Difficulties including [26][27] • Dyslexia • Specific Language Impairment (SLI) [28] • Auditory Processing Disorder • • • • Physical Disabilities Speech Disorders Stammering, Stuttering (dysfluency) Stroke • • • • Naming difficulties (anomia) Dysgraphia, agraphia Cognitive communication disorders Pragmatics • • • Voice Disorders (dysphonia) Language disorders • • Laryngectomies Tracheostomies Oncology (Ear, nose or throat cancer) Motor speech disorders (dysarthria or dyspraxia) • Adults • Adults with mild, moderate, or severe eating, feeding and swallowing difficulties, including dysphagia • Adults with mild, moderate, or severe language difficulties as a result of: • Stroke • Progressive neurological conditions • Alzheimer's disease), • dementia, • Huntington's disease, • Multiple Sclerosis, • Motor Neuron Diseases, • Parkinson's disease, etc.) • cancer of the head, neck and throat (including laryngectomy) • mental health issues • transgender voice therapy (usually for male-to-female individuals) References [1] Block, Frances K.; Amie Amiot, Cheryl Deconde Johnson; Gina E. Nimmo; Peggy G. Von Almen; Deborah W. White; and Sara Hodge Zeno (1993), "Definitions of Communication Disorders and Variations" (http:/ / www. asha. org/ docs/ html/ RP1993-00208. html), Ad Hoc Committee on Service Delivery in the Schools, ASHA, doi:10.1044/policy. RP1993-00208, , retrieved 2010-08-07 [2] http:/ / www. asha. org [3] http:/ / www. caslpa. ca [4] http:/ / www. aslpmalta. org [5] http:/ / www. fli. it [6] http:/ / www. iaslt. ie/ [7] http:/ / www. saslha. co. za/ [8] http:/ / www. rcslt. org/ [9] http:/ / www. speechpathologyaustralia. org. au [10] http:/ / www. ishaindia. org. in [11] http:/ / www. speechtherapy. org. hk/ [12] "2005 SLP Standards" (http:/ / www. asha. org/ certification/ slp_standards. htm). 2005 Standards and Implementation Procedures for the Certificate of Clinical Competence in Speech-Language Pathology. . [13] DeBonis DA, Moncrieff D (February 2008). "Auditory processing disorders: an update for speech-language pathologists" (http:/ / ajslp. asha. org/ cgi/ content/ abstract/ 17/ 1/ 4). Am J Speech Lang Pathol 17 (1): 4–18. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2008/002). PMID 18230810. . Speech-language pathology [14] Mihaela Frățilă, Emil Urtilă, Maria Ștefănescu (Oct 2011). "Speech therapy — criteria for determining the time of the surgical operation in surgery of labio-palato-velars cleft" (http:/ / www. revistaomf. ro/ (33)) (in (Romanian)). Rev. chir. oro-maxilo-fac. implantol. 2 (2): 21–23. ISSN 2069-3850. 33. . Retrieved 2012-06-06.(webpage has a translation button) [15] "Professional Profile of the Speech and Language Therapist" (http:/ / www. cplol. eu/ eng/ profil_professionnel. html). . [16] "Roles and Responsibilities of Speech-Language Pathologists in Schools" (http:/ / www. asha. org/ docs/ html/ PI2010-00317. html). . [17] Pollens R (October 2004). "Role of the speech-language pathologist in palliative hospice care". J Palliat Med 7 (5): 694–702. PMID 15588361. [18] "Speech and language therapist - NHS Careers" (http:/ / www. nhscareers. nhs. uk/ details/ default. aspx?id=288). . [19] "What is speech and language therapy?" (http:/ / www. rcslt. org/ speech_and_language_therapy/ what_is_an_slt). . [20] "ASHA Telepractice Position Statement" (http:/ / asha. org/ telepractice/ ). Asha.org. . Retrieved 2010-04-15. [21] Bellani, M.; Moretti, A.; Perlini, C.; Brambilla, P. (Dec 2011). "Language disturbances in ADHD.". Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci 20 (4): 311-5. PMID 22201208. [22] "International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision (ICD-10) Version for 2010" (http:/ / apps. who. int/ classifications/ icd10/ browse/ 2010/ en#/ F90). World Health Organisation. 2010. . [23] https:/ / www. nidcd. nih. gov/ health/ voice/ pages/ autism. aspx [24] http:/ / www. ninds. nih. gov/ disorders/ asperger/ detail_asperger. htm [25] http:/ / asha. org/ telepractice/ [26] Ritter, Michaela J. (2009-06). "The Speech-Language Pathologist and Reading: Opportunities to Extend Services for the Children We Serve" (http:/ / div16perspectives. asha. org/ content/ 10/ 2/ 38. full). Perspectives on School-Based Issues 10 (2): 38–44. doi:10.1044/sbi10.2.38. . Retrieved 2012-04-15. [27] "The Role of the Speech-Language Pathologist | DyslexiaHelp at the University of Michigan" (http:/ / dyslexiahelp. umich. edu/ parents/ living-with-dyslexia/ school/ classroom/ role-speech-language-pathologist). . [28] Richard GJ (July 2011). "The role of the speech-language pathologist in identifying and treating children with auditory processing disorder". Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 42 (3): 241–5. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2011/09-0090). PMID 21757563. 220 Further reading • Fisher SE, Scharff C (April 2009). "FOXP2 as a molecular window into speech and language" (http://www. sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TCY-4VWGVG8-1&_user=10&_coverDate=04/30/ 2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221& _version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a40988a1d7dcbe434bf39246fae802af). Trends Genet. 25 (4): 166–77. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2009.03.002. PMID 19304338. • Nelson HD, Nygren P, Walker M, Panoscha R (February 2006). "Screening for speech and language delay in preschool children: systematic evidence review for the US Preventive Services Task Force" (http://pediatrics. aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/117/2/e298#R8). Pediatrics 117 (2): e298–319. doi:10.1542/peds.2005-1467. PMID 16452337. • Howell, Peter. Recovery From Stuttering. New York: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis Group, 2011. Web. 26th October 2012. External links • Glossary of Speech-Language Pathology / Speech and Language Therapy Terminology (http://www. speech-language-therapy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=123) • http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/voice/Pages/Default.aspx • http://www.asha.org/public/ Article Sources and Contributors 221 Article Sources and Contributors Linguistics  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=536712546  Contributors: 12.88.120.xxx, 130.225.51.xxx, 209.240.222.xxx, 2bornot2b, 64.26.98.xxx, AK IM OP, AMMeier, Aalahazrat, Aaron Schulz, Aaron north, AdamRaizen, AdiJapan, Ahoerstemeier, Aintsemic, Akanemoto, Akerbeltz, AkselGerner, AlanBarnet, Alansohn, Alex S, Alfio, Alinovic, Allformweek, Almkglor, Alt-o, Altenmann, Alton, Alvinpoe, Amirke5585, Andjor, Andrea moro, Andycjp, Angr, Antandrus, Ante Aikio, Antonio Lopez, Ap, Aphaia, Apmab1, Aranea Mortem, Artegis, Asenine, Ashmoo, Ashot Gabrielyan, Askari Mark, Astuishin, Avitohol, AxelBoldt, BRG, Barbara Shack, Bastique, Benc, Bentong Isles, Bluemask, Bobelvis, Bobo192, Bogdangiusca, Boleslav Bobcik, Bomac, Bongwarrior, Bookuser, Borislav, Brad7777, Branddobbe, Brandon.macuser, Brion VIBBER, Buridan, Byelf2007, CRGreathouse, Cadr, Caiomarinho, Caledones, Capricorn42, Cbdorsett, Charles Matthews, CharlesGillingham, Chris the speller, Christopher Kraus, Chun-hian, Closedmouth, Cnilep, Colonies Chris, Comhreir, Connormah, Conversion script, Cooper-42, Coren, Corpx, Crazycrazycrazycrazy, Cromwellt, Crusadeonilliteracy, Css, Cybercobra, DDD DDD, DJ Clayworth, DMacks, DVD R W, DanKeshet, Darigan, Davidjobson, Daykart, Dbachmann, Debresser, Deeptrivia, Deleet, Dennis Brown, DennisDaniels, Depthgr8, Desiphral, Devotchka, Dezidor, DionysosProteus, Discospinster, Dlohcierekim, Docu, Dolmagray, Donald Albury, Doric Loon, Drphilharmonic, E104421, Ecksemmess, Efe, Ehrbar, Ej, El C, ElBenevolente, Elatb, ElbowingYouOut, Ellmist, Ematch1, Emil Perder, Emufreak2, Emw, Eob, Epbr123, Ergative rlt, Esanchez7587, Eshleyy, Eugene-elgato, EugeneZelenko, Ewan dunbar, FaerieInGrey, FatsoGSD, Feedmymind, Fellowscientist, Ferhengvan, FilipeS, Filll, Firstwingman, Flatterworld, Fplay, Fram, Francis Tyers, FrancisTyers, Freakofnurture, Func, Furrykef, Fuzheado, Fwc, Fæ, Gaius Cornelius, Galoubet, Gansam12, Garik, Gem131, Giftlite, Gigacannon, Gilliam, Gioto, Glane23, Glenn, Glossologist, Gogo Dodo, Googl, GordonUS, Graft, Graham87, Graphitus, Greg-si, GregLee, Gregbard, Grick, Gronky, Grstain, Guaka, Gum375, Gun Powder Ma, Gurch, Hadal, HamYoyo, Hannes Hirzel, Hans Adler, Hazchem, Headbomb, Headfacemouth, Hectorthebat, Hephaestos, Hermitstudy, Himatsu Bushi, Hires an editor, Hirzel, Hm423, Hoo man, Hoss, Husseinjacob75, Icairns, Ike9898, Imiraven, Indeterminate, Infovoria, Innoak, Iph, Ish ishwar, Island, J Crow, J. Spencer, JALockhart, JMStewart, JNF Tveit, Jacquerie27, Jadoogiri, Jagged 85, Jalwikip, James Crippen, Jan.Keromnes, Jane Santos, Jeff G., Jelly Roal, Jkominek, Jlittlet, Jmundo, Jo3sampl, Jobber, Jobin RV, Joelemaltais, JoergenB, John, JohnOwens, Jonathan.s.kt, Jones Malcolm, Jorge Stolfi, Jose77, Jossi, Joycloete, Jrw7, Jsteph, Just plain Bill, KBYU, Kagredon, Kajervi, Kalogeropoulos, Kalomfa, Kaobear, Karmosin, Kbh3rd, Khoikhoi, Kinema, KisstheGEEK, Knightingail, Knutux, Kompar, Kowey, Krawi, Kwamikagami, Kylu, LA2, LMBM2012, Lacrimosus, Lam Kin Keung, Languageleon, LeadSongDog, Lecorbeau5, Lee Daniel Crocker, Lexor, Liftarn, Lilfireball05, Ling.Nut, Linguaua, LittleDan, LittleOldMe, Livajo, Looxix, Lova Falk, MIRACLE ONOCHIE, MIT Trekkie, Maarten van Vliet, Macbookair3140, Macedonian, Macrakis, Mahaabaala, Majorly, Man vyi, Mandyvigilante, Mani1, Marek69, Mark Dingemanse, Marnanel, MarsRover, MastCell, Mathematicmajic, Mattisse, Matve, Maunus, Maurice Carbonaro, Mav, Mayumashu, Mdd, Menchi, Metropolitan90, Michael Hardy, Michaelrayw2, Mike Dillon, Mike2000, Milesbarger, Mindspillage, Mindstore, Mitsuki152, Mogism, Monty845, Moxfyre, Mr. Stradivarius, Mr. Stradivarius on tour, MrsCaptcha, Mundart, Musical Linguist, Muspilli, Mxn, NTox, Nanshu, NaomiRG, Nasz, Natalie Erin, Nawafpower, NawlinWiki, Ncapriola, Neelix, Netoholic, Newbyguesses, Newnoise, Nickshanks, Nigholith, Nihil novi, Nikai, Ninabeck, Nine Tail Fox, Ninly, Nohat, Norm mit, Noticket, Notyourbroom, Nposs, Objectivesea, Oda