Buzz
Unlike many academic disciplines, linguistics often feels more accessible. Subjects such as physics, mathematics, and history focus on abstract ideas or events that are not directly observable.
In contrast, linguistics revolves around something we all inherently understand: language. Yet, this familiarity leads to numerous assumptions and even outright myths, which can influence how we perceive and study language scientifically.
10. The Myth of Inuit Words for ‘Snow’ and a Massachusetts Fire Inspector
The theory of linguistic relativity, often referred to as the 'Sapir–Whorf hypothesis,' suggests that language can shape its speakers' perception of the world. For those who prefer a more intense take, there's also the 'strong version' known as linguistic determinism.
This concept is frequently discussed in relation to indigenous North American languages. A common claim is that the Inuit people perceive snow differently due to their extensive vocabulary related to snow.
This notion was popularized by Benjamin Lee Whorf, a fire safety inspector and amateur linguist, in his 1940 article 'Science and Linguistics.' The idea gained widespread attention, even leading to the creation of the term 'snowclone.'
However, this claim is somewhat questionable. Depending on how we define a 'word,' Inuit languages appear to have a comparable number of snow-related word roots to other languages.
Additionally, Whorf's work appears to fabricate several Inuit words. It seems he either misunderstood his sources or intentionally misrepresented them. Much of the evidence Whorf used to support linguistic relativity is now considered ambiguous or fabricated. As a result, the 'strong' version of the theory has largely been discredited.
9. English (Or French, Russian, Tamil, Etc.) Boasts the World’s Most Extensive Vocabulary
A common classroom myth is that English possesses the richest vocabulary globally, with more words than any other language. This is often attributed to English being a 'mixed language,' drawing words from German, French, and Latin.
The total number of words varies depending on the source. For instance, Webster’s dictionary lists 475,000 words. Meanwhile, the Global Language Monitor claims to have identified English’s 'millionth word,' even specifying the exact date and time: June 10, 2009, at 10:22 AM GMT. Interestingly, other languages also make similar claims about their vocabulary size.
The challenge lies in defining what constitutes a 'word.' In English, it might be defined as anything separated by spaces in writing. However, spoken language lacks spaces, contractions like 'can’t' would need to be counted as words, and this definition doesn’t apply to many other languages.
For instance, Inuit languages utilize inflections to create single words that encapsulate extensive information. A similar phenomenon occurs with German 'compound nouns,' such as the notorious example donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitaten-hauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft, which denotes a subsidiary of the First Danube Steamboat Shipping Company.
8. Children Acquire Languages More Effortlessly Than Adults
A common myth, often discouraging for adults, is that children possess a far greater ability to learn languages. While children appear to transition from knowing nothing to speaking fluently, this notion is misleading.
This remarkable progression is both intriguing and perplexing. However, it frequently leads adults to assume that language learning becomes overly challenging after childhood, which is not true.
Initially, babies invest significant effort in learning to speak. This process continues until around six or seven years old, and even then, certain grammar rules can remain challenging.
However, adults actually learn new languages much faster than children. Some online polyglots claim to achieve fluency in just three months. So, if you're an aspiring language learner aiming to master Italian, Czech, or Xhosa, don’t hesitate. You’ve already overcome the toughest part by learning your first language.
7. A Language Is Simply a Dialect Backed by Military Power
While many of us might dismiss the previous myths as false, we often assume we understand the distinctions between languages, dialects, and accents. A language is seen as a system of communication, a dialect as an unusual variant of a language, and an accent as how you sound. However, this isn’t entirely accurate, at least from a linguistic perspective.
Generally, we consider 'Standard English' as a language, while variations like Southern English and African-American Vernacular English (AAVE or 'Ebonics') are seen as dialects. However, linguists would classify Standard English as a dialect as well.
The distinction between Standard English and nonstandard dialects lies in 'prestige.' By definition, the standard variety holds societal 'prestige.' For instance, AAVE isn’t an inferior form of English but rather a 'non-prestige' variant.
The term 'accent' also causes confusion. While it often refers to phonological differences, these can overlap with the already ambiguous category of dialects. Additionally, 'accent' is sometimes used specifically to describe the speech patterns of non-native speakers.
The Yiddish saying, a shprakh iz a dialekt mit an armey un flot ('a language is a dialect with an army and navy'), holds some truth. It effectively illustrates how 'prestige' dialects are elevated to the status of 'languages,' while others remain 'dialects.' Yiddish itself exemplifies this, often being treated as subordinate to German.
6. Certain Languages Are Easier Than Others
The complexity of languages is a hotly debated topic. Many believe their native tongue is more intricate than others. However, linguists find it challenging to objectively measure a language's complexity.
The prevailing theory is the 'compensation hypothesis.' As David Crystal explains, 'All languages possess intricate grammar. While one aspect may seem simple (e.g., lack of word endings), another aspect will likely be complex (e.g., word order).'
This concept becomes problematic when paired with linguistic relativity. Viewing a language as simplistic can lead to issues, especially if one believes that language restricts thought.
A notable example is the treatment of Scots, a minority language in Scotland. In the early 20th century, it was banned in schools and deemed 'unsuitable' for education, despite being the native language of many children.
5. Sign Languages Are Fully-Fledged Languages
Sign languages are often misunderstood. Many assume they are simply mimed versions of spoken languages. In 2011, the Italian Parliament attempted to reclassify Italian Sign Language (Lingua dei Segni Italiana) as 'Language of Mime and Gesture' (Linguaggio Mimico Gestuale), sparking outrage among the Italian deaf community.
