Language and Linguistics: An Introduction

John Lyons

Chapter 1: Language

The text is divided into seven topics that present concepts and discussions about them.
1.1 What is a language (gem)

In this topic, Lyons defines linguistics as the scientific study of language and makes a
questioning about the definition of language and scientific. According to the text, philosophers, psychologists and

Linguists often emphasize that it is the possession of language that most clearly distinguishes man.
of the other animals.

1.2 Some definitions of language

In this section of the text, the author provides definitions of language. All of these were extracted from works.
classics of renowned linguists. Each of the definitions brings properties from each linguistics that
the same deem essential.

a) Sapir (1929) "Language is a purely human and non-instinctive method of communicating."

ideas, emotions, and desire through voluntarily produced symbols.” According to the text this
definition presents some errors, for no matter how broad our conception of the terms 'idea'
"emotion" and "desire" it seems clear that there is much that can be communicated through language that is not covered

for none of them. Particularly ideas, which are inherently produced. On the other hand, there are many
voluntarily produced systems of symbols that we only consider language in what seems to us a
broad or metaphorical sense of the word 'language'.
b) Bloch and Trager (1942) "A language is a system of arbitrary vocal symbols through which
groups a social group co-operates." What distinguishes this definition in relation to Sapir's is its emphasis on
social function, sidelining the communicative function. Thus, it presents a very restricted view of the role
of language (gem) in society. Another point that differentiates Sapir's definition is the fact that Bloch and Trager
they will highlight the arbitrariness and explicitly restrict the language (gem) to the spoken language.

c) Hall (1968) tells us that language is the 'institution through which humans communicate and
they interact with others through arbitrarily used oral-auditory symbols.
In this definition, we highlight the following fact: In this definition, the factors are introduced
communication and 'interaction' (with interaction being broader and, in this regard, better than 'co-
"operation") and, secondly, the fact that the term "oral-auditory" can be taken roughly.
as an equivalent of "vocal", differing only in that the term "oral-auditory" does
reference to the listener as well as to the speaker. (that is, to the receiver as well as to the sender of the vocal signals that
we identify as linguistic statements) Hall, like Sapir, treats language as an institution
purely human, and the term "institution" clarifies the view that the language used by a
a certain society is part of the culture of that society.
d) Robins (1979) Does not offer a formal definition of language, rightly pointing out that such
Definitions tend to be trivial and not bring much information, unless they presuppose... some
general theory of language and linguistic analysis." However, he lists and discusses a series of additional facts.
outcomes of which 'must be accounted for in any theory of language that one wishes to take seriously'. However
In various editions of his books, Robins emphasizes that "languages are systems of symbols" almost
entirely based on pure or arbitrary conventions. Emphasizing, however, its flexibility and
adaptability.
e) Chomsky(1957) "From now on, I will consider a language (gem) as a finite or infinite set if
sentences, each finite in length and constructed from a finite set of elements. This
definition brought to light the movement known as transformational grammar. Unlike the others
Definitions aim to encompass much more than natural languages. But, according to Chomsky, a) all
natural languages are, whether in spoken or written form, languages, in the sense of their definition: Once
that every natural language has a finite number of sounds (and a finite number of letters in its alphabet)
although there can be an infinite number of distinct sentences in the language, each sentence can be
represented as a finite sequence of these sounds (or letters). This Chomskyan definition of language
was mentioned here largely due to the contrast it establishes with the others, both in style and in
content. It does not mention the communicative function of languages, whether natural or not; it does not say anything about the

symbolic nature of the elements or their sequences. Its aim is to draw attention to the
purely structural properties of language and suggest that such properties can be investigated
from a mathematically precise perspective.
In summary, most definitions have adopted the view that languages are systems of symbols.
designed, so to speak, for communication.
1.3 Linguistic behavior and linguistic systems

In this topic, the terms linguistic competence are defined: which is the mastery that a person has
from a certain language.
Linguistic performance, defined by Chomsky as 'a set of constraints that limit the use
of competence. It is the imperfect manifestation of the system. It is the real use of the language in a concrete situation.

1.4 Language and speech

In this topic, the author discusses that one of the fundamental principles of modern linguistics is that the
spoken language is more basic than written language. However, not understanding that language should be
identified with speech. The author brings a reflection on the fact that linguists feel compelled to
correct the vices of traditional grammar and traditional language teaching. And until recently, the
grammarians had been focusing almost exclusively on literary language, paying very little attention
of everyday colloquial language. Countless times it was concerned almost exclusively with literary language,
paying very little attention to everyday colloquial language. Often the norms of
literary standard as norms of correctness of the language itself, condemning it as ungrammatical, careless or
even illogical. During the 19th century, there was significant progress in research in the investigation of
historical development of languages. Scholars understood, more clearly than before, that the
changes in the language of written texts corresponding to various periods - changes in the meaning of which
how centuries transformed Latin into French, Italian, or Spanish, for example - could be explained
in terms of changes that would have occurred in the spoken language corresponding. All the major languages
literatures of the world ultimately derive from the spoken language of certain communities. The strength of
traditional prejudice in favor of the standard language in its written form is so strong that it is very difficult for the

linguists convince laypeople that non-standard dialects are standard, having their own norms of
corrections, immanent in the use of their native speakers. One of the main tasks of linguists today
It is to admit the ability to consider spoken language in its own foundations, so to speak, without
to think that the pronunciation of a word or expression is, or should be, determined by its spelling.
Other questions addressed in the text include why spoken language is considered simpler.
that the writing. The author then presents the reasons for such a question:

The historical priority: The discussion about writing leaves little room for doubt. It is not known about

no human society that exists, or that has existed, at any time, deprived of the capacity
of speech.
Structural priority: The potential for combining sounds used in a language
specific depends in part on properties of the medium (Certain sound combinations are unpronounceable or
of difficult production) and partly of the more specific restrictions, applicable only to that language. The
the potentiality of combination of the letters with each other is totally unpredictable in terms of its form. In this
In the spoken language, the structure is more basic than in the written form, although both can be isomorphic.
(that is, it will have the same external structure) at least in an ideal situation, at the level of larger units
like words and phrases.
The functional priority: Even today, in the most literate modern societies in the world
industrialized and bureaucratic, the spoken language is used in a wider range of situations, serving to
written as a substitute for speech only on occasions when vocal-auditory communication is impossible,
unfinanceable or inefficient.
The biological priority: There are many indications that man is genetically pre-programmed,
not only to acquire language, but also, as part of the same process, to produce and recognize
the sounds of speech. It has been emphasized many times that what linguists commonly refer to as speech organs
(or vocal organs) - lungs, vocal cords, teeth, tongue - all serve a function that is biologically more important.
basic than to produce vocal signals.
1.5 The semiotic perspective
 Semiotics has been described in various ways: as the science of signs, of behavior
symbolic and communication systems. The author makes it clear that semiotics will be related to systems
of communication; and will conceive "communication" in a very broad way, without necessarily implying
an intention to inform.
In this topic, Lyon mentions the more specific properties of language.
a) Arbitrariness: Arbitrariness with respect to language is not limited to the connection between form
the meaning. It also considerably applies to a large part of the grammatical structure of languages, in
the extent to which they differ grammatically from one another.
b) Duality: Duality is understood as the property of having two levels of structure, of such
the way that the units of the first are made up of elements of the second and each of the two levels has
your own principles of organization. Example: Sounds themselves do not bring any meaning. Your
Its sole function is to combine with others to form units that generally have a specific meaning.
The advantage of duality is a large number of different units that can be formed from one.
small number of elements - many thousands of words, for example, with thirty or forty sounds. If
as primary units could combine systematically in various ways, the number of signals
different ones that can be transmitted - and consequently the number of different messages - will increase
enormously.
c) Discontinuity: It opposes continuous variation. In the case of language, discontinuity is a
property of secondary elements. To illustrate: the word [portion] and [bet] differ in form.
in the spoken and written language.

d) Productivity: of a communication system is the property that enables the construction and
interpretation of new signals; that is, signals that have not been previously found and that do not
they are on some list.
The four general properties are all interconnected in various ways. Not only found, by
what we know in all languages, but exist in high degree in all of them.