Mari, OlEnglish, Ophion, Oskar.shura.too.cool.101, Osmòtic, Pakaran, Passw0rd, Paul A, Paul500, Pb30, Pedrodius, Pepper, Pete.Hurd, Pfold, Phantomtiger, Piandcompany, Picus viridis, Pinethicket, Poetaris, Poitypoity, Polocrunch, Poor Yorick, Powered, Pprabhakarrao, Prof. Sergei Grinev-Griniewicz, Puceron, Puellanivis, Purple Sheep, Python eggs, Quadell, QuartierLatin1968, Quebec99, Quiddity, Quintessent, R'n'B, RA0808, Ramendra, Ran, Random account 47, Raymond Feilner, Reinhard Hartmann, ResidentAnthropologist, RexNL, Reynoldst, Rich Farmbrough, Richaraj, Richard Brooks MK, Rick richards, Rjanag, Rje, Robbiemuffin, Rogerb67, Ronhjones, RoseParks, Rosiestep, Rotem Dan, Rulevoider, Rumiton, Ryguasu, Sara Parks Ricker, Scarlet Lioness, Scholar1982, Sebesta, Shermanmonroe, Sietse Snel, Sintonak.X, Sinuhe, Sj, Skifunkster2011, Skizzik, Slrubenstein, Snoyes, Sobreira, SolKarma, Spitfire19, Squarrels, Squideshi, Squids and Chips, Steven Zhang, Stevenmitchell, Stevertigo, Stinguist, SunDragon34, Supadawg, Supriyya, Suruena, Susan118, Svenonius, Synchronism, Szquirrel, Szyslak, Tabitha2000, Taivo, Tappel, Tartarus21, Tassedethe, Taw, Tayste, Tbackstr, Tbhotch, Tcamps42, Tech408, Technopat, Template namespace initialisation script, The Anome, The Nerd from Earth, The Transhumanist, The Transhumanist (AWB), TheAMmollusc, Thebeginning, Theoretick, Thewayforward, ThinkBlue, Tide rolls, Tijfo098, Tim Starling, TimBentley, Tobby72, Topbanana, Torgo, Touch Of Light, Triggerzeal13, Trilobitealive, TroubledTraveler, Trusilver, Trwier, Two halves, Ufotrain, UkPaolo, Universal Life, Uriyan, Vaganyik, Vaiyach, Valmi, Vanberg, VegKilla, Velho, Venu62, VinTing, WLU, Wapcaplet, Wavelength, Wdkaye, Weaponbb7, Wik, Wikipelli, Wikispan, WinedAndDined, Wknight94, Wleman, WmGB, Woohookitty, XJamRastafire, Xemoi, Yidisheryid, Yury Tarasievich, Zaheen, Zalmoxe, Zeke (usurped), Ziggurat, 681 anonymous edits Theoretical linguistics  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=530359565  Contributors: Ajd, Akhil999in, Altg20April2nd, Angr, Augustus Leonhardus Cartesius, BD2412, Cadr, Calumm, Dbachmann, Dinglydell, Edward, Edward321, Epbr123, FayssalF, Firstwingman, GlasGhost, GoodSirJava, Grendelkhan, Hippietrail, Hu12, Imiraven, Imran, IvanLanin, J Crow, Jasonbook99, Jasy jatere, Jerry, Jlittlet, Jobber, Jodie2003, Jonsafari, Jsteph, KBYU, Kwamikagami, Lizmarie, MacTire02, MaximvsDecimvs, Mxn, Nema Fakei, Noctibus, Nono64, Nscheffey, Nurg, OrenBochman, Rjwilmsi, Rmashhadi, Schnitzi, Semmelweiss, Signalhead, SolKarma, Suraduttashandilya, Suruena, Szyslak, Template namespace initialisation script, The Wiki ghost, Trondtr, WereSpielChequers, Wiseskier, Yuriybrisk, Zhen Lin, Zhozefiine, 㓟, 62 anonymous edits Cognitive linguistics  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=533745507  Contributors: Aleksd, Altenmann, Andres, Andycjp, Anomalocaris, Bpetroglyph, Buzgun, CambridgeBayWeather, Cansem, CharlesGillingham, Cnilep, Conversion script, Cuaxdon, CultureDrone, Deineka, Dirk Geeraerts, Djfrost711, Ericedward, Facopad, Freespirit.freebird, GTony7912, Garik, HunterAmor, Jalali.farah, Jecar, Jhopkins, JossBuckle Swami, Just plain Bill, KEJ, Karpenkook, Kripkenstein, Kyoakoa, Lacrimosus, Lam Kin Keung, Liontooth, LittleDan, Lucidish, Mangojuice, Mark Dingemanse, Mattisgoo, Michael Hardy, Mike Dillon, Mindstore, MisfitToys, Mitrius, MrOllie, Mrwojo, Nevill Fernando, Nine Tail Fox, Niyogi, Oliver Pereira, Onopearls, Proofreader77, Radicalsubversiv, Rich Farmbrough, Ritchy, Rjanag, Rkmaknowles, Ryguasu, Samw, Schlossberg, Scwlong, Selfinformation, Shweta, Sietse Snel, Spellbinder, Stevertigo, Template namespace initialisation script, The Wiki ghost, Truman Burbank, Twinxor, Vaganyik, Vanberg, Vegaswikian, Wikivangelist, Zoe, 94 anonymous edits Generative linguistics  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=507163051  Contributors: Adam78, Albeiror24, Alex Vynogradoff, Alipir, Altg20April2nd, Binksternet, Byelf2007, Cadr, Dbachmann, Eklir, FrancisTyers, Hégésippe Cormier, Ish ishwar, Jodi.a.schneider, Kwertii, Linas, Magioladitis, Netan'el, Netrapt, Paul D. Anderson, PhilKnight, PhnomPencil, QzDaddy, Rainwarrior, Rcgy, RodC, Rspeer, Seglea, Shadowjams, Silvonen, The Wiki ghost, Trickstar, Trondtr, Yjhjerry, Zoe, 8 anonymous edits Functional theories of grammar  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=535618284  Contributors: Addshore, Almit39, Altg20April2nd, Angr, B9 hummingbird hovering, Babbage, Beland, Brighterorange, Burschik, Caltas, ChrisGualtieri, Cnilep, Conversion script, Davidjobson, Dbachmann, Dduck, Dougluce, Dvdsn, E2lise, Fayenatic london, Florian Huber, Gregbard, Hannes Hirzel, Jasy jatere, Keith D, MZMcBride, Maunus, Mustafaa, Obankston, Qatter, Rich Farmbrough, Richardtgriscom, Sahehco, Sobreira, SolaCrespuci, Taragui, TelecomNut, Tony1, Uncle4263, Zadignose, Zerida, 14 anonymous edits Quantitative linguistics  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=530246275  Contributors: Angr, BestKH, Dewritech, Faring, Gregbard, Guy1890, Ivanobradovic, Kyoakoa, Marego, Sanya3, 10 anonymous edits Phonology  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=535505080  Contributors: 13alexander, 65.68.87.xxx, 96.186, Achowat, Aeusoes1, Alinguist, Alipir, Altenmann, Anarkisto, Andre Engels, Andrewpmk, Andycjp, Angr, Atkinson 291, Avjoska, Benjamin9832, Benwing, BiggerAristotle, Bissinger, Bobby D. Bryant, Brad7777, Brevam, Burzmali, CCLS, Cadr, Calliopejen1, CapnPrep, Cassowary, Cervello84, Charles Matthews, Cntras, Conversion script, CyborgTosser, D6, Damian Yerrick, DanielCD, Denihilonihil, Denisarona, Diego UFCG, Djinn112, Doprendek, Duoduoduo, Dwo, EagleFan, Edward, El C, Eleassar, Erutuon, Felix Folio Secundus, Flamingspinach, Fon, Freelance Intellectual, Freethinker77, Friviere, Furrykef, Gailtb, Galoubet, Gandalf1491, Geoffrey S. Nathan, Ghirlandajo, Gibbja, Giftlite, Gjm, Godfrey Daniel, Gogo Dodo, Grblomerth, GregLee, Gum375, Haham hanuka, Hannes Hirzel, Happysailor, Hirzel, Honeybop, Hvn0413, Indeterminate, InfoCan, Ioscius, Ish ishwar, IstvanWolf, J Crow, J. 'mach' wust, J.delanoy, Jagged 85, Jaichetr, JdeJ, Jlittlet, John Riemann Soong, Jonik, Jonnabuz, Joost.b, Jrdioko, Jsteph, Junglecat, KBYU, KakistocraticLaw, Kaobear, Karmosin, Kevin Steinhardt, Khoikhoi, Kikos, Kku, Kronecker, Ks 7508, Kwamikagami, Kyoakoa, LaggedOnUser, Lee Daniel Crocker, Lightmouse, LittleDan, LittleWink, Livajo, LokiClock, MER-C, Mack2, MagneticFlux, Makrai, Mayumashu, Merfster, Mindmatrix, Mingwangx, Miskwito, Mogism, Mrg3105, Msanford, Mxn, Mzajac, N-true, Nikai, Ninly, Nstringer, Obradovic Goran, Oghmoir, Onco p53, Pauldelacy, Paxse, PeepP, Pengkeu, Phil webster, Pinethicket, Pirtskhalava, Poccil, R'n'B, Rich Farmbrough, Richwales, Rik G., Rjanag, Rjwilmsi, Rosanne, Ryguasu, Sabraw1, Saterry, Scipius, SebastianHelm, Setok, Shlomital, Sirmylesnagopaleentheda, Spellbinder, SpuriousQ, Squidley, Stevertigo, Stifynsemons, Sumgirl, SuperlativeHors, Swooningdisaster, Syllabology, Tassedethe, Template namespace initialisation script, The Wiki ghost, Thincat, Thnidu, Tim Q. Wells, Tobby72, Tom Hope, Trusilver, Velella, Velho, Victor Yus, Wavelength, WikHead, Wikipeditor40, Wikiwow, WmGB, Wooddoo-eng, Wotnow, Xact, Zack wadghiri, Zanimum, Zerida, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ, 204 anonymous edits Morphophonology  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=527185298  Contributors: Aeusoes1, Andycjp, Angr, AuburnPilot, Auntof6, Caeruleancentaur, Carlog3, Cathfolant, Conversion script, Deflective, Ergative rlt, FilipeS, Gap9551, Hvn0413, Imz, Inkstersco, Ish ishwar, IvanLanin, J. Spencer, Jwestbrook, Kwamikagami, LilHelpa, Lockesdonkey, Mairi, MattPres, Nbarth, R'n'B, Ram-Man, Robofish, SimonP, Tjdw, True, Undead Herle King, Victor Yus, Vuo, Welsh, Woohookitty, 26 anonymous edits Syntax  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=534732110  Contributors: 16@r, 194.230.160.xxx, 195.186.148.xxx, 2bluey, 62.202.117.xxx, AK IM OP, Acb4341, Action potential, Adw2000, Ahoerstemeier, Airborne84, Aitias, Allan McInnes, Altenmann, Andre Engels, Andycjp, Angr, Angryafghan, Anomalocaris, Anthony Appleyard, Atlant, Aurista25, Axeman89, Beige Tangerine, Beland, Bellenion, Ben-Zin, BiT, BigBangTheoryLad, Bobo192, Bogey97, Bogger, Brian the Editor, Byelf2007, C.Fred, CJLL Wright, CR7, CWenger, Cadr, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, CapnPrep, Cc116, Charles Matthews, Cherry blossom tree, ChrisGualtieri, Chronotox, Ciceronl, CityOfSilver, ClosedEyesSeeing, Cnilep, Coffeeassured, Comhreir, Conversion script, Cquan, Cromwellt, CyrilThePig4, D6, DARTH SIDIOUS 2, David Kernow, David.Mestel, DerHexer, Derek farn, Discospinster, Dittaeva, Divespluto, Dmerrill, Donald Albury, Dude1818, Dungodung, Dwspig2, Ed g2s, Eilthireach, El C, Epbr123, Erutuon, Fattyjwoods, FilipeS, FlyHigh, Freedomlinux, FreplySpang, FromFoamsToWaves, Fuzzypeg, Gbouzon, Ghiraddje, Giftlite, Gilliam, Glen, Glenn, Goudron, Graham87, Grahas02, Gregbard, Guillaume2303, Hadal, Haggen Kennedy, Hannes Hirzel, Haukurth, Hectorthebat, Hexham, Hippasus, Hippietrail, Hirzel, Hulten, Hyacinth, Hyad, IRP, Icek, Iloveandrea, Ish ishwar, J Crow, J. Spencer, JKJasmineWongLaiKwan, Jasy jatere, Jauhienij, Jbeans, Jcarroll, Jdavidb, Jeff G., JeremyA, Jerry, Jimbo2222, Jmonk95, Joanjoc, JoanneB, Jobber, Joe Jarvis, Johan1298, John254, Jon Awbrey, JonnybrotherJr, Jonsafari, Joseph Solis in Australia, Joshuagross, Jwestbrook, K.lee, KEJ, Kajervi, Kallerdis, Kappa, Karl E. V. Palmen, Karl-Henner, Keta, Kjkolb, KnowledgeOfSelf, Kokoriko, Kornfan71, KrakatoaKatie, Krash, Kwertii, Leuko, Linguizic, Looxix, Lpjurca, Luna Santin, MER-C, Article Sources and Contributors Macetw, Mainstreet27, Malhonen, Mark Dingemanse, MarkSweep, MarkkuP, Marnanel, Martin Hinks, Maunus, Mav, Mayumashu, Mazeface, McSly, Mgreenbe, Michael Hardy, Miguelmrm, Mike Klaassen, Mikeo, Mindmatrix, Minna Sora no Shita, Morganiq, Mr.Z-man, Mrcool1122, Mukerjee, Mundart, Mycomp, N-k, NatusRoma, Neilc, Neutral-en, Nguyen Thanh Quang, Nick Number, Nihil novi, Niro5, Novangelis, Numbo3, Nuno Tavares, Nyoro n, Ojigiri, OlEnglish, Omnipaedista, Oneiros, OverlordQ, Oxymoron83, Palica, Pasta