linguismstics:

When people asked me what I studied, I told them ‘linguistics’ which usually led to one of two outcomes. The first was a rapid change of subject in the conversation, and the second was the follow-up question “what’s that?” to which my answer was invariably “the scientific study of language”. If the conversation took a new tack from there, I was at least grateful that the question had been asked. Many people I’ve spoken to think they know what it is only to reveal (intentionally or not) that they don’t, although they are often partially on the right tracks. The most intuitive notion is that it involves studying languages, i.e. learning grammars and vocabulary and the origins of words etc. From my perspective, this is only part of the story. Linguistics is not so much about studying particular languages as it is about studying language in its more abstract form. Obviously if I want to study human language I will have to look at particular human languages, but studying languages is only one of the many layers involved in linguistics.

If the conversation about linguistics continued, normally it was either because the person was curious or because they were preparing to give their own views on language. For some, ‘scientific’ and ‘authoritative’ seem to be virtually synonymous. The assumption follows that a linguist must be in a position to comment on the ‘correctness’ of language and can be called upon to resolve ‘debates’ such as the ‘does ‘scone’ rhyme with ‘cone’ or ‘gone’?’ and confirm received opinion that double negatives and split infinitives are bad or even illogical. Therefore, although it is nice to sate or perhaps whet someone’s curiousity, it is possibly more enlightening to get this second type of person. Most people have plenty of things to say when it comes to language. Why wouldn’t they? They use it everyday, they hear it everywhere, they grew up with it, it belongs to them and is shared by those around them… Everyone is entitled to their own opinion especially with something as ubiquitous and defining as language. But this is what the linguist should point out to them - it is their opinion, and if they wish to evaluate their opinion scientifically, they must be prepared for their opinion to be proved false.

One of the major hurdles to an appreciation of linguistics is therefore in setting aside one’s preconceived notions about language (which is harder than it sounds) and adopting an objective stance. Suddenly, the illusion of monolithic languages shatters and you see the variability and dynamism of languages in action. The variability and dynamism become the object of study. To do science is to observe, to describe and to explain. How can you scientifically study language if you can’t even see it in its full glory?

All of this, forever. (Except that people usually don’t ask me what linguistics is. Typically they either dive right in to asking me to verify their prescriptive judgments, or they want to know how many languages I speak.)