1.6 The fiction of homogeneity

The belief or assumption that all members of the same linguistic community speak
exactly the same language. It is evidently possible to define the term "linguistic community" in such a way
so that for the sake of definition there should not be a systematic difference in pronunciation, grammar or
vocabulary in the speech of each member.
In all the linguistic communities of the world, there are more or less obvious differences in accent and
dialect. Accent is the way the language is pronounced and does not carry any implications.
It respects grammar and vocabulary. Dialect is a set of linguistic marks of a semantic nature.
lexical, morphosyntactic and phonetic-morphological, restricted to a community embedded in a community
largest number of users of the same language.
1.7 there are no primitive languages

In this last topic, Lyons states that there are no 'primitive' languages - all languages are
equally complex and equally capable of expressing an idea of the universe. All languages evolve
through time.
Chapter 2: Linguistics

2.1 Branches of linguistics

The total field of linguistics can be divided into various subfields according to the perspective.
adopted or the special emphasis given to a set of phenomena, or premises.
Differences between general linguistics and descriptive linguistics.
General linguistics:
The question What is language is the central inquiry of general linguistics.
General linguistics provides concepts and categories through which languages will be analyzed.
Descriptive linguistics:
1. Provides data that confirm or refute the propositions and theories posed by general linguistics.
The general linguist could formulate the hypothesis that all languages have nouns and verbs.
A descriptive linguist could refute it based on empirical evidence that there was at least one.
language in whose description such distinction was not verified.
In practice, there is little difference between the terms theoretical linguistics and general linguistics. Most of the

scholars who use the term theoretical linguistics presuppose that its objective is to formulate
a satisfactory theory of the structure of general linguistics.
Diachronic x Synchronic
A diachronic description of a language traces its historical development and records the
changes that occurred in it between successive points in time. Diachronic, therefore is equivalent to
historic
The synchronic description is non-historical: it presents an image of the language as it exists in
determined point in time.
Theoretical Linguistics vs Applied Linguistics
Theoretical linguistics: studies language and languages with the aim of constructing a theory of their structure.
and functions, regardless of any practical applications that the investigation of language and languages
may have. While the Applied focuses on the application of concepts and discoveries of linguistics to a
a series of practical tasks, including language teaching.
Microlinguistics x Macrolinguistics
In microlinguistics, a narrower view is adopted, while in microlinguistics, a broader one is taken.
narrower, microlinguistics deals solely with linguistic systems, without considering the way in which the
languages are acquired, stored in the brain or used in their various functions, not to mention the
interdependence between language and culture; not to mention the physiological and psychological mechanisms involved
in linguistic behavior; in summary, regardless of everything that is not a linguistic system,
considered in itself by itself. More broadly, macrolinguistics deals with everything that is relevant,
any form, whatever the language or languages. Once that, besides linguistics, many other
disciplines deal with language, it is not surprising that several interdisciplinary areas have emerged
identified with macrolinguistics, receiving distinct names; sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics,
ethnolinguistics etc.
2.2 Is linguistics a science?

Points that justify linguistics as a science: Linguistics is empirical, rather than speculative.
intuitive: operates with publicly verifiable data through observations and experiences. Furthermore,
Linguistics, like any well-established science, employs its own characteristic builders and its
own methods of obtaining and interpreting data.
2.3 Terminology and Notation

Every discipline has its own technical vocabulary. Linguistics is no exception. Most of the
technical terms used by linguists appear during their work and are easily understood by
they approach the subject with sympathy and prejudice.
2.4 Linguistics is descriptive, not prescriptive.

The descriptive term is being used here in a sense different from that which opposes
be the 'general', on one hand, be historical on the other. The relevant contrast in this case is the one that exists between

describe how things are and prescribe how things should be. An alternative for 'prescriptive' in this sense.
which contrasts with the 'normative', is the descriptive. To say that linguistics is a descriptive science (that is,
non-normative) is to say that it tries to discover and record rules according to which individuals behave
members of a linguistic community, without trying to impose other rules or standards of correctness on them
exogenous.

2.5 Priority of synchronic description

The principle of priority of synchronic description, characteristic of most linguistic theory.

of our century, implies that historical considerations are irrelevant to the investigation of
certain temporal states of a language. The Saussurean terms 'synchronic' and 'diachronic'
Chapter 3 – The sounds of the language

The author begins this chapter by clarifying that although linguistic systems exist
Regardless of the medium in which they manifest, the natural medium of human language is sound. By
for this reason, the study of sounds has greater importance in linguistics than the study of writing. It is
interest of this study, the sounds produced by the human phonatory apparatus, and this craving for limited sounds are
called phonetic means and the individual sounds of speech sounds. Thus, phonetics can be defined as
study of the phonological environment. The author also discusses the importance of not confusing phonetics and phonology.

The phonetic medium can be studied from at least three aspects: the articulatory, the acoustic, and the auditory.

a) The articulatory investigates and classifies the speech sounds in terms of how they are produced by the
speech organs;
b) Acoustics, in terms of the physical properties of the sound waves created by the activity of the apparatus
speaker and that transfer in the air from speaker to listener;
c) The auditory, in terms of how the sounds of speech are perceived and identified by the ear and
listener's brain.
After defining the three branches of phonetics, the author clarifies that their integration is not
simple and do not necessarily coincide, even though discoveries in a field contribute scientifically with
the studies of the other. It also clarifies that speaking and listening are not independent activities, where one needs
from the other. And it concludes the section by revisiting a question that the majority of professional phoneticians still do not

Can you explain the ability of a child to be an expert in these three areas of phonetics.

3.2 Phonetic and orthographic representation

The author begins the section by commenting on the IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) and its usefulness in
serving to represent the different nuances of sounds of a language, the IPA offers a series of diacritics
of various types that can add to the letters so that more refined distinctions can be established than
the letters could represent on their own. The author concludes in the same section, drawing attention to the case
of the existence of homophony in phonetics, just as homography in writing and for homonyms (words
homographs and homophones.

3.3 Articulatory phonetics

This section begins by discussing the organs that make up the human vocal apparatus. The
The sounds of speech, in almost all languages, are produced by the modification, in a certain way, of the stream.
 of air that is expelled by the lungs through the trachea, through the glottis (the space between the vocal cords) along
of the vocal system. Such a system runs from the larynx, at one end, to the lips and nostrils, at the other.
Concepts presented in this section:
a) Sound wave:
b) I am deaf:
c) As nasal:
d) Some aspirated
e) Segments and features:
f) Vowels:
Closed
Open
Rounding
Cardinal vowels
Semi-closed
Semi-open
g) Consonants:
Occlusive
Fricative
Bilabial
Labiodental
Dental
Alveolar
Palate
Sails
Glotais

3.4 Phonemes and allophones

The author clarifies that there are several phonological theories and existing phonemic theories, it will.
worry about classic American phonemics. From this theory, the phonemes are defined with
references to two main criteria: (a) phonetic similarity and (b) distribution. Phonetic similarities are
classified as a multidimensional issue. It follows that a certain sound may resemble
a second in one or more dimensions, while differing from it, resembling a third, in one
or more other dimensions. Based on phonemic analysis, one must decide which sounds phonetically
similar ones should be grouped as variants, more technically as allophones of the same phoneme,
from various supplements.
It is presented that the distribution of an entity is the set of contexts in which it
appears in the sentences of a language. The notion of distribution presupposes that of good formation, which implies
one must operate not only with the real forms of the linguistic system but with the entire set of
phonetic and phonologically correct forms, both real and potentially.
It can be concluded that two or more entities have the same distribution if and only if
occur in the same environment, that is, if they are interchangeable with each other - intersubstitutable - in all
the contexts (subject to the conditions of good education). The interchangeable entities in some contexts,
but not in all, they have an overlapping distribution: therefore, the distributional identity can be
conceived as a limiting case of overlapping distribution, and if 'some' is understood as 'all', in
In this case, it can be defined in such a way that it falls under the definition of overlap. The entities that are not
non-substitutable in any context will be in complementary distribution.
Based on the presented notion, we can define allophones as phonetic positional variants.
different and that these are subphonemic, with phonemes being the elements of the system, which can be
represented in a more restricted phonetic description. The phonemes, by convention, are represented by
letter-symbol (with or without diacritic) appropriate for a broad transcription of one of the allophones

phonetically distinct, contained between slashes.

The author discusses some points such as the overlap being a necessary condition, but not
sufficient for functional contrast. It is quite common for phonetically distinct sounds to be
intersubstitutable in the same context and yet still in free variation: that is, without being
contrasting functions. Functional contrast can be limited to a distinctive function: that is, a function of
distinguish one form from another.
It is concluded that the important thing is that languages differ greatly in terms of phonetic distinctions that

operationalize, so to speak, in the update (in the phonic medium) of the forms from which one
They build the sentences.

3.5 Distinctive traits and suprasegmental phonology

The distinctive term refers to part of the functional contrast in linguistic systems that is linked to
distinction between two forms.
Generally, the set of distinctive features that define and characterize a phoneme will be much smaller.
that the set of phonetic traits that characterize any of its allophones.