Salad, PaulTanenbaum, Pdblues, Physicist, Pi zero, Pigman, Pleckaitis, Poccil, Polyvios, Pprabhakarrao, Prabhakar P Rao, Qetuth, Quangbao, R'n'B, RJFJR, RandomP, Raymond Meredith, Reaper Eternal, RedWolf, Rich Farmbrough, Rijkbenik, Rik G., Rivertorch, Rjanag, Rlevse, Rmosler2100, Robin klein, Robzy213, Rollred15, RoseParks, Rursus, Rwessel, SJP, Semmelweiss, Simetrical, Skal, Sky1er, Smokizzy, Sonjaaa, Sopher99, Space Dracula, Spellbinder, Springindd, Starfire777, Stemonitis, Stevenmitchell, Stevertigo, Stifynsemons, Sverdrup, Tautologist, Tbhotch, Template namespace initialisation script, TheRingess, Thom2002, Thomas Blomberg, Thomasmeeks, Tide rolls, Tijfo098, Tim Q. Wells, Tjo3ya, Tooki, Torgo, Triplejo2, TuukkaH, TwigsCogito, Vaganyik, Versus22, Viriditas, Vishnava, Wavelength, Wayiran, Whimemsz, Will Hen, William Avery, Willking1979, Wiredrabbit, Wknight94, Wooddoo-eng, Woohookitty, Wutsje, Xp54321, Yaxu, Yerpo, Youssefsan, Zack wadghiri, Zarel, Zerida, Æk, 383 anonymous edits Lexis (linguistics)  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=534719542  Contributors: 13alexander, AdiJapan, Aleksd, Ani.forsythe, Anomalocaris, Aristolaos, Arribasplata, Aviados, BD2412, Bennydigital, Beno1000, BrainMagMo, CJ Withers, Chris the speller, Conal Grealis, Courcelles, DPCBOSS, Dolfrog, FilipeS, Funandtrvl, Fuper, GringoInChile, Gveret Tered, Javier Carro, Jordyman97, Juniuswikia, Kku, Lam Kin Keung, Leoselivan, Linas, Lunakeet, MBisanz, MacedonianBoy, Macrakis, Mona Williams, Omnipaedista, Pjoef, Qwyrxian, Rich Farmbrough, Rjanag, RockMFR, S.Örvarr.S, SofieElisBexter, U-Mos, Vivio Testarossa, WereSpielChequers, Wmahan, Wresu, Xxsissyxx, Yug, Zerida, 46 anonymous edits Semantics  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=536423867  Contributors: 16@r, 2bluey, 8ung3st, A. B., AGToth, AKA MBG, AVand, Aaeamdar, Aboctok, Active Banana, Aenioc, Ahernandez33, Alanthehat, Aleksd, Alexey.kudinkin, Amos Han, AnakngAraw, Analogisub, Andres, AndriesVanRenssen, Aniketdalal, Anomalocaris, Anthony Appleyard, Asderff, Augur, Awi007, Ayatniazi, Azymuthca, Battamer, Ben Babcock, Ben-Zin, BenSmak, Benjamin Dominic, Bguest, Boblibr, Bornslippy, Brighterorange, Byelf2007, Cacycle, CanadianLinuxUser, Cdc, Cenarium, Chalst, CharlesGillingham, Chris the speller, Cnilep, Comiscuous, Conversion script, Cybercobra, Cyborg Ninja, DEddy, Dalahäst, Danny lost, Dave5702, Daveh1, Dbachmann, Dbiel, Dcooper, Dmccreary, Doc honcho, Donald Albury, Droll, Dylan Lake, Edunoramus, Eequor, Eklir, Ekotkie, El C, Emptymountains, Enric Naval, Eric Biggs, Erick.Antezana, Erutuon, EvenT, Everyking, Evice, FilipeS, Frap, Friginator, Fvw, G. Lakoff, Gabnh, Galaxiaad, Gandalf1491, Gdarin, George100, Gimmetrow, Gioto, Glenn, Goberiko, Govindmaheswaran, Graham87, Gregbard, Guoguo12, Gwalla, HHirzel, Hairy Dude, Hannes Hirzel, Harold Philby, Haukurth, Hectorthebat, Helix84, Heron, HillarySco, Hpvpp, Hu12, Hyggelig, Iblardi, Imersion, Ioscius, Ish ishwar, Isotope23, J Di, J.delanoy, JAHendler, JC Chu, JECompton, Jaberwocky6669, Jackol, Jakohn, Jason L. Gohlke, Javier Carro, Jefffi, Jens Meiert, Jerryobject, Jim1138, Jimbo2222, Jitse Niesen, Jivecat, Jmchambers90, JoJan, Joanjoc, Jon Awbrey, Jon Roland, Jonkerz, Jonsafari, Joost.b, Jooyoonchung, Jpta, Jtauber, JuJube, JustinCope82, K1US, Kelisi, Kensall, Kevin12xd, Kgoarany, Khalid hassani, Khoikhoi, Kiwibird, Kku, Kntg, Koavf, Kokoriko, Krixou, Kzzl, Lambda, Lambyuk, Landon1980, Lawandeconomics1, Levalley, Light current, LilHelpa, Lindosland, Linkoman, Llamas4drama'10, Logan, LokiClock, Looxix, Lotje, Lova Falk, Lrunge, Lucidish, Lygophile, Lynch9000s, MER-C, MK8, Macedonian, MacedonianBoy, Mahitgar, Mandarax, Manytexts, Marc Venot, Mark Dingemanse, MarkBrooks, Markus Krötzsch, Martarius, MasterofUnvrs314, Mayumashu, Mbell, Mchcopl, Mechanismic, Merijn2, MiNombreDeGuerra, Michael Hardy, Micmachete, Mindmatrix, Mjklin, Mlinar, Moink, Molewood6, Mukerjee, Mundart, Nabeth, NawlinWiki, NeoAmsterdam, Netesq, Nick Number, NickelShoe, Nickleus, Nicodemus13, Nora lives, Nortexoid, Nubiatech, Omnipaedista, Ortolan88, Ott, PaulColby, Philip Trueman, Piercetheorganist, Pigsonthewing, Pinethicket, Pirtskhalava, Pit, Pred, Purpose Observatory, Quibik, Rama, RasputinJSvengali, Rdanneskjold, Ready, Redvers, Retodon8, Revery, Rich Farmbrough, Rjanag, Rjwilmsi, Rod57, Rossami, Rp, Runch, Rursus, Ryguasu, SDC, ST47, Sabrebattletank, ScAvenger lv, Scwlong, Semantia, Seriv, Shamalyguy, Shawn wiki, Shermanmonroe, Shizhao, Simlorie, Sinatra, Sir Vicious, Sligocki, Slipstream, Smithonian, Sonic Mew, Spellbinder, Squarrels, Stephenb, Stevertigo, Stifynsemons, Strife911, Suraduttashandilya, Sverdrup, Template namespace initialisation script, The Anome, The singapore ministry of education sucks, Theyetiman12345, Tide rolls, Tijfo098, TimVickers, Tmusgrove, Tom Pippens, Tycho, UnconsciousInferno, Urhixidur, Vaganyik, Vanisheduser12345, Velho, Vonkje, WAS 4.250, Warhorus, Wavelength, Wikid77, Wolfdog, Woohookitty, X201, Yerpo, Youssefsan, Yuriz, Zegarad, Zerida, Zhen Lin, Ziusudra, Zsinj, ‫ 953 ,ﮐﺎﺷﻒ ﻋﻘﯿﻞ‬anonymous edits Pragmatics  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=536340026  Contributors: 1ForTheMoney, 2bluey, Adam78, Ahoerstemeier, Alexkon, Allens, Anaphalis, Andre Engels, Andreasstokke, Angr, Antonielly, Ap, Ashfan83, AustralianMelodrama, Bdesham, Belovedeagle, Byelf2007, C. A. Russell, Camw, Chris the speller, ChrisGualtieri, Cnilep, Cquan, Crònica, DASonnenfeld, DCDuring, Dasternberg, Davidjobson, Dduck, Dear ODear ODear, Defyn, Denisarona, Dleonard, Dmacw6, Dorvaq, Dúnadan, Eaefremov, Easterboxx, Edhubbard, Edward, ElKevbo, Eniarrol, EnisSoz, Erud, Facopad, Favonian, Flyte35, Fowler&fowler, GTBacchus, Garik, Giraffedata, Granitethighs, Grape1, Gregbard, Hakeem.gadi, Hamsterlopithecus, Hong12kong, Hu12, Ilselieve, Inwind, Ish ishwar, Itoula, IvanLanin, Jacksonflint, Jdenen, JimD, Jon Awbrey, Jærv, KC 12321, Kennetha, Khoikhoi, Kku, Knotwork, Ko'oy, Kyoakoa, LKNUTZ, Lindsay658, Lingrace us, Livajo, Lucidish, Luna Santin, MER-C, Maashatra11, Macedonian, Marek69, Matturn, Mekanik78, Michael Hardy, Michkalas, Micmachete, Mike hayes, Milais, Mindmatrix, MissFrappell, Mr. Stradivarius on tour, Msasscts, Mu, Musiphil, Ngio, Notinasnaid, Ntennis, Nurg, Omnipaedista, Passing mouse, Peachlette, Philip Trueman, Pitan, Pupster21, Rdsmith4, RedHouse18, Reedy, Reinhard Hartmann, RekishiEJ, Reneeholle, Rjanag, Rsrikanth05, Rursus, Samsara, Sethmahoney, Sinatra, Smartse, Smokesomedillweed, So-called Genius, Solitude, Spellbinder, Stevertigo, Stifynsemons, SummerWithMorons, Superabo, Supriyya, Szyslak, Taak, Teamprag, Template namespace initialisation script, The Anome, The Famous Movie Director, The Tetrast, The bellman, TheDJ, Tijfo098, Tinctorius, Typritc, Vaganyik, Verbum Veritas, Viverechristus, Wales, Wikiwlod, Woland37, Zerida, 183 anonymous edits Orthography  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=535078850  Contributors: Adam78, Aleksd, Antonielly, Apple0142E, Aszev, Benc, Benwalker446, BiT, Bigjimr, BillGates12345, Bjankuloski06en, Bjenks, Bodragon, Brion VIBBER, Burschik, Camembert, Christian List, Cie'th, Cnilep, Coffee, Conversion script, Cpaw1, Cupy 52040, DabMachine, Damian Yerrick, David Gerard, Dekimasu, Diego UFCG, Djmutex, Dolfrog, Doradus, Doremo, Eall Ân Ûle, El C, Erutuon, Espresso Addict, FilipeS, Floddinn, Fopnor, Frecklefoot, Fuzzform, Gailtb, Galoubet, Garik, Genhuan, Gregorvalmehan, Greudin, Guy Peters, Göktürker, Hajenso, Hephaestos, Heron, Hui1234, Iketsi, Incrediblub, Ionius Mundus, Isnow, IvanLanin, Jdlh, Jerzy, JohnOwens, Jojalozzo, Jojit fb, Josh Grosse, JourneyWomanSLP, Jpatokal, Julian Mendez, Kaihsu, KarlHallowell, Kricxjo, Kwamikagami, LDHan, Landroving Linguist, Laurens-af, Lockesdonkey, LoggedRoot, MGTom, MadGuy7023, Mais oui!, Majorly, Malhonen, Michael Hardy, Moanzhu, Mooncow, Mr. Stradivarius, Nbarth, Nguyễn Thanh Quang, Nk, Nohat, Nposs, Nyttend, Octahedron80, Paris1127, PhJ, Pjacobi, Pne, Poccil, Polylerus, Poor Yorick, Quercus solaris, Quite, R'n'B, RHHallam, Raoul NK, Redyka94, Reinhard Hartmann, Rezwalker, Rjanag, Royote, Rwflammang, Sangchaud, Sannse, Sethton, Shanelemaster88, Skeuomorph, Sophie, Stemonitis, Stesmo, Supertouch, Suttkus, Syndicate, Tharenthel, Tikiwont, Tkynerd, Umofomia, Ventusa, Vergad, Victor Yus, Vincent Ramos, Wayne Slam, Wikipelli, WpZurp, Xyzzyva, 达 伟, 119 anonymous edits Semiotics  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=536431716  Contributors: 16@r, 9258fahsflkh917fas, Adamstamp, Adrian Sampson, Ahernandez33, Aldenjadi, Altg20April2nd, Amerique, Amhawks, Ancheta Wis, Andre Engels, Andres, Angry candy, Antiorario, Antonielly, Art LaPella, Arthur Rubin, Ashley Pomeroy, Auccl799, Ave Caesar, Bamkin, Baronka, Benc, Beyond My Ken, Bgiwan, Bill3000, Binadot, BlumeTheory, Bonadea, BookgirlST, Bookinvestor, Borgx, Br1z, Brantgoose, Brelson, Burschik, Cailil, Cansem, Catgut, Charles Matthews, Chrishota, Cleduc, Cobaltnova, Conversion script, Cquan, Crywalt, Ctsewall, Cwkmail, D'n, D6, DASonnenfeld, Dan Pelleg, DandyDan2007, Dani0rad, Darrenhusted, David Delony, David H Braun (1964), David91, Davidsclarke, Ddball, Deathtripp, Deepak (old), Delirium, Delldot, DionysosProteus, DocWatson42, Docu, Dpv, Dr Oldekop, Dr sign, Drmaik, Dsp13, Eagletm, EcoRover, Edhubbard, Eequor, Eilthireach, El C, Elipongo, Elwikipedista, Epbr123, Eric Shalov, Evereyes, FadulJA, Falcon9x5, Fat Burner, Fayte, Fenbaud, FlavrSavr, Fmuratozdemir, FocalPoint, Gabrieldov, Galoubet, Gecko, Genesiswinter, Genspire, Germandemat, Ghirlandajo, Giraffedata, GirasoleDE, Gleaman, Grant Fletcher, HairyFotr, Hans Adler, HazielAhn, Headbomb, Hermitstudy, Hirzel, Hu12, Hurmata, Hyacinth, ITstudents, Ianml, Immunize, Informatwr, Iranway, Irc-reading, Iridescent, JAF1970, JDspeeder1, JForget, JLD, JMK, Jahsonic, James Seneca, Jlittlet, Jm34harvey, Joanjoc, Jojit fb, Jon Awbrey, Jon Roland, Jorge Stolfi, Jorunn, Joviir, Jusdafax, Jusjih, Jwdietrich2, KYPark, Kablammo, Kaihsu, Katy121, Kelleyhg, Kemet, Keraunos, Kkmcbride, Kku, Kokoriko, Kronecker, Krupo, Kukini, Kzollman, Laocoön11, Lechatjaune, Lemccbr, Lindsay658, LogertGilby, Lotje, Lubos, Lucidish, Luke4545, Luna