In reality, sign languages are complete and highly expressive. For instance, American Sign Language (ASL) has its own unique grammar, separate from English. It features topicalization, a characteristic found in languages like Japanese and Chinese.
This results in diverse word orders not present in English. ASL also includes a sophisticated verb conjugation system, incorporating agreement and tense. Additionally, sign languages can adopt words from other languages—both signed and spoken—using techniques like finger spelling for spoken borrowings.
4. Animal Communication
Animals communicate in numerous ways—through birdsong, pheromones, and waggle dances, among others. However, there are widespread misconceptions, particularly the belief that these forms of communication are linguistic or primitive versions of human language. This terminology can be misleading, so it’s essential to clarify what we mean by 'language.'
When defining language, two key criteria often emerge. The first is discreteness, which refers to the idea that language consists of indivisible elements that can be combined to form meaningful units.
These elements are called morphemes, the smallest units of meaning in a word. For example, 'car' and 'water' are single morphemes, as they cannot be divided further. In contrast, 'typewriter' contains three morphemes: 'type' + 'write' + 'er,' and 'undesirability' has four: 'un' + 'desire' + 'able' + 'ity.'
The second criterion is productivity or creativity. As linguist Noam Chomsky explains, this refers to the ability of speakers to combine discrete elements of their language to create an infinite number of phrases, all of which can be understood by others in their speech community.
In essence, productivity refers to the capacity to construct sentences of unlimited length that are comprehensible to anyone sharing the same language. This concept, combined with discreteness, is known as 'digital infinity.'
Digital infinity sets humans apart from animals. To our knowledge, animals cannot comprehend morphemes, nor can they combine them. Even the language of a one-year-old child is significantly more advanced than that of any animal.
3. I Believe You Mean 'Figuratively'
We now arrive at perhaps the most widespread language myth: the notion of the pedant, the grammar Nazi, often referred to as 'linguistic prescriptivism.'
Prescriptivism is the belief that 'grammar' consists of rigid rules—dos and don’ts like avoiding the misuse of 'literally,' not splitting infinitives, and refraining from ending sentences with prepositions. However, the pedant’s reasoning is flawed on two counts.
First, most traditional grammar rules were borrowed from other languages (particularly French and Latin) or invented to align with personal preferences. For instance, the rule against splitting infinitives originated in the 18th century from an effort to make English resemble Latin.
In Latin, infinitives are single words, whereas in English, they consist of two. For example, habere in Latin translates to 'to have' in English, and amare means 'to like.' In English, it’s possible to insert a word—often an adverb—between 'to' and the verb.
Star Trek provides a classic example: 'To boldly go where no man has gone before.' A prescriptivist, aiming for a more Latinate structure, might rephrase it as: 'To go boldly where no man has gone before.' Doesn’t that sound awkward?
The second flaw in prescriptivism lies in linguistics itself. The truth is, there’s no precise definition of what constitutes an 'error.' Some argue that language is governed by convention, so deviations from these norms are mistakes.
However, language is far more varied than many realize. Simply compare the speech of an Australian to that of someone from the American Deep South, and the diversity becomes evident. A prescriptivist might attribute this to dialectical differences, clarifying that 'dialects have their own conventions.'
Yet, linguists also acknowledge 'idiolects'—the unique linguistic traits of individual speakers. In reality, prescriptivists lack any authoritative basis for their rules beyond personal preferences and the conventions they’ve adopted. Linguists, on the other hand, advocate for a 'descriptive' approach to language.
2. Texting Is Destroying Children’s English Skills
Setting aside the concept of errors, evidence suggests that children today are performing just as well linguistically as previous generations, if not better.
First, the claim that modern children are less capable communicators than their predecessors is unfounded. Observing any group of kids reveals their ability to understand each other perfectly.
You might concede this point but question whether they can communicate effectively with those unfamiliar with their slang. Research indicates that children are adept at adjusting their language to suit the context. Interestingly, studies also reveal that texting improves their writing skills.
One researcher notes that omitting punctuation and capitalization in texts correlates with improved spelling, grammar, and punctuation abilities. The study suggests that abbreviating words helps young people better grasp spelling and its connection to spoken language.
This finding shouldn’t be shocking. David Crystal highlights that children today are more engaged in reading and writing than ever before, thanks to their access to phones and computers. Kids are writing more than any previous generation, and dismissing this as trivial is misguided.
1. 'Caught It,' Not 'Catched It'
One of the most widespread myths revolves around how children acquire language. Parents, older siblings, or relatives might have encountered this belief firsthand. Many assume that teaching babies to talk involves word games, asking them to name objects, and correcting mistakes like the one in the title.
However, this is a misconception. Babies naturally deduce the rules of language simply by listening to others. Errors like 'catched' or 'foots' actually demonstrate children’s capacity to generalize rules they’ve heard. You might insist, 'But these are mistakes that need fixing.'
Yet, young children often overlook or misinterpret such corrections, gradually adopting the correct forms as they grow. Jean Berko Gleason’s famous 'Wug Test' illustrated this by asking children to create plurals and past tenses for invented words, showcasing their ability to generalize linguistic rules.
The process by which children achieve this remarkable feat remains largely a mystery. One prominent theory is 'universal grammar,' which posits that humans possess an innate set of grammatical rules that evolve into coherent speech. However, this theory is not without debate, and a definitive consensus has yet to be reached.