3.6 Phonological structure

Chapter 4 - Grammar

Syntax, inflection, and morphology

The author begins the chapter by clarifying that we work with the premise that languages have two
levels of structure: its phonology and its syntax. However, there are in some natural languages, and
possibly in all, certain dependencies between the different levels that make it impossible for a
rigid separation between phonological structure and syntax. Therefore, there is a gap between syntax (in
its traditional meaning) and phonology. This gap is compensated in traditional grammar by the term
'inflection'. Thus we have the opposition between 'syntax' and 'inflection', although we are used to using
influence of traditional grammar the term 'word', used in two quite different meanings that, in
final analysis, depend on the practical understanding we have regarding what falls within the scope of
flexional term.
The example of the words palavrassing, sings, singing, sangesung is mentioned, which according to a
Interpretation is considered a distinct word. According to another, they are considered different forms.
from the same word, that is, 'sing'. With this, it is noted that it would be good to introduce a terminology
that kept the two meanings of 'word' distinct. Sing, sings, singing, sang are lexical forms and
sing is a lexeme or word from the vocabulary whose forms are singing, sings, singing, sang, etc.
reality, what would traditionally be described as flexional forms. Sing is a privileged form,
for it is a form of citation (used for reference to the lexeme) and that many linguists
they call in base form (primitive form).
The concept of underlying form is presented, as forms can vary in certain fields.
according to the context in which they occur, being the degree and nature of their phonetic variation in the language

spoken determined by phonological rules. The underlying forms would be identical to the citation form of
phonemically variable form or more similar to it than any of the other phonetic variants.
Based on the distinction between lexeme, we can formulate the traditional distinction between syntax and
flexion. Together, they are complementary and constitute the main part, if not the entirety, of what we have seen.

calling it grammar. Together they determine the grammaticality of sentences, syntax, specifying how
the lexemes combine with each other, in certain constructions; the inflectional rules (to the extent
in which traditional grammar had rules, and not paradigms), specifying which of the forms of the lexeme
it must appear instead of another, in a given construction.
Syntax and morphology differ, as syntax deals with the distribution of words and morphology with
its internal grammatical structure. This principle is similar to the distinction between syntax and inflection. But
different in two aspects because a) morphology encompasses not only inflection but derivation; b) it addresses both
inflection regarding derivation through rules that operate on the same basic units - the
morphemes. Morphology considers morphemes (minimal forms considered basic units of
grammatical structure) and a large part of it can be brought into the interior of syntax.
The author concludes the section, emphasizing that there are arguments for and against the idea that grammar should be

based on morphemes. It clarifies that there are advantages in both definitions and these should be preserved.
Whatever the accepted theory is, we can no longer simply state, as we did in the reformulation.
before the principle of duality, the units of the primary level are composed of the elements of
secondary level. This relationship is much more complex and governed by rules that are impressive.
they are similar and common to all languages.

4.2 Grammaticality, productivity, and arbitrariness

By definition, sentences are grammatical and they can be well-formed strings of words, or
of verbal forms. From a more general and traditional theoretical point of view, sentences can be
defined as classes of word forms, in which each member of the class has the same
syntactic structure.
All sentences in the spoken language will have a contour superimposed on the chain of vocabulary forms.
characteristic prosody (certain intonation pattern) without which it is not a sentence. Most of the
linguists argue that at least the prosodic elements distinguish an affirmative statement from a
interrogative and of an order and should be part of the structure of the sentences.
The question is raised: What is the difference between a grammatical chain and an ungrammatical one? The answer is

simple and little adds. Agrammatical chain of words is one whose formation does not
they respect the grammatical rules of the linguistic system; this formulation encompasses not only the sentences, but

also the symptoms. In this sense, we are not talking about normative or prescriptive rules, we refer to
immanent rules of the language, such as the rules applied by a native speaker of the language
inconsciously applied. Thus, it does not imply any very direct connection between
grammaticality and probability of occurrence, nor does it imply an identification between the
grammaticality and meaning. But, it allows us to hypothesize that there is a close connection and
essential, at least, the grammaticality of sentences and the meaning of real or potential statements.
The author exemplifies that although there are perfectly well-formed sentences, they may not
to have a literal interpretation, as there are ungrammatical sentences that can be perfectly
interpreted. This means that there is an interdependence between grammaticality and meaning.
It is clarified that traditional grammar has managed to establish some myths (the interpretation
traditional presented a strong tendency of the study of inflection), for example, that languages do not
bent, like classical Chinese, do not have a grammar and that English has morphology
relatively little inflected, has a shorter grammar than that of Latin or Greek, or even the
from French or German. Modern grammatical theory operates with a concept of 'grammar' that does not tend
in favor of inflected languages.
 From this point, it is discussed how traditional grammar failed to explain the motivation of the
syntactic orders by an example of a sentence being merely by the force of thought. It is clarified
that the syntactic functioning of the word order in sentences is just one of the many aspects of
grammatical structures that are, considerably, arbitrary in the sense that they cannot be accounted for
in terms of logical and more general principles.
The issue of a child in their language acquisition process who has is resumed.
capacity from a large but finite sample of statements, highly arbitrary principles
by virtue of which an indefinitely large, and perhaps infinite, set of chains of words is
considered grammatical and another, even larger, is considered grammatically malformed. Thus, it concludes-
if the section recalling Chomsky and his principles of generative grammar and generativism that will be
later addressed in this book.

4.3 Parts of speech, formal classes and grammatical categories

Traditionally and misleadingly, they are called parts of speech - nouns, verbs,
adjectives, prepositions, etc. However, you can traditionally observe that the list is approximately ten
parts of speech are very heterogeneous in their composition, reflecting, in many details of the definitions
that accompany them, specific features of Greek or Latin grammatical structure that are far from being
universals. These deficient and conflicting definitions may not even work in Greek or Latin, as
they depend excessively on the common sense and tolerance of those who apply and interpret.
Most linguists still operate in terms of 'nouns', 'verbs', 'adjectives', and the
interpreted, implicitly or explicitly in a quite traditional way (example: a verb is what denotes action).
This prerogative is valid, in the sense that it is an important fact in the structure of natural languages that the

linguists are able to formulate verifiable empirical principles in the sense of affirming that some
they have a syntactic distinction between adjectives and verbs, for example and possibly others not
they have.
In this sense, it is clarified that the terms 'nouns', 'verbs', 'adjectives' are used
with the same ambiguity of the term 'word' mentioned earlier. From a perspective of
'parts of speech', the noun is referred to as nominal forms, and the verbs as verbal forms and
so on. This classification is presented as an alternative to solve cases of 'words' that
they can be called verbs, but syntactically they are characterized as nouns, see the example:
shoes for dancing.
From this non-consensual perspective, many works refer to formal classes instead of parts.
of speech. The term 'parts of speech' is reserved for classes of lexemes and we can use the term
'formal class' to the classes of forms that have the same syntactic function. What would be presented is
distributional interpretation of 'syntactic function': two forms have the same syntactic function if and only
they have the same distribution (that is, if they are interchangeable) in all grammatical sentences (although
not necessarily significant) of a language.
 It is clear that flexionally varied forms of the same lexeme generally do not present the
same distribution, which justifies that syntax and inflection are complementary parts of grammar.
(An example is given of boy and boys that differ due to semantic function, where boy would be the
singular form and boys in the plural form - semantic difference of the forms based on distribution). Even though
there is an intrinsic connection between the meaning of shapes and their distribution, it is simply their distribution
what directly interests grammarians.
It is discussed then, that from a generative grammar perspective, grammars are based on the
morphemes, being the morphemes (minimal forms) that can be grouped into formal classes based on the
interchangeability criteria. Generative grammars operate with definitions of 'nouns', 'verbs',
'adjectives' that initially apply to radicals of lexemes, and secondarily to larger forms than the
contain or that they are syntactically equivalent to them.
In traditional grammar based on the word, how inflection is complementary to syntax presents-
such as flexional categories, for example: categories of time, mood, case. It is worth noting that there are two
important points regarding these categories. The first is that none of them is truly universal,
in the sense of being found in all languages. The second is that it is traditionally described
as grammatical categories would commonly be treated in a grammar based on the morpheme, as
sets of grammatical morphemes (contrasting with the lexical morphemes listed with roots)
nominal, verbal, etc. in the vocabulary). And its distribution would be directly handled by syntactic rules.
This is the treatment adopted in the most recent versions of generative grammar.

4.4 Other grammatical concepts

The author begins this section by explaining that the function of the grammatical rules of a language is to specify the

determinants of the grammaticality of this language. A generative grammar achieves this goal by generating all and
only the sentences of a language, assigning to each one, in the very process of generation, a
structural description. It will present grammatical notions and their determinants of grammaticality and the type of
information that should be included in the structural description of the sentences.1

Sentences can be classified according to the intersection of dimensions:

a) Shape:
Simple: a single sentence;
Complex and compound: a minimum of two coordinated sentences.
b) Function:
Declarative, interrogative, imperative.

The author makes it clear that these grammatical notions and their determinants are subject to change, considering
Given that generative grammar is naturally selective and it is still unclear the amount of notions
logically independent, or primitive, necessary for the specification of the determinants of
grammaticality in any individual language, let alone in all languages.
 In simple or complex sentences, there are relations of constitution between the part and the whole.
simple sentences for example we can assume that all word forms are constituents, and
Groups of words can form phrases that, in turn, are also constituents of sentences.
Dependency refers to an asymmetric relationship between a ruler and one or more dependents.
verb rules its object - if it has one - in one way rather than another. What is traditionally known as
regency. Although the concept of dependence is broader, as it does not presuppose the existence of a
flexional variation. Chomskyan generative grammar opts for constitution, while generative grammar
emphasizes dependence.
Verbs can be classified as transitive and intransitive, which in turn can be
preachers and then, by the subclassification of preachers in terms of their valence: that is, in
terms of the number and nature of their dependents. The term valence would replace what is traditionally
we call it subject and object, as is usually recognized for example, that the subject of the sentence is the
unit that, although as dependent on the verb as the object, determines the form of the verb in what
usually known as verbal agreement.