Santin, MaNeMeBasat, Macedonian, Mani1, Marc Girod, Martarius, Materialscientist, Maunus, Mav, Maw, Mentifisto, Michael Hardy, Mike Rosoft, Mike889, Mikeroodeus, Miquonranger03, Mjb, Mjhoy, Montag451, Moretz, Mr. Stradivarius, MrOllie, Msasscts, Mushroom, NSR, Nagelfar, NawlinWiki, Neilbeach, Newbyguesses, Nk, Nlight, NorwegianBlue, Nscheffey, Oileyboyley, OlEnglish, Oldekop, Ontoraul, Ott, PBS, Parkjunwung, Pedant17, Peelpel, Pgk, Phil Sandifer, Philip Trueman, PhnomPencil, Physicist, Pirtskhalava, Pliny, Project2501a, Purplepancho, Quibik, Qwyrxian, R'n'B, Rashomon digger, RasputinJSvengali, Rdsmith4, Redwalker, Reidwikki, Rhys, Rich Farmbrough, Richigi, Ricky81682, Rigadoun, Ritzemar, Rjanag, Rmallott1, Roberta F., Robson correa de camargo, Roven7, SBennett1, Sailoralexny, Salam32, Samsara, Sardanaphalus, Schaefer, Schwantner, Scope creep, Seaphoto, Sethmahoney, Shrumster, SidP, SimonP, SirGrotius, Slipperyweasel, Sockatume, Somedude202, Sparafucil, Squarrels, SteinbDJ, Steven Weston, Stevenmitchell, Stevenzenith, Stevertigo, Stevietheman, Suchisuvrasen, Sundar, Sylent, Tempshill, Terrasidius, The Alchimist, The Tetrast, The Transhumanist, The Wiki ghost, The wub, TheSoundAndTheFury, Thomasda, TimVickers, Titoxd, Tryxx, Tsk351, Ulflarsen, Unfree, Unschool, VMS Mosaic, Vandermude, Varuag doos, Velho, Victoria15, Vmenkov, Wayland, Wclark, Wikilibrarian, Wyatt915, Xosé, Yenlinch, Ynaztiw, Yonghokim, Youandme, Youssefsan, Yuyudevil, Zeno Gantner, ZimZalaBim, Zzuuzz, Александър, Канеюку, 394 anonymous edits Linguistic description  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=516459445  Contributors: .:Ajvol:., 0XQ, Allen3, Andycjp, Art LaPella, Benc, Burschik, Darigon Jr., Darkfrog24, Derek Ross, Dorftrottel, Doric Loon, Dzzl, Epbr123, Gavia immer, Gregbard, Gurch, Hephaestos, Iridescent, Jobber, Jules.lt, Kaleissin, Kjoonlee, Kwertii, Lanov, LeadSongDog, Livajo, Mustafaa, Nafpaktiakos, Paulfp, Pit, Poeticbent, Radagast83, RekishiEJ, Sacundim, Shakescene, Siafu, SummerWithMorons, Sysy, Tijfo098, Varoon Arya, VinTing, Wavelength, Wetman, Whimemsz, Wolfdog, Woohookitty, Zaheen, 29 anonymous edits Anthropological linguistics  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=523687590  Contributors: 0XQ, A. B., Andycjp, Aponar Kestrel, Asoer, Astronautics, Bluszczokrzew, Burschik, CALR, Canto2009, Chameleon, Cnilep, DaCentaur, Ergative rlt, Eyadhamid, Greedyhalibut, Ihcoyc, Isnow, Jakash, Jal, Jimwilce, JonHarder, JustShin, Karl-Henner, Kowey, Kyoakoa, LilHelpa, Mandarax, Maunus, Melchoir, Michael Hardy, Mike Dillon, Nilmerg, Oxymoron83, Pigman, Rdsmith4, Rtcpenguin, Shadowlynk, Sj, Slrubenstein, Taw, Zaslav, 35 anonymous edits Comparative linguistics  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=532035453  Contributors: Adresia, AkselGerner, Altenmann, Andrey Kartashov, Ante Aikio, Antonielly, BD2412, BearMachine, Bender235, Blankego, Calwiki, Canley, Chris the speller, CumbiaDude, Curdeius, Dbachmann, Dissident, DoktorMax, DopefishJustin, Dorftrottel, Dpv, Eklir, Florian Blaschke, Fobizan, Godfrey Daniel, Gregbard, Hermitstudy, Heron, Hu12, Igiffin, Ikiroid, Intgr, JWB, Kalogeropoulos, Keeno, Kwamikagami, Kyoakoa, MacedonianBoy, Mandarax, Mayooranathan, Meursault2004, Miskwito, Mizukane203, Mr. Stradivarius, Möchtegern, Pfold, Rex Germanus, Riyadi, Rjanag, Rjwilmsi, Sankalpdravid, Sarah9987, Sebesta, SimonGreenhill, Stevey7788, Sun Creator, Suraduttashandilya, Tang Kai Mun, TheRingess, Tony1, Trulytruly, Uanfala, Universityuser, Verbum Veritas, VikSol, Wimberley, 34 anonymous edits 222 Article Sources and Contributors Historical linguistics  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=533910849  Contributors: -Ril-, 209.240.222.xxx, Abc12345678910, Adjusting, Adresia, Agent X, Ajd, Akhilleus, Alex earlier account, Andre Engels, Andrey Kartashov, Angr, Ante Aikio, Anypodetos, Ap, Ary29, Awien, BD2412, Benwing, Biglovinb, Billposer, Bn, Calvin 1998, CapitalR, Carlj7, Charles Matthews, Conversion script, Cyde, Czechios, Dbachmann, Dduck, DeGabor, Denial land, Deor, Devovo, Donarreiskoffer, Doric Loon, Dpv, Drphilharmonic, Drydic guy, EDG161, Elfelix, Emilio Juanatey, Ergative rlt, Fakirbakir, Fedor, Fgrosshans, Furrykef, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Galoubet, Geekdiva, GeoffreyGleadall, Graham87, Greg-si, Gurch, Headbomb, Hijasegunda, Hmains, Hoss, Hu12, Hyju, Ikiroid, Ish ishwar, IvanLanin, J. 'mach' wust, J04n, JLC2, JSimin, Jasperdoomen, Jmabel, Joakim Ziegler, John K, Jorge Stolfi, KTyson, Kappa, Keeno, Kessler, Kompar, Kwamikagami, Kzhr, Larry_Sanger, Lilasnoir, Livajo, MSabev, MacTire02, MacedonianBoy, Mahmudss, Man vyi, Mani1, MarkSweep, Mayooranathan, Mermaid from the Baltic Sea, Miskwito, Mitchoyoshitaka, Mrg3105, Muhammad Shuaib Nadwi, Mustafaa, Mxn, Naddy, Netan'el, Neutrality, Nurg, Olivier, Omnipaedista, Opus33, Parkwells, Paul Drye, Pfold, Pgdudda, PierreAbbat, Pion, RafaAzevedo, Reaverdrop, Rex Germanus, Rjanag, RoseParks, SJK, Sacundim, Saforrest, Sebesta, Slomo, Soapyyy, Stephen C. Carlson, Stirling Newberry, Suraduttashandilya, Tabletop, Tang Kai Mun, Template namespace initialisation script, Tibetologist, Timothy Usher, Tothebarricades.tk, Ugur Basak, Umofomia, Uncle uncle uncle, Universityuser, VeryVerily, Vivvek, Welsh, Wesley Holt, Whimemsz, Woohookitty, Yuriybrisk, Zaheen, Zoicon5, 67 anonymous edits Etymology  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=535782296  Contributors: -- April, -Ril-, 150.254.102.xxx, 21655, 33451, 3rdAlcove, AKeen, Adrian 1001, Agradman, Ahoerstemeier, Akerbeltz, Alan McBeth, Alexwiki, Alsandro, Altenmann, Andrewcmcardle, Andrij Kursetsky, Andrusiak, Andy500, Antandrus, Ante Aikio, Anthere, Arno Verweij, Ashanda, Assistant N, AuburnPilot, Avidmosh, Awesomearun, BBuchbinder, BC Lafferty, Band geek13, Bcorr, Bearcat, Bemoeial, Betamod, Billfalls, Birty, Bjenks, Blainster, Blenda, Bloodofox, Bobo192, Bodnotbod, Bogdangiusca, Brianga, BrightStarSky, Bryan Derksen, Bua333, Burschik, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, CanadianLinuxUser, CanisRufus, Ceoil, Chameleon, Charles Hodgson, Charles Matthews, Chloefb, ChrisO, Christian List, Ciacchi, Cisgjm, Clarissa Caldwell, Closedmouth, Cmannall, Cmdrjameson, Conversion script, Corvus coronoides, Crusadeonilliteracy, CuteHappyBrute, Cybercobra, CyclePat, Cynwolfe, DVD R W, Dajwilkinson, Dalstadt, Daqu, Darkfight, Davebachman, David spector, Dbachmann, DeadlyAssassin, Den fjättrade ankan, DerHexer, Devanatha, Dhochron, Diegusjaimes, DigitalSorceress, Diogenes zosimus, Discospinster, DolphinL, Donama, Doric Loon, Dpv, Drewdevin67, Dsoussan, Dungodung, Dusty relic, Dysepsion, Dysprosia, EamonnPKeane, Eichblatt, El C, Eliptis, Elockid, Epbr123, Erik9, Eronneill, Erskingardner, Erutuon, Filll, Finn-Zoltan, Fleela, Flywheel, Fraggle81, Fraserx10, Free Bear, Freyr35, Ft1, Fvasconcellos, GRAHAMUK, Gaidheal1, Garik, Garik 11, Gbrading, Ghirlandajo, Gianfranco, Gilliam, Gioto, Glavkos, Gogo Dodo, Gomm, Graham87, Guy Peters, Gz33, Hadal, Haham hanuka, Hannes Hirzel, Haukurth, Hayden120, He who Geezes, Heron, Hiimbrady, Hippietrail, Hotcrocodile, Hraefen, Hveziris, IPfish, Iceman787, Inertiatic076, Insanity Incarnate, Iohannes Animosus, Ioscius, Iridescent, J. 'mach' wust, J.delanoy, Jagged 85, Jay, Jbodden6977, JeanEva Rose, Jeevenson, Jeff G., Jfurr1981, Jim62sch, Jimbo2222, Jimothytrotter, Jmundo, Joehall45, Joelmills, Johnbibby, Johnbrownsbody, Jonathan.s.kt, Jonkerz, Juggleandhope, Julian Mendez, Juozas Rimas, Jyusin, KRSplat, Kablammo, Kalgari, Katelin 21, Keeno, KeyStroke, Kinhull, Kintetsubuffalo, Kjoonlee, KnowledgeOfSelf, Komap, Kongr43gpen, Koyaanis Qatsi, Kwamikagami, Kyoakoa, Lanov, Le Anh-Huy, Lee Carre, Linkspamremover, Looxix, Lotje, Luitgard, M-le-mot-dit, M0phet, MLKLewis, Mac, Macedonian, Magicalsaumy, Maha Odeh, Makswel, Mallerd, Man vyi, Manma, ManningBartlett, Marek4, Martin451, Marxolang, Masatran, Materialscientist, Matusz, Maximus Rex, Menchi, Meursault2004, Michael Hardy, Micmachete, Mike Rosoft, Minor Contributer, Miskwito, Mitch Ames, MitraE, Mkruijff, Mogism, Montrealais, Mrt3366, Mrzeppolainen22, NKT45, Nagualdesign, Nasnema, NawlinWiki, NeoJustin, Nestanaios, Nethency, NewEnglandYankee, Nick Number, Nirjhara, Niro5, Nitrogen56, Nohat, O.Koslowski, Ojigiri, Oliver202, Olivia Curtis, Olivier, OnBeyondZebrax, OprgaG, Optiguy54, Ortolan88, Otichy, Oupblog, Overlord512, Oxymoron83, Palica, PantherNC, Pcarter7, Peter Deer, Pgdudda, Pgk, Phrixussun, PierreAbbat, Pindaris, Pinethicket, Pinnerup, Plm209, Pmanderson, Poccil, Porcher, Psyche825, Qaz, Quangbao, QuartierLatin1968, Quiensabe, RISHARTHA, Rainiedays, Ravenous, Reconsider the static, Reinthal, Renaissancee, Restre419, Retodon8, Rex Germanus, RexNL, Richard001, Rjwilmsi, Romanm, Romansanders, Rossami, Rwalker, SISPCM, Sacundim, Sadads, Saethwr, Saforrest, Sarah, Sarahenni102, Satanael, Sbluen, Scatterkeir, Schapirama, SchfiftyThree, School genius, Schwallex, Screamingmidgets, SebastianHelm, Sebesta, Sexyball, Sickxapples, Sk8withspanky, Slackermonkey, Snoyes, Some jerk on the Internet, SpookyMulder, Staszek Lem, Stephen Compall, Stephenb, Sterlingjones, Stunttriple, Suffusion of Yellow, Sundar, Szyslak, Tachyon01, Tangerines, Tavilis, Taw, TedSwarovski, Teoweilong, Text Rx, The Thing That Should Not Be, The Wiki ghost, TheMandarin, ThePointblank, Theirrulez, Thejk, ThievingBeagles, Tiggyp11, Tim Q. Wells, Timdownie, Timwi, TomPhil, Travelbird, Treborbassett, Trigaranus, TrogL, Tsinfandel, Tsunaminoai, TurinHurinson, TutterMouse, TwistOfCain, Twooars, Ulric1313, Una Smith, Uncle Milty, UnitedStatesian, Van helsing, Velella, Versus22, Vi6dla, Vrenator, Wahkeenah, Wareh, WatermelonPotion, Wavelength, Wayne Slam, Wereon, Wetman, Whimemsz, Wikipelli, Wikism, Willdunford1, Wituckatron, Wolfkeeper, Womtelo, Woohookitty, XJamRastafire, YLSS, Z10x, Zantastik, Zro, Zzuuzz, Александър, 554 anonymous edits Graphetics  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=490980941  Contributors: Mikelo Gulhi, Mr. Stradivarius Phonetics  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=530561280  Contributors: .:Ajvol:., 13alexander, 2D, 65.68.87.xxx, Abc518, Aeusoes1, Alx3762, Andre Engels, Andres, Andycjp, Angr, Antandrus, Aref Saki, Avb, AxSkov, BRG, Bbatsell, Belovedfreak, Bjankuloski06en, Borgx, BrainMarble, Branddobbe, COMPATT, Capricorn42, Carey Evans, Chaojoker, Chinasaur, Colin Keigher, Conversion script, Crazycomputers, Cult-p, D, Daf, Dairyqueen8, Damian Yerrick, Darth Panda, DePiep, DennisDaniels, Dhirsbrunner, Dinesh smita, DionysiusThrax, Discospinster, Dissident, Djg6058, Dominic.sedghi, Dylansmrjones, Dynablaster, Eleassar, Emperorbma, Emw, EncycloPetey, EugeneZelenko, Femto, Fgdfgdssfghrr6rg7g756, FilipeS, Flyingidiot, Friviere, Fryed-peach, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Ganymead, Garant^^, Garik, Gil mo, Gpkh, Graham87, Grahamgraeme, Grebaldar, Guaka, Gum375, Gurt Posh, Hairy Dude, Hannes Hirzel, Hari, Hearnoseenospeakno, Heron, Hirzel, HistoryBA, Hm423, Hmains, Homerjay, Hydrogen Iodide, Igor, Imiraven, Inbetweener, Iohannes Animosus, IronGargoyle, Ish ishwar, Ishenko, Italianoinspiritu, J-Wiki, J.delanoy, JH-man, Jagged 85, Jammie2, Jimp, Jonik, Jph, Jrtayloriv, Kaobear, Karl Palmen, Karmosin, Kenny sh, Kesla, Kevin Russell, KevinMcGowan, Khoikhoi, Khym Chanur, Kikos, Kimelinor, Klow, Kokoriko, Kwamikagami, LOL, Lalala171717, Lament, Lingboy, LittleDan, Logixoul, Lukasstud, Luna Santin, LunaticFringe, Lupin, MER-C, Majmun, Mani1, Mark Dingemanse, Markmark12, Marnanel, Masatran, Massimo Macconi, Matusz, McGeddon, Mcld, Menchi, Mindmatrix, Mizike, Monstire, MrOllie, N-true, NHRHS2010, Nasnema, Natzi Boy, Nilfanion, Niteowlneils, Noahpoah, Nohat, Nono64, Nposs, Oda Mari, Ojigiri, Olivier, Ortonmc, Oscarthecat, Paddy O'Scallion, Park jae-hoon, Patrick, Perezkelly, Phil wink, PierreAbbat, Pigman, Piotr Gasiorowski, Pjacobi, Portalian, Postmodern Beatnik, Quangbao, R'n'B, Ragib, Rajnishkmr083, Raymond Meredith, Rjwilmsi, Romanm, Roylee, Royote, RucasHost, Rygelski, Ryguasu, Secondwatch, Simeondahl, Sintonak.X, SiobhanHansa, Sivaraj, Slomo, Sonjaaa, Sparky147, Spellbinder, Srnec, Stephenb, Stevertigo, Sunborn, THEN WHO WAS PHONE?, Tbackstr, Template namespace initialisation script, TenPoundHammer, The Anome, TheJrLinguist, TheOtherBob, Timschmi, Tobby72, Tom.Reding, TopAce, Twsx, Umofomia, Vaganyik, Vahagn Petrosyan, Venu62, Vssun, Wasbeer, Wikiklrsc, Wikiwow, Ygwnkm, Yidisheryid, Zerida, Zhangshuo517, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ, ‫ 772 ,ﺳﻤﺮﻗﻨﺪﯼ‬anonymous edits Applied linguistics  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=536306260  Contributors: AFLA-Asso, Acroterion, Albeiror24, Andycjp, Angr, Arp92493, Astronautics, Babbage, BrainyBabe, Bricolab, Chelmian, Chengchamroeun, Cjholula, Connor4355, Curdeius, Davidjobson, Ddranf, Dicaeopolis, Docboc44, Dyanne Nova, Entropy, Erinfish, Eshleyy, Firstwingman, Fredrik, Gailtb, Grstain, Iris lorain, IvanLanin, Joehall45, Jprw, Jsteph, LWG, Lucidish, Lucienyahinna, Malecasta, Mandarax, Markeilz, Mdoff, Michael Hardy, Mr. Stradivarius, Mrhankeythechristmaspoo, Niteowlneils, Nposs, Oregontom, Pacific50, Pikolas, Pmatsuda, Pmbcomm, Reinhard Hartmann, Roger Davies, Samsara, Sebesta, Seth Ilys, Shafei, Shizhao, SofieElisBexter, Stevertigo, Studyyear, Suruena, Tabletop, Tanár, Template namespace initialisation script, Terasawat, The Wiki ghost, Thisisanaccountname, Valentinejoesmith, VattuVattu, Visviva, Will Hen, 72 anonymous edits Sociolinguistics  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=529273884  Contributors: 16@r, ABF, Aaron north, Access Denied, Aleksd, Alexkon, AnOrdinaryGuy, Andre Engels, AndrewHowse, Andycjp, Angr, Anomalocaris, Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The, Antonielly, Ardonik, Argylemoose, Aubadaurada, Benne, Bgwhite, Brendan.wolfe, Bubuka, Byalinguist, CALR, CTanguy, Canto2009, CapitalR, Charbee, Charles Matthews, Chasingsol, Chris the speller, Christian List, Chzz, Ckatz, Closedmouth, Cnilep, Cometstyles, Connor4355, CreoleFungus, Crònica, DASonnenfeld, Danjj, Darigon Jr., Daveyboysimmo, DennisDaniels, Diana LeCrois, Diego, Djnjwd, Dlohcierekim, Dogah, EJPyatt, Eaefremov, Eburaconos, Ejrrjs, Entheta, Fastilysock, Fayenatic london, Filemon, FrancisTyers, Frangky silitonga, Frankenpuppy, Fratrep, Fredbauder, Fwappler, Gabnh, Gaius Cornelius, Gerteger, Grape1, Halaqah, Inogad, J Di, J.delanoy, JaGa, Jburr1985, Jef-Infojef, Jeroen Claes, Jfpierce, JohnCD, JorisvS, Joy, Jugger90, Kaffeeringe.de, Karl-Henner, Kevlar67, Kh7, Ko'oy, Kzzl, LaggedOnUser, Lanov, Libcub, Lilfireball05, Limegreen, Lucidish, MC10, Mack2, Matlee, Maxcap, Mdoff, Meclee, Meeples, Metonym, Michael Hardy, Michielodb, Michkalas, Mirrorblade, Misarxist, Miskwito, Mnewmanqc, Modulatum, Montrealais, Moose91894, Mr. Stradivarius, MuffledThud, Musicalantonio, NERIUM, Neilc, Neongrey, Nicke L, NikoSilver, Notinasnaid, Noula69, Nysin, Paperflowergirl, Pete unseth, Peter Isotalo, Peter Ladage, Petitphoque, PhilKnight, PiMaster3, Picabear, Pintu1ful, Popwriter, Prmdunge, RandomP, Redursela, Rich Farmbrough, Rjanag, Rjwilmsi, Rolyatleahcim, Sarichkaa, Sgsilver, Shizhao, Simetrical, Sinatra, Sluzzelin, Smcg8374, SorenLinden, Spbm, SpeedyGonsales, Szyslak, Taral, Tarquin, Technopat, The Phoenix, The Sage of Stamford, TheAMmollusc, Theserialcomma, Tomsega, TreasuryTag, Triddle, Ufotrain, Unmerklich, Verbum Veritas, Vrenator, Wavelength, WikHead, Wiki Wikardo, Windharp, Youshouldask, Zantedeschia, Zohab, Zzuuzz, Александър, ‫ 491 ,ﺳﻌﯽ‬anonymous edits Computational linguistics  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=534943898  Contributors: 16@r, 3point14159, Ace Frahm, Afil, Allens, Angr, Ardief, Avjoska, Babbage, BiT, Burschik, Canhaspancake, CapnPrep, Computational linguist professional, ConceptExp, Conor.frye, Conversion script, Cprompt, Dannywalk, David ekstrand, DeltaQuad, Demeter, Dfrysinger, Dicklyon, Dmitri83, Dmolla, Dnaeil, Domadams, Dominic, EMLM, Eanc, Ed Cormany, Edward, Eighty, Erudecorp, Eurobas, Ffbond, Flyingbird, Francis Tyers, Furrykef, Gabr, Galoubet, Geimeris, General Reader, Graham87, Gzabers, Haham hanuka, Hannes Hirzel, Hede2000, Hookoo, Hopiakuta, Hyarmendacil, Ideogram, Inimino, Inksha, Itai, IvanLanin, JJL, Jamesmcmahon0, Jauhienij, Jclemens, Jkominek, Jon Harald Søby, Jonsafari, Jreans, Junesun, Kallerdis, Karada, Kelly Martin, Kurykh, Kwertii, Lam Kin Keung, Lambda, Larry laptop, Leovizza, Letowskie, Linguaua, LittleWink, Logan, Looxix, Louelle, LukeD, MK8, Magioladitis, MarkSweep, Master2841, Mfelkess, Michal Jurosz, Mokkers, Mononomic, MrOllie, Myanw, NeaNita, Nikola Smolenski, Nohat, Ornil, Paxsimius, Pbice, Peachris, PhnomPencil, Pintaio, Pion, Pluemaster, Poor Yorick, Psychonaut, Reinhard Hartmann, Remi0o, RexNL, Rich Farmbrough, Rjanag, Ruakh, SchreiberBike, Semantia, Sfan00 IMG, Shadowjams, Shanes, Shepard, Simon J Kissane, Skeppy, SomeFreakOnTheInternet, Sonermanc, SpeedyGonsales, Stevenbird, Stormmaster8923, Sun Creator, Sundar, Suraduttashandilya, Svick, The JPS, The Moose, Thüringer, Tony1, Ulf Hermjakob, Vdannyv, Wavelength, Xinelo, Yahya Abdal-Aziz, Yatsko, Yerpo, Yongjik, Yworo, Zeno Gantner, Александър, 㓟, 小 為, 127 anonymous edits Forensic linguistics  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=522665235  Contributors: Andycjp, Apokrif, Avicennasis, Beetstra, Bellemonde, BrainyBabe, CChaski, Cassowary, Centrx, Download, Droppedyod, Dumasb, Edcolins, Ethicoaestheticist, Ffbond, Fgdfgdssfghrr6rg7g756, Flyhighplato, Fnielsen, ForensicLinguist, Frank.albrecht, Gdm, Gennaro Prota, HaeB, Jblasco2, John of Reading, JonnoFLI, Jotamar, Keilana, Kwamikagami, Kyoakoa, La goutte de pluie, Lam Kin Keung, Leneyi, Louelle, Lucidish, Magioladitis, Marchije, Marknadsdomstolen, Mas.Han-Im, Maurreen, Memefactory, Mr. Stradivarius, Musical Linguist, Nashrian, Olegwiki, PaulHanson, Piggyinthemiddle, PseudoSudo, QrczakMK, Queenmomcat, Ral77, Reinhard Hartmann, Rjanag, Robertsteadman, Roger Davies, Sandstein, Shadow demon, Shumdw, Sslyruc, The Famous Movie Director, Thovt, TimGrant, Trickstar, Utkutanrivere, Vanberg, Vifsm, 223 Article Sources and Contributors Vitalityverse, Wavelength, Wknight94, Xxlitleonexx, Zyqqh, 119 anonymous edits Language acquisition  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=535024224  Contributors: 134.132.115.xxx, 16@r, 193.251.178.xxx, 2004-12-29T22:45Z, 206short, 2over0, 9.253, A. B., Adjusting, AkselGerner, Alansohn, Allahades, Altenmann, Amol, Andycjp, Angela, Angr, Anomalocaris, Anticipator, Arjayay, ArkinAardvark, Ashmoo, Awesomestmole, BAxelrod, BD2412, BFSkinner, BWCNY, Babedacus, Batistontain, Benlisquare, Billinghurst, Blaxthos, Bobo192, Bookuser, BrokenSegue, Burschik, Butterfly ea, CardinalDan, Cecilemckee, Celestianpower, Charles Moss, Chiewj, Chrislk02, Chronotox, Clare1fielder, Cnilep, Colonies Chris, ComplingAS, Conversion script, CopperKettle, Cuaxdon, Cuchullain, Cullio, Cyberdork33, DDD DDD, Darry2385, Datepalm17, David Woodward, DavidCary, Davidruben, Davidsonfilms, Dbachmann, Deltabeignet, DenisePro, DennisDaniels, Deor, Devotchka, Discoursetheory, Distributional-analyser, Dizeob3, Dmwpowers, Dolfrog, Donarreiskoffer, DreamGuy, Droll, Dunning, E2e3v6, East718, EauroraUA, Ecalteaux, Ekotkie, El C, ElTyrant, Eliyak, Ependell, Epottala, Eransgran, Erxnmedia, Espoo, Esprit15d, Eu.stefan, Eurosong, Everyking, Evil Monkey, Fabliha.p, Fahd09, FitoPaezMagica, For An Angel, FrancisTyers, Furrykef, Gansam12, Garik, Garzo, Gatetower, Gerteger, Giftlite, Ginkgo100, Giraffedata, Graham87, Gronky, Gwern, Gzabers, Hank52, Headbomb, Heenan73, Henry Flower, Howardjp, Iank125, Ieium, IvanLanin, Izze21, J. Spencer, JWSchmidt, Jahsonic, Jbg, Jcautilli2003, Jesusserrano, Jim.tyson, Jneely0421, John Riemann Soong, John of Reading, Johnkarp, JorisvS, Josh.Pritchard.DBA, Jsteph, Karimarie, Kate, Kbh3rd, Kcarnold, Kennercat, Khoikhoi, King of Hearts, Kintetsubuffalo, Kjag396, Kpmiyapuram, Kwamikagami, LMBM2012, Lam Kin Keung, Larry_Sanger, Lee Daniel Crocker, LittleHow, Lova Falk, Lowbien, Lrose73, Maelwys, Magioladitis, Mais oui!, Malecasta, Maximus Rex, Mbxp, Mdoff, Mean as custard, Mgavr, Mickkyyy, Micmachete, Misaacso, Misterx2000, Mmutterperl, Mondloch, Mr. Stradivarius, Mr. Stradivarius on tour, Mrngvn, N-k, Namenotek, Nate