4.5 Structure of constituents

In this section, the author revisits the question of which word should be understood as a lexical form.
In this sense, words can be represented as chains of (one or more) morphemes: morphemes being
minimal forms; and the words being, in the classical Bloomfieldian definition (although only partially
satisfactory), minimum free form (that is, forms that do not consist entirely of smaller free forms).
It also clarifies that there are forms that are both morphemes and words (in the case of 'cat'), however,
There are words that are not considered as morphemes, such as in the case of the word 'cats', composed of two
minimal forms, however considered as a single word. Bound forms are constituents of words
like the affixes.
We can also say that in some languages there is an internal hierarchical structure. They are
terms we should remember, immediate and final constituents and distributional analysis of words
represented by trees or brackets.

4.6 The Generative Grammar

The author initially clarifies that the term generative grammar, used frequently in
Chomsky's postulants have two meanings. The first is related more basically to grammar.
generative as a set of rules, in a more restrictive and technical way applied to linguistic systems. The
the second is related to what we can call 'generativism' as a theoretical body and premises
methodological. It is also clarified that not always those who are interested in generative grammar, present
interest in generative theory.
 Generative grammar is a set of rules that, operating on a finite vocabulary, generates a
set (finite or infinite) of phrases (each composed of a finite number of units), defining
thus a well-formed syntagma as that characterized by grammar. It is also emphasized that the
The term 'generate', used in the definition, should be taken exactly in the same sense it has in mathematics.
A generative grammar is a mathematically precise specification of the grammatical structure of
sentences that generate

.
The author defines that the sets of phrases characterized as languages by grammars
Generative are what logicians call formal languages. Although it is not clear whether the languages
natural languages are or are not formal languages, since every phrase will be either well-formed or
malformed; there is no possibility of an indeterminate status. Furthermore, every well-formed phrase
has a fully determined structure, according to the structural description attributed to it by the
grammar. In this sense, the author proposes that the properties of grammaticality be used as a model
that involves abstraction and idealization, where many details and aspects can be neglected. Not
invalidating the applicability of generative grammar in linguistics.
It is noted that the definition of generative grammar mentioned earlier allows for the existence of many
generative grammars. However, there is a question of whether there is a model of generative grammar that satisfies
the grammatical structure of natural languages? No indications to believe in the assertion of this inquiry. In their
Chomsky's studies demonstrate that there are types of grammars that are stronger than others. Three types are presented:

finite state grammar, phrase structure grammars, and transformational grammars. The
Transformational grammars are the strongest to serve as a model for the description of linguistic systems.
natural. Chomsky dedicated himself to studying two properties in search of meeting a correct type of grammar
generative: recursivity and constituent structure. It is concluded that the intention of this work is not to differentiate

a grammar of another, but yes, to validate that each type of grammar has its advantages and that this type
it can be applied to natural languages.
Chapter 05: Semantics

5.1. The diversity of meaning (p. 133)

The chapter begins with the author stating that semantics is the study of meaning and in
On the contrary, there have been numerous discussions about it for more than two thousand years, yet no one has succeeded.

respond satisfactorily to the question: But what is the meaning? However, it presents two
problematic assumptions:
a) that what we refer to with the word 'meaning' has some type of existence or
reality
b) that everything we refer to using this term has a similar nature, if not
identical. We can refer to one as (a) presupposition of existence and the other as (b) presupposition of
homogeneity. (p. 133-paragraph 1)
Philosophically speaking, they are controversial, but not false. The author claims that he does not intend to

compromise neither of the two and also avoid saying that language is a bridge between sound and the
meaning as stated in several linguistics books. (p.133-paragraph 2)
According to what has been widely disseminated for a long time, it is quite traditional that the semantic theory

more widespread is that the meaning is ideas or concepts that can transfer from the speaker's mind to
the listener. (p.133-paragraph 3)
See continuation of the paragraph on page 134.

And with that, the author decides that instead of asking what meaning is, he lacks defining what
they are concepts, he chooses to ask another question: What is the meaning of meaning? (p.134-paragraph 3)
So, it is not simply a choice, whether arbitrary or not, between an interpretation
relatively broad and another relatively restricted. As the author has already said, the various meanings of the word
'Meaning' can be seen as shades that blend into each other. Everyone agrees that there is
certain jobs of the term that are more interesting than others for linguistic semantics.
134 par. 2)
 An obvious distinction that must be made is that between the meaning of words, more
precisely two lexemes - and the sentences between lexical meaning and sentence meaning. The
the meaning of a sentence depends on the meaning of its constituent lexemes (including their
syntagmatic lexemes, if any, and the meaning of some, if not all, will depend on the meaning of
sentence in which they appear. However, the grammatical structure of the sentences is relevant to the
determination of its meaning: therefore we must also refer to the grammatical meaning as
additional component of the meaning of the sentences. (p. 136. par. 02)
Another controversial concept is the meaning of statement, as until now there has not been a recourse to
distinction between statement and sentence. The meaning of a statement encompasses the meaning of the sentence
stated, but it is not exhausted in it. The rest could be left to pragmatics, but it is also a point.
debatable, since the meaning of a sentence can depend, both logically and methodologically,
of the notion of the meaning of a statement, in such a way that one cannot fully account for the meaning of
sentences without relating the sentences, in principle, to their possible contexts of enunciation. (p. 137.)

From this point, the author notes that there is another series of distinctions related to the various functions.
semiotics, or communicative, for which languages are used. It revisits Wittgenstein to discuss the connection
and the multiplicity of objectives that languages achieve, since the traditional premise is that the role
The basic function of language is to communicate propositional or factual information, and it is undeniable that
descriptive function. This fact is related to the fact that no other semiotic system can be used.
to make statements either true or false, according to the situation they intend to describe if
verify or not. (p. 137. Par 02)
It is evident that there are many speech acts, such as declarations and questions that are
functionally distinguishable, systematically interrelated in various ways. Thus, we can
trace a distinction between descriptive meaning and non-descriptive meanings of other types of acts
of speech. We can also, at least for now, identify the descriptive meaning of a statement
with the proposition made in the statements, this may be presented, although not affirmed, in other acts
of speech, notably in questions, such as: João wakes up late; Does João wake up late? In the first
proposition asserts itself and thus describes, or intends to describe, a certain situation.
The defining property of proportions is that they have a defined truth value, that is, they are either true
or false. Therefore, there is an intrinsic link between the descriptive meaning of truth, what we call the
semantics of truth conditions. (p.137. par. 03)
The author continues to problematize, for example, that the majority of everyday statements, whether

statements or not, and if they are not, whether they have a descriptive meaning or not, convey that type
of non-descriptive meaning that is commonly known as expressive, as this differs from the
descriptive, as it has a non-propositional character and cannot be explained in terms of truth, as in the phrase
‘Holy God’. This expressive statement can be said to hold the emotional (or affective) meaning,
encompassing everything that is within the scope of 'self-expression'. (p.138. par.03)
 Another meaning to be addressed is the social meaning. It is connected to the use of language to establish and
to maintain roles and social relationships. A large part of our everyday discourse has its main objective there,
which can be qualified by the term phatic communion (that is, 'communion through speech'). (p. 138. par.
04)
When examined through a certain prism, this can be correctly considered the most
basic to the language (gem), to which all others - including the descriptive - are subordinated. In this reasoning, for
less expressive meaning that one can try to employ, usually the statements aim to
make friends and influence people. Therefore, one should not think that the social meaning should be left out
for the sociolinguist. (p. 139. par. 03)
So far, the tripartite division between descriptive, expressive, and social meaning will suffice for now. But
Two observations are necessary. The first is that, as a man is a social animal and the structure of
language is determined and maintained by its use in society, self-expression in general and self-expression
through language in particular are largely controlled by socially imposed norms and
recognized, norms of behavior categorization. Most of our attitudes, feelings and
beliefs - most of what we consider personality - is a product of our socialization. In this
perspective, or expressive meaning depends on social relationships and roles. At the same time, what
we can qualify self-expression as also serving to establish, maintain, or modify such relationships and
social papers. It is concluded: the expressive and social meaning are interdependent. (140. Par.01)
The second observation is that, while the descriptive meaning can perfectly be exclusive to
language, the expressive and social meanings certainly are not. We revisit the discussion about the
the structure of language from a point of view. We saw that the verbal component of signs is what allows us to
clearly separates from other types of signals, human or not. We can emphasize that the meaning
expressive and the social are conveyed, a characteristic, but not exclusively, by the non-verbal component
of language, while the descriptive is limited to the verbal component. However, the functions of
different languages are no less integrated than their distinct structural components. In this sense,
It is clarified that in this chapter the interest lies in the study of meaning in natural languages, subject
the additional restriction involved in the postulation of the linguistic system. (p.140. par. 02)

5.2 Significado lexical: homonímia, polissemia, sinonímia(p. 140)

We see here in this section that the author discusses the difficulty of distinguishing homonymy and
polysemy. Traditionally, homonyms are different words with the same forms and polysemy
(multiple meanings). So let's see an example: bank1[riverbank] ebank2[financial institution
are normally considered homonyms, while neck [neck, collar] is treated as a lexeme.
polysemic. (p. 142. par.2)
The only way to solve, or perhaps to delimit, the traditional problem of homonymy and polysemy.
to completely abandon the semantic criteria in defining the lexeme, relying only on the
syntactic and morphological criteria. (p.143. par.3)
 If synonymy is defined as identity of meaning, we can say that lexemes are
completely synonyms (in certain ranges and contexts) if and only if they have the same meaning
descriptive, expressive, and social (within the range of contexts in question). (p.143. p 4)