Silva, NawlinWiki, Nevill Fernando, Newsceptic, Ninly, No Guru, Nsmith 84, Ohnoitsjamie, Orbis 3, Osx85, PGSONIC, ParisPynchon, Pearle, Peatswift, PeepP, Persian Poet Gal, PeterBlau, Pgdudda, PierreAbbat, Pilotguy, Pinkparfait936, Pinkville, Plaqua, Pmbcomm, Pne, Pokipsy76, Ppetru, Prabhakar P Rao, Prari, Puellanivis, Ragni, Ray Dassen, Reinhard Hartmann, Rjanag, Rjwilmsi, Rlaitinen, Rmallott1, Robin klein, Rocastelo, RoseParks, Rrburke, Rsweitzman, Ruhrjung, Ryanaxp, Salthizar, Saraalison12, Schekn, Sdelat, Sebesta, Shawn in Montreal, Shimmera, Simon Kilpin, SimonP, Skeppy, Skinnyweed, Skysmith, Snowolf, Sobreira, Squidley, Startstop123, StasMalyga, Stevertigo, StevieNic, Stevietheman, Strikesvl, Stultus22, Suhailanjum, Suruena, Susanagarciafernandez, Szyslak, Tabletop, TakuyaMurata, Tama1988, Taptonv, Tarquin, Texture, TheCoffee, Thedeepblue4, Tim bates, Timwi, Titodutta, Tobias Hoevekamp, Tonync, Topspinslams, Torgo, Trickstar, Trident13, Uncle G, Unlocked, UtherSRG, Vanessasha, Vicki Rosenzweig, Visviva, Voceditenore, WMCEREBELLUM, Waveguy, Wavelength, Waynemcarr, Wdflake, Wikipelli, Wildt, Will Beback Auto, William.snyder, Winelight, Wouterstomp, X911, Yug, Yunshui, Zahd, Zitronfalda, Zoe, Zzuuzz, ‫ 143 ,ﺳﻌﯽ‬anonymous edits Evolutionary linguistics  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=535051057  Contributors: 158.152.63.xxx, 212.64.37.xxx, 21655, Acyso, Alison, Altg20April2nd, Andycjp, Angr, Asfarer, B9 hummingbird hovering, BBuchbinder, BD2412, Bhny, Burschik, Camster, Certes, Cgingold, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Comtebenoit, Conversion script, Cromwellt, Crzer07, CumbiaDude, DancingPhilosopher, Daniel Mietchen, Dbachmann, Dduck, Dillardjj, Dmitri Lytov, Drork, Ericgoldstein, Fcummins, Fheyligh, Forefinger2, Gabbe, Gareth Jones, Garik, Greenmind, Harnad, Hoss, Hoziron, Hyacinth, Ikiroid, JNShutt, Jimmy Fleischer, Jockocampbell, Josh Parris, Jossi, Lam Kin Keung, MER-C, Maunus, Michael Hardy, Nabeth, Neilc, NickelShoe, Penarc, Phanerozoic, PhiRho, Pietaster, Pivi11, RHaworth, Rjwilmsi, Rmallott1, Ryulong, SimonGreenhill, Sjö, Spizzer2, Stefano.nolfi, The Noodle Incident, The Thing That Should Not Be, Tobias Hoevekamp, Trickstar, VikSol, Vincent2236, WLU, Wasell, WikiLambo, Wikiklrsc, Wikky Horse, Will Beback Auto, Wlievens, Xzqx, Yolgnu, Zuky79, 79 anonymous edits Internet linguistics  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=534754721  Contributors: Admrboltz, AlexanderKaras, Allens, Altenmann, Amandaliza, Belovedfreak, Chris the speller, Colonies Chris, Dobie80, Eshleyy, Ffbond, Flocksy.nauci, Furrykef, GoingBatty, Kyoakoa, Lai eric, Lam Kin Keung, Martarius, Mokkers, PS., Picapica, Playmobilonhishorse, Pnm, Pompeufabra, Rjanag, Rjwilmsi, Royote, Serenehj, Smyth, Wester, 20 anonymous edits Language assessment  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=516342481  Contributors: Akunnan, Angr, Baselstrasse, Brumski, Caffrey, Neil, Championchi, Chowbok, Ckatz, Danhash, Dlrohrer2003, Freewind77, Fuhvah, Indiana State, Jabberjawjapan, KathrynLybarger, Kyoakoa, Lam Kin Keung, Lucole, Mr. Stradivarius, Mukkakukaku, PL290, Pragmaticgf, Punefirst, Reinhard Hartmann, Ricklaman, ShelfSkewed, TheGrimReaper NS, Tonyk08, Traderob, Van helsing, Woohookitty, 20 anonymous edits Language development  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=527737714  Contributors: 1ForTheMoney, Abjad2009, AmiDaniel, Angr, Anticipator, Aoxiang, Arcandam, Arthena, B0wner, Bazonka, Bility, Bkinsey, Cal Evans, Canis Lupus, Cjkotler, Deryck Chan, Distributional-analyser, Dolfrog, DreamGuy, Eheiberg, Eransgran, Falcon8765, Finereach, Frietjes, Harjer11, Hooperbloob, J. Spencer, J04n, Jarry1250, John, Joymukherjee10, Julietbee, Kajmal, LMBM2012, Lauplank1216, Lesgles, LianneAnna, Lihi14, LittleHow, Longhair, Macaddct1984, Mandarax, Marentette, Megantonerx, Mild Bill Hiccup, Misterwaffles, Mushroom, Never give in, Nevill Fernando, Ohnoitsjamie, Ohso, Paul Erik, Phoebe, Radagast83, Rjwilmsi, Salthizar, Sandman2007, Satellizer, Selket, Sgilanguages, Slrubenstein, Susan White, Tabletop, V35lmt, Valentine Smith, Wavelength, Widr, Xyzzyavatar, 78 anonymous edits Language education  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=535376638  Contributors: 16@r, A193280, Abusharjeel, Academic Challenger, Acerview54, Adrian Glamorgan, AdultSwim, Aitias, Alanmoroney, Aleron235, Alexius08, Alexkane, Allformweek, Altenmann, Anbo6, Andrew Lancaster, Andycjp, Andyjsmith, Angela, Antonielly, Arvindcares, Astronautics, Babelfisch, Barbara Patterson, Batistontain, Beetstra, Billlund, Bklpari, Brad Marhsall, BrainyBabe, Burn, Burschik, CanisRufus, Chamaeleon, Charles Bloaks, Chocolateboy, Chris the speller, Chris.let, ChrisCork, Christinam, Ciotog, Ckatz, ClubOranje, Cnilep, ComUSSR, Cwmhiraeth, DGG, DMacks, Darrenhusted, Daven200520, Daviboz, David Branson, David Eppstein, Dcabrilo, Dduck, DennisDaniels, Dinesh Chander Kapoor, DioniWan, Donner60, Dougofborg, Dunyaedu, Epingchris, Eroen, Espoo, Estevoaei, Esurnir, Etarone, Excession, Fayenatic london, Fieldday-sunday, Freebilly, Frondswithverve, Funandtrvl, Gailtb, Gam3, Garzo, Glennh70, Glenyshanson, Glossophile, GoingBatty, Gottago, GraemeMcRae, Graham87, Gronky, Gurch, GurraJG, HeartofaDog, Henry Flower, Heroeswithmetaphors, Hoary, Hottentot, Husond, Iamlilyy, Ikwilhetweten, Intgr, Inthecityof, Iridescent, J04n, Jayen466, Jbmurray, Jeanpol, Jeremy Visser, Jibbajabba, Jimduck, Jmath666, JohnOwens, Johnleemk, Joplusone, Joseph Solis in Australia, Josh Parris, JoshuaD1991, Jsg24, Jsteph, KF, Keilana, Kensor, Koroner, Kwamikagami, Lam Kin Keung, Languagelabdotcom, Languageteacher1945, Languagewatch, Laradoks, Larissad, Lars Washington, Lawikitejana, LiDaobing, LindsayH, Lingofan, Lova Falk, Lunalona, Man vyi, Marek69, Maxpril, Mboverload, Michael Hardy, Mikolasz, Mild Bill Hiccup, Miss Madeline, Misterx2000, Mnbvc, Mr. Stradivarius, Mr. Stradivarius on tour, Mr.Z-man, Mrtialis, MuffledThud, Multikev, Never give in, Nilo28, NotMuchToSay, Nposs, Numbersinstitute, OGoncho, Ogdred, Ohnoitsjamie, Osx85, Owenant, Ozean-schloss, Parsbyte, Paul Magnussen, Paul foord, Paul500, Pearsonlon, Philaweb, Philippe277, Piano non troppo, Pier440, Plasticup, Pmbcomm, Prof Wrong, Quibik, R9tgokunks, RHaworth, RJHall, RandomXYZb, Ratemonth, Reinhard Hartmann, Remember me (up to 7 days), Rich Farmbrough, RichardF, Rjanag, Rmhermen, Robbiemuffin, Robert Foley, Rocku20008, Roehl Sybing, RogerDonald, Rogerhc, Rossmar22, Rothorpe, RyanCross, Sailsbystars, Saintswithin, Samwaltz, Sapphic, Sblive, Scotttt1, Secleinteer, Secondlifelanguageeducator, Sgilanguages, Shoessss, SimonP, Sinatra, Spkoh1, Stephan Leeds, Syomunuka, TEB728, TakuyaMurata, TastyPoutine, TeaDrinker, Thelmadatter, TimHowles, Tkynerd, TrbleClef, Tuanglen, Turgan, Typetrust, Unyoyega, Urdina, Vaganyik, Vanished user, Veinor, Volapuk49, Watervast, Wavelength, WereSpielChequers, Wesselbindt, Wikiklrsc, Windharp, Woohookitty, XVA, Xuchong, Yolgnu, ZayZayEM, Zuberjuice, Zzuuzz, 358 anonymous edits Linguistic anthropology  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=534535201  Contributors: 0XQ, Access Denied, Adam Bishop, Angr, Anthro monkey, Anthrophilos, Aubin, BWCNY, Babbage, Banazir, Barticus88, Belovedfreak, Bjankuloski06en, Bluemoose, Bryan Derksen, CanisRufus, Canto2009, Cnilep, Curdeius, DarwinPeacock, Dbachmann, Deconstructhis, Deniss007, Duncan, Ebyabe, FrenchIsAwesome, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Gr1st, Graham87, Grenavitar, Ihcoyc, Iridescent, Ish ishwar, Jalali.farah, JimStyle61093475, Jimwilce, John Vandenberg, Koffieyahoo, Kowey, Mareoftenebrae, Maunus, Mbxp, Metonym, Mirrorblade, Mr. Stradivarius, Ngio, Nono64, Pearle, Piano non troppo, Pifactorial, Pohick2, Pooya72, Reedy, Rich Farmbrough, Rich257, Rjanag, Scwlong, Sebesta, Shanghainese, Slrubenstein, Soshial, Szquirrel, Tassedethe, Updatehelper, Upholder, Uttanu, Woohookitty, Zeno Gantner, 54 anonymous edits Neurolinguistics  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=529243116  Contributors: 2over0, A. B., A314268, AMMeier, Action potential, Agentn25, Ahxnccj, Alejandralop, Allens, AnaJur, Andre Engels, Andrea moro, Ausir, BD2412, Brad7777, Brewhaha@edmc.net, Camridge, Ceyockey, Charles Matthews, Clicketyclack, Daniel,levine, Dantiston, David Shay, Deor, Dmacw6, Docleaf, Dolfrog, Dvulture, EdJohnston, FT2, Famousdog, Gregbard, Icairns, J. Spencer, Jedmeltzer, Jeffmatt, JorisvS, KJ Sam, Koavf, Kora09, Kwamikagami, Kyoakoa, LilHelpa, Looie496, MacGyverMagic, Mark Dingemanse, MartinPoulter, Mattisse, Michael Devore, Mindstore, Misterx2000, Muijz, Nono64, Notyourbroom, Pigman, Podzemnik, Reinhard Hartmann, Rjanag, Rjwilmsi, Sardanaphalus, Scienceguy64f, Semmelweiss, SimonP, Spaceorca, Technopat, Tiak, Trickstar, Tsemii, Ttennebkram, USPatent, Viking59, Wik, Wilycoyote, Woohookitty, Zoicon5, ‫ 73 ,ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﻣﺼﻄﻔﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺪ‬anonymous edits Psycholinguistics  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=525355213  Contributors: *drew, Aaron Kauppi, Action potential, Als022, Altenmann, Analogisub, Andre Engels, Anticipator, Barfooz, Bcbloutreach, Bit, Burschik, Chris the speller, Chuckiesdad, Ckatz, CliffC, D Monack, David Shay, Deaconse, Dmitri Lytov, Doczilla, Dpr, Duckbill, Dzou, ELApro, Eaefremov, Fnielsen, Gabnh, Garik, Gerteger, GlennLThompson, Golshaie, Heyitspeter, Hitoshi Inoue, II MusLiM HyBRiD II, Icairns, Ioverka, Ish ishwar, JMW64, Jaihanuman, Jauhienij, JeLuF, Jeffmatt, Jgull, John Vandenberg, Johnkarp, Jonas.kluk, Jph89, Jroberts548, Junes, Karol Langner, Kimkenkat, Kingturtle, Kirill Lokshin, Koavf, Kora09, Lazcorp, Lerdsuwa, Lino08, Lova Falk, MarkkuP, Matlee, Mcbradaigh, Mcr hxc, Mellery, Michaelwilson, Michelle.chui, Millahnna, Misterx2000, Moncrief, Moyogo, Mr. Stradivarius, Msasscts, Neparis, NorVegan, Nposs, Numbo3, Pete142, Postmanw, Psykhosis, Psyling, Quibbles, Quiddity, Rdsmith4, RedWolf, Reinhard Hartmann, Rich Farmbrough, RichardF, Rjanag, Rjwilmsi, Rror, Rursus, RyanCross, SU26Ilham, Salthizar, Sandman2007, Sardanaphalus, Scope creep, Scottalter, SimonP, Smartse, Stemonitis, Swerdnaneb, Taharley, Tanaats, Tassedethe, Technopat, Ted.strauss, Thakorn, The Rambling Man, Thedude22, Thüringer, Tlnqxgn, Tom.k, Tremilux, Varti, Walej, WhatamIdoing, Yahya Abdal-Aziz, Zoe, Александър, 114 anonymous edits History of linguistics  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=533998539  Contributors: Ajd, Allen3, Ancheta Wis, Angr, Anlace, Annabelle Lukin, Antandrus, Ark, Awien, BD2412, Benanhalt, Bharatveer, Borivoje, Burschik, Castagna, Chalst, Chris, Clicketyclack, Curdeius, Daviddariusbijan, Dbachmann, Dduck, Deeptrivia, Dekimasu, Denisarona, DennisDaniels, Dialectric, Dispenser, Docu, EagleFan, Eirik (usurped), ElBenevolente, Gilliam, Gokulam, Gparker, Grafen, Hmains, Hpvpp, Huenslank, Iridia, Ivan Štambuk, J Crow, J. Spencer, Jagged 85, Javier Carro, Jobber, José San Martin, K.C. Tang, Kallerdis, Koavf, La goutte de pluie, Lam Kin Keung, LilHelpa, MZMcBride, Mathematicmajic, Milkbreath, Mk270, Mukerjee, Nasz, Ndimiduk, Nn-WCO, Nora lives, Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy), Phil Boswell, PhnomPencil, Piotrus, Quiddity, Ragesoss, Ravenous, ResidueOfDesign, Rich Farmbrough, Rjanag, Rursus, Sahmeditor, Semmelweiss, Sindhutvavadin, Snigbrook, SolKarma, Srikipedia, Suruena, Synchronism, Szquirrel, Technopat, Tevildo, That Guy, From That Show!, The Transhumanist, Theoretick, Tijfo098, Tkynerd, Venu62, WBardwin, Woohookitty, Zvar, 69 anonymous edits 224 Article Sources and Contributors Linguistic prescription  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=535580280  Contributors: Acdx, Adrian J. Hunter, Airborne84, Aitias, Akademya, Alboran, Andries, Andycjp, Annamuschinzki, Anonymous anonymous, Antonielly, Aprock, Awien, BD2412, BWCNY, Banjaloupe, Belmut, Benc, BesselDekker, Bill3000, Branddobbe, BrianH123, Burschik, Cadr, Calair, Camryl, Camus, Cbdorsett, Charles Matthews, Chemako0606, Chinasaur, Chrism, Circeus, Colonies Chris, Coneslayer, D, Damian Yerrick, Dan Pelleg, Darigon Jr., Darkfrog24, Dbachmann, DePiep, Deltabeignet, Doric Loon, Dougg, Dozerbraum, Drmies, EagerToddler39, Eclecticology, Ehrenkater, Espoo, Euchiasmus, Evlekis, Feezo, Fetchcomms, Fowler&fowler, Gailtb, Gaius Cornelius, Galoubet, Garik, Ghyfawkes, Greymancer, Harmil, Hgrosser, Hippo43, Histrion, Iamthedeus, Ihcoyc, Inner Earth, Ish ishwar, Itai, Jacquerie27, Janko, Javier Carro, Jeffq, JerryFriedman, Jobber, John254, Joseph Solis in Australia, Julesd, K.C. Tang, Kagredon, Kazkaskazkasako, Kedi the tramp, Kier07, Kjoonlee, Kmarinas86, Lacrimosus, LeadSongDog, Lefty, LinguistAtLarge, LoggedRoot, LordRM, Lycanthrope, Magioladitis, MapsMan, Marskell, MartinGugino, MaryscottOConnor, Mav, Mhazard9, Michael Hardy, Mishaweis, Mjb, Mrg3105, Nick Number, Nickshanks, Oalp1003, Patti Hearse, Pausch, Per Olofsson, Pernoctus, PeterC, Petershank, Pgilman, Phoenixrod, Pingveno, Pmanderson, Porqin, Pschemp, Q Chris, Qquisitte, RMFan1, Randi75, Rentwa, Rhombus, Rich Farmbrough, Rjanag, Rjwilmsi, Rsrikanth05, Ruakh, Rubisco, Ryguasu, Sarang, Scarce, Scwlong, Shrigley, Shriram, Siafu, Simetrical, Slashme, SlicedWheel, Speedysnail, Spelling Natsi, Squib, SummerWithMorons, Superiority, Sw258, Tb, Tcncv, Technopat, The Duke of Waltham, The Proffesor, Theserialcomma, Thingg, Thomasmeeks, Thylacoleo, Tijfo098, Timwi, TopAce, Torgo, Trigaranus, Umofomia, VKokielov, VernoWhitney, Wavehunter, Wetman, Wiki13, WikiSlasher, William Avery, Wolfdog, WoodenTaco, Woohookitty, Wordwright, Yubcvan, Zenohockey, Zerida, Zerrakhi, 147 anonymous edits List of linguists  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=534375381  Contributors: ACW, AK IM OP, Aamsky, Adam78, Adlay, Aeusoes1, Ahoerstemeier, Akyla 424, Alfredetmanfred, Algebraist, Altenmann, Amdewaard, Aminullah, Amit6, Anclation, Andre Engels, Andres, Andycjp, Angr, Anna512, Annabelle Lukin, Anshikha92, Asarelah, Ashfan83, AshishG, Aslam Rasoolpuri, Awatkins yorku, AwesomeTruffle, BabelStone, Bathrobe, Bbenzon, BeNiza, Beartucker, Bellhalla, Bill37212, Biolinguist, Bob A, Bonadea, Brion VIBBER, Bunchofgrapes, CALR, CJLL Wright, Cadr, Caerwine, Canthusus, Chamdarae, Charansinghgill, Chaser, Chiachienhsu, ChrisCork, Christian Roess, ChurchillC, Ckia, Cleduc, Clrbear430, Clunis, Cnilep, Codex Sinaiticus, Colonies Chris, Conchis, Cromwellt, DanielDemaret, DanielHirst, Darigon Jr., Davebraze, David M Arnold, Davshul, Deb, Dejohns46, Demoling, Dietrichayse, Dimody, Dissident, Djnjwd, Dmismir, Dmscvan, Docu, Dpv, Drawn Some, Eachsky, Ebender, Eclecticology, Eddiedonovan, Egeymi, Eklir, Eleassar, Eleassar777, Electriceel, Elenimi, Elisabeth Cottier Fábián, Eozcan, Evertype, Evolauxia, Ewan dunbar, Ewlyahoocom, Ezhiki, Fabien2, Favonian, Fawcett5, FayssalF, Fazeli78, Feeeshboy, Flashyorange, Flowerparty, Fon, FrancisTyers, FreplySpang, Fsharifi, Furrykef, Garfield1974, Gbkorol, Gekritzl, Gelderen, Geregen2, Ghirlandajo, GregoryStump, Grenavitar, Gstump, Gtstump, Gustavb, Hadal, Hammondm, HankSpark123, Harro5, Haspelmath, Hauganm, Headfacemouth, Henway42, Hoss, Hpvpp, Hut 8.5, Høst, Iamthecheese44, Iatjanda, Igor, Ihsan86, Iluvchineselit, Ilyushka88, Ipwiki, Ish ishwar, Islescape, Iyotake, Izzy7, J Di, J. Spencer, J. Van Meter, JaGa, Jacketpocket, Jagged 85, Jamjam1961, Jeff3000, Jguk, Jguk 2, Jim Henry, Jlittlet, JoeMele, Joeblakesley, John milkinson, JordTu, Jorge Stolfi, JorgeGG, Jotamar, Joy, Jprw, Jsferreira, Kaiserb, Kaleissin, Kawaputra, Keith Edkins, Khubchandani, Klauskk, Knshahin, Koavf, Kobokai, Kwamikagami, Kyoakoa, LMBM2012, LNG, La Changa, Lamb, Langfon, Levzur, Lgusain, LiDaobing, Linguistlist, Lisapollison, Literaturemann, Lucienyahinna, Ludling, Lukobe, Magnus Manske, Mais oui!, Malcolmxl5, Mani1, MarcusCole12, Marenach, Mariko, Matsuzaki-Koudou, Matve, Maunus, Mbp, Mekong Bluesman, Mickey&friends, Mike Dillon, Millosh, Mitchoyoshitaka, Mjklin, Mjshuter, Mkappus, Montrealais, Mr Adequate, Mr. Neutron, Mr. Stradivarius, MrsCaptcha, Mundart, Muspilli, Mustafaa, N-true, Nahallac Silverwinds, Nairam, Nasserberjaoui, Nefertum17, Netoholic, Neutrality, Nginakin, NguniTraveller, Nicolae Coman, Nikola Smolenski, Nodoushan, Nogger, Nohat, Norm mit, Nyenyec, Oliver Pereira, Outriggr, Oxtoby, Pappa, Paul W, Peachlette, Peterlin, PhnomPencil, Phonetician, Phonology, Pindaris, Pne, Procrastinatrix, ProfessorSpice, Psychonaut, Pustejovsky, R'n'B, Raj Tilak Saxena, Rajah, Rajendran.MBA, Ramir, Rasoolpuri, Reaverdrop, Reinhard Hartmann, Rich Farmbrough, RichardF, RickWojcik, Rickus, Rjanag, Rje, Rjmail, Robertoalencar, Rockero, Roland2, Romanm, Roozbeh, Rosanne, Royalguard11, Runic code, SGMidence, Salmar, SarahStierch, Seba5618, Sebesta, Secretlondon, Semmelweiss, Serapio, Sfaal, Shally68, Shievak, Si Gam Acèh, Sinatra, Sj, Sjc, SkerHawx, SolKarma, Sonjaaa, Spasage, Sproat, Static Universe, Stephen Gilbert, Stevey7788, Stgries, Sumgirl, SummerWithMorons, Suruena, Symkyn, Szyslak, TShilo12, Taco325i, Tassedethe, Template namespace initialisation script, TenPoundHammer, The bellman, Theoretick, Therealnickjr, Thinking-ape, Tikiwont, Timwi, Tom.Reding, Torgo, Tovian, Trey314159, Triwbe, Twid, Udzu, Utcursch, Vegaswikian, VeryVerily, Viajero, Victorhantj, Vinay Varma, Waltej, Wavelength, Wclark, Wile E. Heresiarch, William.snyder, Wlievens, Woggly, Womtelo, Woohookitty, Wordsarewonderful, Working for Him, WouterVH, Wsphar, XJamRastafire, Xabier Armendaritz, Ya4ping2, Yamara, Yelyos, Yhever, Yoshi Canopus, Ypalina, Zaheen, Zigger, Zmjezhd, Ђорђе Д. Божовић, माहीतगार, 555 anonymous edits List of unsolved problems in linguistics  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=530698244  Contributors: Aeusoes1, Altenmann, Altg20April2nd, Andycjp, Bogdangiusca, Byelf2007, CRGreathouse, Calmypal, Chris the speller, Circeus, Cnilep, David Kernow, David.s.kats, Dextrase, Dylan Lake, Eastlaw, Everyking, Hamaryns, Harrybrowne1986, Ihcoyc, Jasy jatere, JesseRafe, Jotamar, Jsteph, Katarighe, Koavf, LaggedOnUser, Larry V, Lizmarie, Lockesdonkey, MarkS, Msanford, Peak Freak, Piotrek54321, Pragmaknowledge, QuixoticWonderer, Reinhard Hartmann, Rjanag, Robin klein, Ronniekat, Ruakh, SMcCandlish, Sebesta, Soshial, Spencerk, Suruena, Szyslak, The Transhumanist, The benevolent dictator, Tremilux, Weeddude, Wikipediatrix, Xanzzibar, 26 anonymous edits Philology  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=535433259  Contributors: -Ril-, 130.94.122.xxx, 16@r, 194.230.162.xxx, 1ODSTpwns1, Adambiswanger1, Adynatoniac, Aetheling, Akhilleus, Alex contributing, Alton, Andres rojas22, Andrew c, Anomalocaris, Ap, Arabica, Archbishop.of.Broxbourne, Ariya shookh, Ashot Gabrielyan, AstroMark, Avengah, Axeloide, BKalesti, Barras, Bemoeial, Benne, Black Falcon, Brim, Burschik, Byelf2007, CDN99, CJLL Wright, CRGreathouse, Calabe1992, Catherineyronwode, Chiswick Chap, Christopher Parham, Cjwright79, ClamDip, Cnesson, ColdFusion650, Conversion script, Crochel01, Cromwellt, Cuckowski, Cybercobra, Czechios, DagosNavy, Danceswithzerglings, Daporter, Darksun, Davidiad, Dbachmann, Deb, Dejvid, DennisDaniels, Deville, DopefishJustin, Dpm64, Dpr, Drakonicon, Editor2020, El C, Eliyak, Emesee, Eras-mus, Esteban.barahona, Ethan Mitchell, Eustress, Favonian, Fennessy, Gabbe, Garik, Gdarin, Gene Fellner, Giftlite, Glenn, Gregbard, Gritchka, Gwern, H Bruthzoo, Haham hanuka, Headbomb, Henry Delforn (old), Heron, Hohum, Infrogmation, Inwind, Irrevenant, J. Spencer, JMK, Jauhienij, Jclemens, Jesus geek, Jghelfi097, Jic, KP-Adhikari, Kansas Sam, Karlatonella, Keeno, Klehti, Kwamikagami, LDHan, LKG123, Lestrade, Logan, Ludvikus, Lufiend, Macedonian, Magioladitis, Margin1522, Maunus, Mbell, Mike Stoyik, Mp2589, Muijz, My76Strat, NCurse, Naddy, Nagelfar, Nguyen Thanh Quang, Nicke Lilltroll, Nikai, NittyG, Nuttycoconut, Ogdred, OldPine, Oliphaunt, PRiis, Parkwells, Patroklis, Patton1138, Pjacobi, Polyvios, Poor Yorick, RDB92, Ratiuglink, Ravedave, Rex Germanus, Riggr Mortis, Romanm, SPECVLVMSINCERVS, Sabbeumnim, Sabboo9155, Saga City, Savingedmund, Schekinov Alexey Victorovich, SchreiberBike, Scott1329m, Sdorrance, Sebesta, Smallfixer, Snoyes, Staticshakedown, Stephen C. Carlson, Sundar, Sydbarrett74, Tchoutoye, The Epopt, The Sage of Stamford, The Thing That Should Not Be, The