5.3. Lexical meaning: sense and denotation (p.146)

The author states that there is a distinction on the subject of the section between philosophers and linguists and that it does not

he just presented his view on such a problem. It is obvious that some lexemes, if not
all are related to other lexemes of the same language as (for example, 'cow' relates to
'animal', 'bull', 'calf', etc) as well as entities, properties, situations, relations, etc., of the
reality of the world (for example, 'cow' relates to a certain class of animals). We can
to say, then, that a lexeme that relates (in a relevant way) to other lexemes, does so through the
meaning; and a lexeme that relates (in a relevant way) to reality does so through
denotation. For example, 'cow', 'animal', 'bull', 'calf', etc., 'red', 'green', 'blue', etc., and
‘to achieve’, ‘to obtain’, ‘to borrow’, ‘to buy’, ‘to steal’, etc. are series of lexemes within the
there are relationships of meaning of various types. 'Cow' denotes a class of entities that is
properly a subclass of classes of entities denoted by 'animal'; which differs from the class of
entities denoted by bull (or horse, or tree, or gate); that present an intersection with the class
denoted by calf, and so on. It is clear that meaning and denotation are interdependent. And if the
the relationship between words and things - or between language and the world - was direct and uniform when it was assumed that

Perhaps we could immediately consider either the sense or the denotation as a basis to define a term.
outro

5.4. Semantics and grammar (p. 150)

The meaning of a sentence is the product of both lexical meaning and meaning.
grammatical: that is, of the meaning of the constituent lexemes and the grammatical constructions that relate
a lexeme, in a syntagmatic way, to another. The concept of grammatical meaning becomes clear if
The dog bit the mailman.
dog. These two sentences define in terms of meaning. But this difference cannot be attributed to
none of the constituent lexemes, as is the dog of the difference between 1) and 3) The dog bit the journalist
between 2) and 4) The mailman calmed the dog. The semantic difference between 1 and 2 is traditionally
explained by stating that 1 the dog is the subject and the postman is the object, while in 2, these functions
grammars are inverted.

5.5. Meaning of sentence and meaning of statement (p.157)

 The distinction between the meaning of a sentence and the meaning of a statement is that the former is included in the

scope of semantics and the second is part of pragmatics. For example, we can say that the first
The paragraph of this section is composed of three sentences. In this sense of 'sentence', the sentences are
statements (the term covers both spoken language and written language) or parts of a single statement. And in this
The meaning of 'sentence' is that it is a statement. The author needs to say something about what reference and the
what is deixis, since it contributes to the meaning of the statement. Whose reference as well as the denotation is
a relationship that occurs between expressions and entities, properties or situations in the external world, but the

The difference between them is that the reference needs contexts, such as the expression 'that cow'.
that cow. It could be referring to any cow or one known by my reference. And the
Deixis is like reference, with which it overlaps, in the sense that it is related to the context of
occurrence. But deixis is at the same time broader and more restricted than reference. For example, the
the reference to 'that man over there' can only be identified in relation to the use of the expression by someone who
finds in a certain place, on a certain occasion.

5.6. Formal meaning (p. 163)

Formal semantics, in this sense, is generally considered a complement to pragmatics.

defined in various ways, such as the study of actual statements, the study of use rather than meaning; the
study of that portion of meaning that is not characterized exclusively in terms of condition of
truth; the study of performance and not of competence.
Chapter 06: Linguistic Change

6.1. Historical Linguistics (p.170)

Before the principles of historical linguistics were established, there was no awareness of a way
In general, linguistic change is universal, continuous, and considerably regular.
The status of Latin is particularly important in this regard. It had been used for centuries in
Western Europe as the language of scholars, administration, and international diplomacy.
The literary languages were more valued than the non-literary languages and dialects. And any
differences that grammarians observe between literary and colloquial language, or between standard language and dialects
non-standard behaviors tended to be condemned and attributed to carelessness or lack of education.

Finally in the nineteenth century, through much work, scholars arrived at a better understanding.
of the relationship between spoken and written language on one hand, and between standard and non-standard languages on the other.

Considering the period from 1820 to 1870 as the classical period of historical linguistics.

6.2 Language families (p.174)

To say that one or more languages belong to the same family - that they are genetically related - is
to say that they are divergent variants, descendants of a common ancestral language or protolanguage, and the
Romance languages of proto-romance.
 In general terms, we can say that protolanguages are hypothetical constructs in favor of whose existence
there is no direct data, but it is postulated that there existed and that they are constituted of such to such structure
the end of realizing the genetic relationship between two or more proven ones. For example, Proto-Germanic is
postulated as the ancestor of the Germanic languages (English, German, Dutch, Danish,
Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish, etc.) and Proto-Slavic as the ancestor of the Slavic languages (Russian, Polish,
Czech, Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian, etc.

6.3. The comparative method (p. 181)

The standard way to demonstrate the genetic relationship between languages is through the so-called
comparative method. This method is based on the fact that most related words are more
obviously through languages they can be systematically matched in terms of their
phonological and morphological structure (see table 4, p.182). With this, we have the advantage not only of the fact

that the relationship between them is unquestionable, but also that we have direct data from
the protolanguage from which they derived, Latin.

6.4. Analogy and borrowing (p.189)

The concept of analogy dates back to antiquity. The term itself comes from the Greek word 'analogia' which
meant 'regularity' and more specifically, in the use of mathematicians and grammarians 'regularity'
proportional. For example, the proportional regularity between 6 and 3 on one hand, and 4 and 2 on the other, is a
analogy, in the desired sense of the term: it is a relationship of four quantities (6, 3, 4, 2) in such a way that the

the first divided by the second is equal to the third divided by the fourth (6:3 = 4:2). The analogical reasoning
was widely used by Plato and Aristotle and by their followers, not only in mathematics, but
also for the development of other branches of science and philosophy, including grammar. Let's take
like English, German distinguishes between what are called weak and strong verbs. The
first, which constitute the vast majority of all verbs in the language form the past by the addition
of a suffix to the root of the present (cf. In.jump-s jump-ed, A. lieb-t, lieb-te); the strong ones present a
difference, of one type or another, in the vowels of the corresponding roots of the present and the past, and
generally do not have the past suffix characteristic of weak verbs (cf. In. ride-s, rode; sing-s,
sang; Al. Reit-et, ritt; sing-t, sang).

Another phenomenon that the neogrammarians appealed to in order to explain some of the exceptions
apparent to sound laws was the loan. For example, besides the word 'chef', which is of descent
French from the Latin caput, whose form as it is commonly cited in Proto-Romance may well have been
*capu(m), we also find in modern French the word 'cap' (cf. 'de pied en cap', literally
"from head to toe"). The formacap clearly violates all three sound laws (in addition to the loss of the final vowel)
necessary to derive chief of *capu. The explanation is that the form was borrowed from French
(in a relatively remote time) to Provençal, to which the sound laws in question did not apply.

6.5. The causes of language change (p.194)

Why do languages change over time? There is no consensus on the answer to this question.
Many theories about linguistic change have been proposed. But none of them accounts for the facts. The
the most we can do here is to mention and briefly comment on some of the main factors regarding
Which scholars referred to the explanation of linguistic change. And in this matter, we have two.
distinctions:
a) between linguistic change, on one hand, and grammatical and lexical changes, on the other;
between internal and external factors.

Chapter 7 - Some Modern Schools and Movements

7.1 Historicism:

Characteristic of an earlier period of linguistic thought, it prepared the field for the
structuralism. (p.201) "neogrammarians"
The author acknowledges that their objective is not to address the complex relationships between the various schools.

linguistic features, but presents, in its own way and personal interpretation, what it considers most characteristic of

structuralism, functionalism, and generativism.

Historicismo, in the sense it is used in the text, refers to the conception that linguistics, in the
to the extent that it is or aspires to be scientific, it has a historical character. Therefore, when explaining phenomena

linguisticists, it starts from the historians' point of view, that is, "languages are as they are because, in
Over time, they have been subjected to a variety of internal and external causative forces [...]
202)
- historicism ≠ evolutionism

7.2 Structuralism:
 Term of multiple origin, in Europe, conventionally its birth is identified from the
publication of Saussure's Course in General Linguistics in 1916. Interdisciplinary movement.
Constitutive distinctions of structuralism:
1. Synchronic and diachronic study of languages - The synchronic explanation differs from the diachronic one or

historical for being structural rather than causal. Instead of investigating the historical development of
certain forms or meanings, it demonstrates how all forms and meanings are inter-
related in a certain period and linguistic system. (p.203)
Saussure does not deny the validity of historical explanation, but advocates for the complementarity of the modes.

of synchronous and diachronic explanation. (p. 203) Critique of Lyons: "assertion that structuralism does not
fits into historical linguistics." Saussure's work on the vocalic system of Proto-Indo-European,
from 1879, subsequently, it would be described as internal reconstruction and adopted by those who claimed to be

Structuralists, however, Saussure himself believed that all changes originated from outside the
linguistic system and did not take into account what would later be identified as structural pressures
within the linguistic system, that is, internal factors causing linguistic change.

2. Language x Speech | Linguistic system and linguistic behavior:

A language is a form and not a substance, according to Saussure. For Lyons, 'We are not
violating Saussure's thought if we say that a language is a structure, with the implication, in
use of the term, that it is independent of the physical substance (or medium) in which it occurs. 'Structure', in this

sense, is more or less equivalent to 'system': a language is a system at two levels, of relations
syntagmatic and substitutive (or paradigmatic)" (p. 204). According to Lyons, it is through the emphasis on internal relations

combinatorial and contrastive, within the scope of the linguistic system, which various different linguistic schools
can be encompassed by the term "structuralism".
a peculiar characteristic of Saussurean structuralism: "the only true object of linguistics is
the linguistic system (la langue) focused on itself and by itself = Principle of autonomy
Linguistics. Justifies the methodological distinction between micro and macro linguistics. Another characteristic: 'everything

the linguistic system is unique and should be described in its own terms” (p.205)
Conflict -> Supposed opinion of Saussure that the linguistic system should be studied abstracted from
society in which X functions the opinion of Saussure that languages are social facts. Apparent conflict
However, even if they are social facts, they have their own constitutive principles. Social facts being
understood as different from material objects, yet just as real as them, moreover, they are external to
Individuals and with their own restrictive forces, are systems of values maintained by social convention.

3. Sign = Meaning and Signifier: what is meant is arbitrarily associated with what
it means.
 The meaning of a word is the product of the semantic relationships between that word and others.
same linguistic system. The signifier of a word, its phonological environment, results, ultimately
instance of the network of contrasts and equivalences that a certain linguistic system imposes on the
sound continuum. (p. 206)
Linguistic relativity = there are no universal properties of human languages, every language is
a law in itself.

7.3 Functionalism:

In linguistics, it is seen as a particular movement within structuralism, which characterizes

It is based on the belief that the phonological, grammatical, and semantic structure of languages is determined by

functions that have to be performed in societies. Prague School, after the Second World War.
- Critique of Saussurean structuralism: distinction between synchronic and diachronic linguistics and
homogeneity of the linguistic system.
Opposes: historicism and positivism, intellectualism (the latter considers that language is the
externalization or expression of thought, defended by generativism.
- Impacts: distinctive function (phonology, phonetic features), demarcating function (accent, tone, duration)
of each language and recognition of the sequences of phonemes that actually occur in the statements), function
expressive (indication of the feelings and attitudes of the speakers, e.g. in French there is emphatic pronunciation at the beginning

of words that have recognized expressive function), descriptive function.

Functionalists emphasize the multifunctionality of language and the importance of its functions.
expressive, social and connotative, in contrast with, or beyond, its descriptive function.
Functional perspective of the sentence (This morning he got up late x He got up late today
morning). Same condition of truth, different word order, according to the communicative situation and
what is already information given or new to the listener. (the structure of statements is determined by uses and
communicative context.
There is a natural affinity between functionalists and sociolinguists or philosophers of language for
include linguistic behavior in the broader notion of social interaction.
Lyons' critique: if the structure of natural languages were determined by the various functions that
they exercise, as different linguistic systems fulfill the same functions, it is expected that
that their structures were similar and not arbitrary in that aspect. There are weaker versions of
functionalism that believes that the linguistic system is only partially determined by function,
also an unsustainable vision for the author. (p.210)

7.4 Generativism:

Language theory developed by Chomsky and his followers in the last 20 years. Influenced
Linguistics, Psychology, Philosophy, and other disciplines.
 Serge acts as opposition to the dominant post-Blofieldian descriptivism, but also brings back
old and traditional perspectives of language. (p.212)
- Recognizably Chomskyan characteristics:
1. Property of recursiveness: the set of potential statements in any given language and,
literally, numerically infinite.
2. Chomsky opposed the belief that children learned language by repeating, wholly or partially,
the speech of adults. Thus, it opposed behaviorism, which believed that everything was a product of the mind
human behavior can be satisfactorily explained in terms of reinforcement and the conditioning of reflexes
physiological, in terms of habits or stimulus-response patterns.
3. For Chomsky, language is stimulus-independent and creativity is a quality.
peculiarly human, which distinguishes men from machines and other animals, but this creativity is
governed by rules, which leads to generative grammar. According to this, the statements we produce have a
grammatical structure guided by the rules of good formation, or grammaticality. When identifying these rules
There is a scientific account of the property of language known as productivity.
4. Mentalism: distinction between mind and body. For Chomsky, linguistics plays a fundamental role in
investigation into the nature of the mind.
5. Linguistic universals – Chomsky, unlike the structuralists, was interested in what the
languages have in common, that is, with what is universal but arbitrary. Chomsky seeks data that
they sustain their opinion that the human faculty of language is innate and specific to the species and
genetically transmitted and peculiar to the species.
6. Competence and Performance: The former refers to the knowledge of the linguistic system that the
speaker has and uses to produce the infinite set of sentences that constitutes their language. The
Second, it deals with the linguistic behavior of the speaker, determined by competence and various others.
non-linguistic factors. This distinction is similar to Saussure's dichotomy of langue and parole, however this is
less psychological in its distinction, not worrying about the necessary rules to generate the sentences.
Both are based on the homogeneity of the linguistic system.
- Critiques, according to Lyons: 1. Validity of the fiction of linguistic homogeneity; 2. The terms
'competence' and 'performance' are inappropriate when it comes to distinguishing what is linguistic and what
it is non-linguistic, as linguistic behavior, to the extent that it is systematic, involves others
abilities, including the speaker's knowledge of the rules and vocabulary of the linguistic system,
therefore, it is confusing to restrict the term 'competence' to everything related to the linguistic system and pile up
everything else to the term 'performance'.

Generativism shares controversial points with Saussurean and Bloomfieldian structuralism,

as the tradition in syntax and in its autonomy, the need to distinguish linguistic system and use of it
system in certain contexts of enunciation.
Chapter 8 - Language and the Mind

8.1 Universal grammar and its relevance

Close connection between the philosophy of language and traditional branches of philosophy, such as logic.
(reasoning) and epistemology (knowledge). (p.219)
The grammar was subordinated to logic, since the principles of logic were considered
universally valid. In the 19th century, linguists were already tending to be skeptical about grammar
universal of philosophical bases due to the diversity of grammatical structures between languages and the
favoring historical explanation over philosophical. Chomsky's proposal has the
the same assumptions as previous versions, that is, universality of logic and interdependence between
language and thought.
The investigation of language, instead of another faculty or mode of functioning of the mind
humanity developed psycholinguistics. The field of research is vast and without a model of
general assumption, preventing, so far, the formulation of an interdisciplinary program and
coherent. (p.220)
 The author aims to show part of the empirical work developed by neurolinguistics, acquisition of
language and cognitive science.
Conception of the term 'mind', encompassing not only the human capacity for reasoning but
also feelings, memory, emotion, and will. It is important to clarify this issue due to
restricted interpretation conceived by the theoretical linguistics of this term.

Problem of mind-body: philosophical currents of dualism, materialism, idealism, and monism.

Dualism: believes that the mind exists and differs from matter by being non-physical. In the teachings
Christians describe the mind as a faculty of the soul, while for the Greeks there was no distinction between
'mind' and 'soul', encompassing both in the term 'psyche'. Dualists created various theories to account for
of the interdependence between bodily and mental phenomena. (p.221)
Materialism: it holds that nothing exists that is not matter. It believes that mental phenomena
can be explained in terms of physical properties. One version of materialism is behaviorism,
according to which there is no entity like the mind and that thoughts, emotions, desires, etc., must
to be explained with reference to certain types of behavior.
Idealism: denies the existence of matter and asserts that everything that exists is mental. The term idealism
It is a synonym for mentalism, however this term has come to be used in a non-traditional and confusing sense.
by linguistics.
Monism: in contrast to dualism, it believes that reality is only one, thus both the
idealism as well as materialism can be understood as branches of monism. However, the term
'Monism' is reserved for the viewpoint that neither the physical nor the mental is the ultimate reality. Both
they are different aspects of something neutral and fundamental.