bellman, Thu, Tpbradbury, Trusilver, Unclejedd, Underneaththered, Utziputz, Vranak, Wifione, Woohookitty, Wwheaton, Xppsarah, Zaheen, 176 anonymous edits Outline of linguistics  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=517618845  Contributors: 16@r, Aeusoes1, Altenmann, Anadine, Auroranorth, Babbage, Beland, Benc, Brion VIBBER, ChuckSmith, Cnilep, Conversion script, Dduck, DePiep, DennisDaniels, Docu, Downchuck, Dp462090, Duoduoduo, Fplay, FrancisTyers, Go for it!, Graham87, Hannes Hirzel, HannesHirzel, Hoss, Jagged 85, James Crippen, JeffW, Kajervi, Keeno, Khukri, Kumioko (renamed), Larry_Sanger, Lukobe, Mairi, Mav, Mbcudmore, Minnecologies, Mjs072, Mogism, Nekokaze, Nexus Seven, Nick Number, Oliver Pereira, Palaeovia, Pegship, Pne, Qeny, Quiddity, R'n'B, Reinhard Hartmann, Rich Farmbrough, Rjanag, Robert Skyhawk, Runner5k, Sacundim, Sarcas, Set theorist, Stefan Kögl, The Transhumanist, The Transhumanist (AWB), True Genius, Valmi, Vinay Varma, Woland37, Woohookitty, 31 anonymous edits Index of linguistics articles  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=534483961  Contributors: Adam78, Agihard, Alarm, Algae, Altenmann, Angr, Barticus88, Benc, Bryan Derksen, Cacycle, Chris83, Cnilep, DDD DDD, Darkwind, Delirium, Demi, Docu, Dominus, Duoduoduo, Eaefremov, Echuck215, Eequor, Ellmist, Fplay, Fredrik, Frietjes, Gabetarian, Greensburger, Gregbard, Gtrmp, Henrygb, Hhielscher, Hongooi, Ihcoyc, Jfdwolff, Jim Henry, Jlittlet, JohnOwens, Jph, Karmosin, Kowey, Kwamikagami, Luokehao, Mackerm, Margarita, MarkSweep, Masaruemoto, Maurreen, Michael Hardy, Mr. Stradivarius, Nanobug, Neparis, Nguyen Thanh Quang, Niceguyedc, Nick Number, Nilmerg, Nimic86, Niteowlneils, Nohat, NuclearWarfare, Pablo-flores, Paul Stansifer, Pax:Vobiscum, Pne, Propaniac, Quiddity, R'n'B, RedWolf, Rholton, Rogerb67, Romanm, Ross Burgess, Ruakh, Ruhrjung, Ryguasu, Scorp queen, Sebesta, SimonP, Sinatra, Sinuhe, Template namespace initialisation script, The Anome, The Transhumanist, Thincat, ThirteenthGreg, Timwi, Unint, Valmi, Vincent Ramos, Violetriga, Wavelength, Wmahan, Woohookitty, Zaheen, ZeroOne, 20 anonymous edits Index of cognitive science articles  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=528940111  Contributors: Alan Liefting, Andy Fugard, Benc, Cnilep, Darkwind, Docu, Dzou, Frietjes, Gecko, George100, Gyll, JeffW, Jerome Kelly, Jim Henry, Jlittlet, JohnOwens, Kumioko (renamed), Mark Dingemanse, Masaruemoto, Mcrvidal, Michael Hardy, Mindstore, Nanobug, Neparis, Nilmerg, NuclearWarfare, Quiddity, RashmiPatel, RichardKPSun, Ryguasu, Sardanaphalus, Template namespace initialisation script, The Transhumanist, Wik, Wmahan, ZeroOne, 㓟, 4 anonymous edits Speech-language pathology  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=536353910  Contributors: A.mayzie, Access Denied, Aepsf, Altenmann, Angielaj, B3zra1y, Babaeen, Becheru.petru.ioan, Bencherlite, Benjipride, Bmr101, Bobblehead, Bouncingmolar, Bredenkamp, BullRangifer, C.Fred, Calabe1992, Calltech, Captain-n00dle, Cascade1492, Celendin, Cgingold, Chowbok, Cleftlip, Correogsk, Cosprings, Defenderck, Discospinster, Dolfrog, Donreed, DoubleBlue, Drallens, Dreadstar, Drmies, Dyslalia, Ejschleier, Elagatis, Epeefleche, Extraordinary, Farichard, FeldBum, Fetchcomms, Francatrippa, Galilsnap, Gilmorej1, Glossophile, Golothir, GoodbyeRosie, Graham87, Gveret Tered, Hillock65, Icommunicate, Ingridjames, J. Spencer, Jenrogers03, Jepwi, John of Reading, Joseph Solis in Australia, Jrdenim, Jukaswo, KaliumPropane, Katalaveno, Kittybrewster, KriketPuppetShows, Larynxdude, Lesnail, Lexpression, LightningOffense, LittleHow, Londonsltsltd, Lova Falk, MASLPCCC, MJ94, MK8, Makeitright1, Marek69, Materialscientist, Mattisse, Mean as custard, Mike Rosoft, Mindmatrix, Minimac, Mjschacker, MrADHD, MrOllie, N5iln, NoAdditiff, Nrcprm2026, OllieWilliamson, Orvilleduck, Oscarthecat, OwenX, Pataki Márta, Pearle, Pengkeu, Phantom784, Phlegmily, Physiogod1, Physiogod2, PhysiogodReborn, Qworty, Qwyrxian, R'n'B, RHaworth, RJ1001, Reinhard Hartmann, Reneecc, Rich Farmbrough, RiverDeepMountainHigh, Rjwilmsi, Ronhjones, Ronz, Ruqayyah, SLP Sanjay Kumar, Sanya3, Sarahhbuck, Scotsquires, Scottalter, Scwlong, Singhalawap, Skarebo, Skysmith, Sleeparchive, Slp1, SoWhy, Sonjaaa, Speak Out16, SpeechSchool, Speechpathology, Splintercellguy, Springmonth, Sun Creator, Sunidesus, Ta rulz, The Thing That Should Not Be, The Transhumanist, Tom.Reding, Tracyandrewmsccc, Triplestop, Uncle Dick, VoiceScientist, WLU, Whatever404, Willow1984, Wlodzimierz, Xezbeth, YauTou, Yobol, Yoosef Pooranvary, Zdravkova, Érico Júnior Wouters, ‫ 972 ,ﻓﯿﺰﯾﻮﺗﺮﺍﭘﯿﺴﺖ ﺍﺑﺮﺍﻫﯿﻢ ﺑﺮﺯﮐﺎﺭ‬anonymous edits 225 Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 226 Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors File:Ancient Tamil Script.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ancient_Tamil_Script.jpg  License: Creative Commons Attribution 2.0  Contributors: Symphoney Symphoney from New York, US Image:Nikolai Trubetzkoy.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Nikolai_Trubetzkoy.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Frank C. Müller, Glossologist, Sergei, UV, Лист рівнодення Image:Phonological Diagram of modern Arabic and Hebrew vowels.png  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Phonological_Diagram_of_modern_Arabic_and_Hebrew_vowels.png  License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported  Contributors: Javier Carro, Mo-Al, Moxfyre, Paradoctor, Shlomital Image:Phonetic Diagram of modern Arabic and Hebrew vowels.png  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Phonetic_Diagram_of_modern_Arabic_and_Hebrew_vowels.png  License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported  Contributors: Conscious, Moxfyre, Paradoctor, Shlomital, WikipediaMaster File:Roma jakobson theory.png  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Roma_jakobson_theory.png  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Artist2426 File:Chart Semiotics of Social Networking.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Chart_Semiotics_of_Social_Networking.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Luckycharm 54 File:Kstovo-BusStation-Sinks-1444.JPG  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Kstovo-BusStation-Sinks-1444.JPG  License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.5  Contributors: Vladimir Menkov File:Exemple de signalement visuel du statut social chez un Cichlidé.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Exemple_de_signalement_visuel_du_statut_social_chez_un_Cichlidé.jpg  License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0  Contributors: Master1 Ecologie Ethologie, Université Jean Monnet, Audrey L Image:The story of a word.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:The_story_of_a_word.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Hendrik Willem van Loon (*1882, †1944) Image:Sociolinguistics dialect variation.svg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Sociolinguistics_dialect_variation.svg  License: GNU Free Documentation License  Contributors: FrancisTyers, Pfctdayelise File:Language on internet.JPG  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Language_on_internet.JPG  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Eshleyy File:World Internet users 2010.png  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:World_Internet_users_2010.png  License: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0  Contributors: Serenehj (talk) Image:Sweet Henry.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Sweet_Henry.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Jayen466, 1 anonymous edits File:Gray726-Brodman.png  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Gray726-Brodman.png  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Arcadian, Lipothymia, Magnus Manske, Was a bee File:DTI-sagittal-fibers.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:DTI-sagittal-fibers.jpg  License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported  Contributors: Thomas Schultz File:BrocasAreaSmall.png  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:BrocasAreaSmall.png  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Jperl, Lipothymia, Nevit, OldakQuill, Uwe Gille, Was a bee Image:PET-image.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:PET-image.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Jens Langner (http://www.jens-langner.de/) Image:FMRI.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:FMRI.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Frank C. Müller, Solipsist, Superborsuk, Was a bee, 2 anonymous edits File:Spike-waves.png  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Spike-waves.png  License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.0  Contributors: Der Lange, Lipothymia, Magnus Manske, NEUROtiker, Str4nd, 3 anonymous edits File:ComponentsofERP.svg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:ComponentsofERP.svg  License: GNU Free Documentation License  Contributors: The original was created by English Wikibooks user RobinH. The vector version was created by English Wikipedia user Mononomic File:Real Academia Española, Madrid - view 2.JPG  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Real_Academia_Española,_Madrid_-_view_2.JPG  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Daderot File:Hanzi.svg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Hanzi.svg  License: unknown  Contributors: User:Kjoonlee, User:Tomchen1989 File:Egypt Hieroglyphe2.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Egypt_Hieroglyphe2.jpg  License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 Generic  Contributors: Bestiasonica, Bonzo, Dirk Hünniger, Dodo, JMCC1, Miaow Miaow, Mica, Mmcannis, 1 anonymous edits File:Samuel Johnson by Joshua Reynolds.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Samuel_Johnson_by_Joshua_Reynolds.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: User:Bishonen License 227 License Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported //creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/