8.2 Mentalism, rationalism and innatism

Chomsky provides data in favor of mentalism, that is, in favor of the belief in the existence of the mind.
This has been widely misunderstood. 'Mentalism' is often equated or with
'idealism' or with 'dualism', as is the case with Blomfield, but Chomsky is clearly non-idealist, nor
necessarily dualistic. What he and his followers assert is that the acquisition and use of language do not
can be explained without resorting to principles that usually fall outside the scope of
any purely physiological account of human beings. (p.223)
Chomsky's mentalism has a negative aspect and a positive one:
Negative - your antifysicalism or antimaterialism, or more specifically, anti-behaviorism.
It affected linguistics as a science, as linguists believed that every discipline must be a science.
should mirror models from the natural sciences. What contributed to the fact that theorists of
social sciences would cease to believe that there is something non-scientific about the postulation of
entities and processes that cannot be described in physical terms. (p.223-224)
Positive - original proposals on language acquisition. One of the main problems in philosophy
the mind has to do with the acquisition of knowledge and the role of the mind, or reason, on one hand
(rationalists), and the role of sensory experience by another (empiricists). Chomsky defends the
rationalism shares the idea that the principles by which the mind acquires knowledge are innate.
(p.224)
The acquisition of language is a specific case of the general process of knowledge acquisition.
Chomsky believes that language serves for the expression of thought, that human beings are
genetically endowed with the ability to form some concepts instead of others and that the formation
these concepts are a prerequisite for acquiring the meaning of words. However, it differs
two traditional rationalists in two aspects: 1. The acquisition of the grammatical structure of the native language requires

both the explanation and the process of combining the meaning of a word with its respective form, the
that originated the different types of generative grammar; 2. Argues that the nature of language and the
the process of language acquisition has characteristics that make it inexplicable except on the basis
in the existence of an innate faculty for language acquisition.
For Lyons, Chomsky's positive contribution to the philosophy of language and to psychology of
the acquisition of language is based on recognizing the importance of structural dependence as
a universal property of human languages, and the need to demonstrate how children come to
to acquire the domain of this property in the acquisition and use of language. Chomsky considers the mind as
a set of abstract structures whose physical basis is still little known but that are like organs that
they develop genetically, thus the faculty of language would be one of these many structures
mental. But, the author doubts this assumption, saying that it may or may not be correct, as the data
available, for example, from studies on language disorders, experiences with other primates,
neurophysiology of the brain is still inconclusive. (p.226)

Chomsky's version was not the only type of mentalism proposed in recent years and that makes
reference to language acquisition. Another quite influential theory is that of the Swiss psychologist Piaget, according to

which has four stages in the child's mental development. For the theorist, the transition from the stage
sensorimotor (around two years of age for the child), until the preoperational stage (around seven years)
years) is a crucial time for language acquisition. In this phase, the child begins to manipulate words and
phrases based on your previous understanding of how concrete objects can be
compared, moved, and transformed. Piaget's work has an obvious connection to the
functionalism, in addition to trying to account for language acquisition in terms of more general principles of
mental development.
Lyons' critique: Chomsky argues that the data do not support Piaget, as the syntactic structure
cannot be described in functionalist terms and language acquisition is not affected by differences in
intellectual ability in children, although many linguists and psychologists say that the data is not
clear (p. 227).

8.4 Language and the brain

 The brain is complex and the development of its functions is still partially understood.
The brain is divided into two parts, called hemispheres, normally connected.
through the corpus callosum. The outer part of both hemispheres consists of the cortex or gray matter that
contains the neurons. The right hemisphere controls the left side of the body and vice versa.
In general, the left hemisphere is related to language control. The process
through which one of the hemispheres is specialized to perform certain functions is called
lateralization, in this issue, when, in the stubs, the left hemisphere is not specialized for the
language, which is the right hemisphere. The process of laterization is subject to maturation, so it is
genetically pre-programmed, but takes time to develop. It is a typical process of human beings that
starts between the ages of two and goes between five and the beginning of puberty. The fact that lateralization is a

A prerequisite for language acquisition is a widely accepted fact, thus it is believed in the age
criticism for language acquisition, in such a way that it becomes progressively more difficult to acquire the
language after the laterization period is completed. However, this critical age is not accepted
universally, although there are cases that confirm it, such as the case of Genie in Los Angeles in 1970.
(isolated from everything and everyone and rescued at the age of 13, she began the process of acquisition, crossing
the stages of a normal child, and being successful at the beginning, but having difficulty with any structure
complex syntax, defending the hypothesis of the critical age and independence of language acquisition of
other intellectual skills). (p.229).

8.4 Language Acquisition

The term 'acquisition' is more neutral than learning, which is why many linguists and psychologists
they prefer to use it. The term language acquisition is usually used without reservations for the process
that results in the knowledge of the LM. It is conceivable that the acquisition of an LE, if learned
systematically at school or not, it is processed in a quite different way. The author pays attention to the care
to generalize conclusions about the acquisition of an L1 in contexts of L2 acquisition (age)
Critique and consequences of brain damage in bilingual children and the acquisition of L2; Direct method). (p.
231)
- Some facts about language acquisition: 1. All normal children acquire the language they hear.
Speaking around you without any special instruction, it is difficult to register the speed of progress and this is
regardless of intelligence and differences in social and cultural background; 2. Although it points out a series
reasonable stages of acquisition, it is difficult to pinpoint when a child transitions from one stage to another,
In this issue, the precedence of understanding in relation to production comes into play, in the sequence of
development. Thus, a child's spontaneous statements may not directly reflect their
knowledge of the LM. (p.232)
The distinction between voiceless and voiced consonants is a common skill among beings.
humans and higher primates (chimpanzees), although only humans learn to invest
with distinguishing function due to exposure to languages in which such distinction is functional. The data are
inconclusive and do not refute the innatist hypothesis and specificity of the human species. (p.232-233)
1. Babbling, 2. Intonation patterns of the mother tongue, 3. Construction of the system
phonological of the LM (nine months). The beginning of speech, regardless of the language, consists of words without groups.

consonants and tend to be reduplicative or have consonants that share the same point or
articulation mode. / Acquisition of grammar: 1. Holophrastic period: the child produces sentences of a
word (nine to eighteen months). 2. Telegraphic period: it begins with the production of statements of two
Words are words without inflections and functional. As it begins to form longer statements, speech
the child's resembles, in terms of word order of the adult. (p. 234)
Until the early years of the 1960s, the systematic investigation of the acquisition of structure
grammatical had been scarce, which changed after Chomsky's demonstration that languages are governed
by rules and based on the understanding that learning theories did not account for acquisition. The
Research on the acquisition of children's language has expanded to grammar, semantics, and vocabulary.
It became clear that the child's grammatical structure is not mastered until the child reaches the age of ten.
(p.235)
An understanding of language acquisition, both normal and abnormal, contributes to the understanding of
inabilities of adults and children, production of teaching material, tests or exams.

8.5 Other areas of psycholinguistics

Much of the early research in psycholinguistics inspired by Chomskyan generativism was

addressed to the problem of psychological reality. This issue is divided into two problems related to
the distinction between performance and competence made by Chomsky: 1. Do we all have a
generative grammar in our heads? 2. What role do these rules play in production and
understanding of the statements, if they do? (p. 238 -237)
It became clear, during the 1960s, that even if we have a generative grammar of our
In our heads, the structure that the linguist constructs of this grammar will probably not reflect the
operations involved in language processing, as it would leave out all those factors
(attention and memory, motivation and interest, etc.) that are not directly relevant to the definition of
good training for certain languages, nor for more general statements about the nature of language.
Currently, the movement known as psychologically real grammar is gaining ground.
239
Critique of Chomsky: Chomsky's theory of mind is excessively intellectualist, in the sense that
Unlike traditional opinions on the structure of the mind, it says nothing about non-cognitive aspects: such
like emotions and will. (p.239)
Language and expression of thought: for Chomsky, language expresses pre-thought.
existing and articulated. The same was defended by French philosophers in the 18th century, and by Herder, Sapir and
Whorf, the latter bringing empirical data, about linguistic determinism and linguistic relativity in
America, that language influences, albeit partially, thought. (p.239)

8.6 Cognitive science and artificial intelligence

The purpose of this section is to address a recognized, distinct, and expanding discipline that utilizes
data from philosophy, psychology, linguistics, and computer science, but which cannot be characterized under any
of these. "The science of making machines perform tasks that would require intelligence if executed by
"man" Minsky (1968). Some interests: translation of documents from one language to another, retrieval of
information on libraries, the diagnosis of diseases based on systematic questionnaires, etc. (p. 240)
So far, the simulation of linguistic processing, from computers, has not caused
decisive impacts on theories of linguistics or psychology. But, it greatly influenced the discussion of
problem of psychological reality by providing at least some measure of the complexity of different
operations of linguistic processing and the time we take to carry them out. It is not certain if one day
It will be possible to simulate by computer all the mental processes involved in production and comprehension.
of language (p.241).

Chapter 9 - Language and Society

9.1 Sociolinguistics, Ethnolinguistics, and Psycholinguistics

The author begins the session by clarifying that so far there is no theoretical model that exists
widely accepted, within which we can study language, macrolinguistically, of various
different and equally interesting viewpoints: social, cultural, psychological, biological, etc.
 The author discusses that it is natural for a group of scholars, due to their tendencies, to their
education and its special interests, adopt a point of view on these points mentioned above in
detriment of another. This would not be negative if it were not for the tendency to present it as the only one.
scientifically justifiable. And at the same time, there are several recognized branches of macrolinguistics.
sociolinguistics, ethnolinguistics, and psycholinguistics.
Furthermore, there is the issue of the broad acceptability of this theoretical model being accepted by all
disciplines that deal with language can be satisfactorily interrelated, many of these
disciplines are involved in demarcation disputes among themselves and have their controversies.
Although the author acknowledges the simplicity of the definition, he revisits Hudson's definition (1980:1)
to refer broadly to sociolinguistics as 'the study of language in relation to society'.
In this sense, one can adopt the same point of view to define ethnolinguistics as the study of
language in relation to culture. However, the problem arises, the concept of culture referred to is
used in the sense presented in anthropology and more generally in relation to social sciences. In this
meaning, culture presupposes society, and society depends on culture and 'sociolinguistics' and
'ethnolinguistics', will overlap and each branch will become more narrowly circumscribed by the addition to
definitions of the condition that the guiding purposes of theory and research are primarily
linguistics, and not from other branches. And such purposes are related to the fundamental question: 'What is the
language?
The distinction of psycholinguistics is also problematic, based on the logic that being widely
accepts as the study of language and the mind, since the concept of mind may be of interest,
as the author reports, it is biologically determined and universal (due to fashion) rather than by the
variation determined socially and culturally. Just as sociolinguists focus a lot on
variation. The author concludes by saying that there is no reason for sociolinguists not to be interested in
diversity and the variability of human language and neither, on the contrary, for sociolinguists does it
we will be interested in linguistic and social universals.

9.2 Accent, dialect, and idiolect

The author reiterates that the dimension of linguistic variation is addressed in terms of the language scale-

idiolet was introduced in relation to the fiction of homogeneity. Therefore, in this section, the interest is
for the social meaning of this type of linguistic variation.
It is clarified that everyone speaks in one dialect or another, just as everyone speaks with one or another.
accent, and it is quite possible that different people speak the same dialect, but with markedly different accents.
different. In this sense, it is necessary to emphasize here the relevance of not confusing, let's say 'PR' and
standard English' (as they tend to be confused in the use of everyday expressions with English
of the queen or BBC English) when describing the speech of the inhabitants of Great Britain, and more
particularly from England.
 Just as linguists carelessly use the terms 'British English' and 'American English'
like two relatively uniform dialects of the same language. Of course, there are many differences
lexical differences between the speech of the average educated American and that of the average English, Welsh, Scottish, or Irish speaker

instructed. Ex: elevator vs lift, gas vs petrol. However, most of the vocabulary of standard English
American, and to the extent that such a thing exists, standard British English is identical, although there is
constructions or shapes that are characteristically American.
The British English term is misleading in that it restricts the spoken (written) English to England.
and there are sociopolitical reasons for this. For this reason, it is possible to disguise the fact that Scottish English and

Irish English is in the same relationship with England English as American English.
The author also states that two linguistic systems are the same (regardless of the medium in which)
they manifest themselves if and only if they are isomorphic. It is because phonologically identical linguistic systems
They can be realized differently in the phonetic environment that makes sense to speak of the same dialect of a language.

differently with such or such an accent. Since accent encompasses all types of phonetic variation,
inclusive that is subphonemic in the sense that it is never considered the basis of functional contrast, like this
The notion is normally applied by phonologists. Therefore, the presence or absence of the phonetic distinction may

to serve to identify a person's accent, even if it is irrelevant in a 'functional' sense.

But there are differences in accents that can affect the identification of shapes. For example,
put:putt ["to place", "to putt"] which are differentiated not in a typically northern pronunciation or
from the center, but based on the differences in context, where we have distinguished forms such as the infinitive,
simple present and present participle (putting is a form of 'put' or 'putt'. However, we have here a
accent difference correlated to a difference in dialects: the underlying linguistic systems do not
isomorphic at the phonological level.
The author clarifies that what is a uniform dialect in its essence, both from the point of view of
grammar as well as vocabulary can be associated with various phonological systems more or less
different.
What makes the notion of accent so important sociolinguistically, despite overlapping with that of
dialect, is that members of a linguistic community often react to differences in pronunciation
subphonemic and phonemic in the same way, as indicators of regional or social origin of
speaker.
The author reaches a point where he refers at the beginning of the section to what would be social meaning and clarifies that

certain phonetic differences between accents can be stigmatized by society, just like
certain lexical and grammatical differences between dialects are, while others may have more social status
elevated.
William Labov is mentioned and his contribution regarding the fact that the accent and dialect of a
People systematically vary according to the formality or informality of the situation they are in.
Just as it was discovered that women are more likely than men to adopt the
accent or dialect generally associated with social status. Gender is one of the main relevant variables of
sociolinguistic point of view in all languages.
 In this sense, the notion of idiolect is less useful than it might seem since people can modify and
expand their idiolects along the way, as they grow older. More importantly, it is a fact that, as
we just saw, a person can have several dialectal variants in their repertoire and switch from one to
another according to the situation in which it finds itself.

The issue of stereotypes and the acceptability or otherwise of accents and dialects and the role of
socialization in the construction of personality, as we are transformed into members of
a certain society and its participants that characterize it. What we call self-expression is the
projection of one or another socially interpretable image.

9.3 Standards and Vernaculars

The author begins by revisiting what has already been said about dialects and languages, where the choice for a standard dialect is

motivated by social and cultural reasons, a different point of view is adopted in the description of languages. The
the author decides to use the term 'vernacular' in the same sense it has in everyday usage to refer not
only to non-standard dialects of the same language, but also to genetically unrelated dialects
which has the same functional relationship with the standard in certain countries as non-standard dialects

related have in others.

The author also discusses that, for example, standard English or standard French emerged as such,
due to the political importance of London and Paris. However, it is worth mentioning that there is a
deliberate intervention, such as the Académie Française, one among numerous institutions created
to standardize the national literary language through the compilation of authorized grammars and dictionaries.
Several other institutions play similar roles in Europe, although English and French are
highly standardized as written language.
It is the written language that tends to be more standardized than the speech of those who use it. Given the existence

From an accepted standard for the written language, this can serve as a model of propriety and correctness for speech.
two literate individuals in any society where language proficiency brings prestige or opportunity
social ascent. It is concluded that when someone speaks standard English or standard French, it is the dialect that
this person uses in formal situations is more or less identical, in grammar and vocabulary, to the standard
written. In more informal situations, however, she can perfectly use a local vernacular more
socially restricted.
There are languages where the distinction between the standard and the vernacular is so clear in many

societies whose differentiation functions as either dialects of the same language or not. This
the phenomenon has been classified in recent sociolinguistic literature as a distinctive type of bilingualism:
diglossia.
The terms 'standard language', 'national language', and 'official language' are not synonyms. The connection between them is

that any language accepted by its speakers as a symbol of nationality or that is designated
By the government for official use will tend to be standardized, deliberately or not, as a precondition.
or a consequence of this fact itself. The reverse relationship, however, does not occur.
 Sociolinguistic research can provide governments with relevant information for their solution.
In a more general way, and at a non-political level, it can increase everyone's understanding, including that of
theoretical linguist, about the nature of language. A good amount of information of this type is now
available in relation to certain countries.
Pidgins developed from contacts between peoples who had no common language.
They are described as mixed or blended languages, although it is often uncertain exactly which ones.
originally contained ingredients in the mixtures and in what proportions. When a pidgin is acquired by
children as their native language, is considered Creole. This is the case of Melanesian pidgin and Krio are, today,
official standard languages in New Guinea and Sierra Leone. It is not uncommon for diglossia to develop and
that code-switching occurs in communities where creoles are used as vernaculars side by side
with the highest prestige languages or dialects.

9.4 Bilingualism, code-switching, and diglossia

The section begins by clarifying what is 'perfect bilingualism (though rare - if it exists) is defined.
as full proficiency in two languages, equivalent to the proficiency that a native monolingual speaker has
"in one". However, it is not uncommon for people to approach perfect bilingualism, being
equally competent in both languages in a reasonably wide range of situations.
Compound bilinguals from a psycholinguistic point of view are cases of people acquiring
both languages simultaneously in childhood or if one was acquired as the first language and the other some
Later, as the two systems are integrated as a single one at some relatively level.
deep psychological organization, or stored separately.
The classification presented may or may not be well-founded from a psychological point of view.
neurophysiological. But it guided a good amount of recent research and at least serves to
emphasize the fact that there are many different types of bilingual individuals and, consequently, different
bilingual communities. However, it is agreed that there is a reasonably clear functional differentiation of
two languages concerning what many sociolinguists call domains (the place of language use,
be it home, be it locations outside of it and their contextual variables).
A change in the situation regarding the value of one of the variables that define a domain can result in
code change.
The application of the term language in relation to the term dialect is subject to a variety of
political and cultural considerations. And in cases where the difference between two standards is sufficiently
Clara, there can be a wide range of intermediate vernaculars determined socially or
geographically linking them in such a way that it becomes impossible to say whether some are more related.
close to one standard or another.
9.5 Practical Applications
 In this section, the author will discuss problems that may arise in the teaching of a native language.
which discussions made so far can be useful. For example, the case of 'linguistic deficit' is reported in
working-class children and the distinction between restricted code and elaborated code, where the code
Restricted is considered non-explicit and depends on context in a way that the developed code does not.
According to this theory, the working-class child is at a disadvantage in school, where the code
elaborated is considered necessary because the members of the working class, unlike those from other classes
higher social classes use only the restricted code.
This distinction should not be equated with the distinction between standard and non-standard dialects, although they may

are correlated. There are those who defend the position that non-standard dialects are not deficient,
but rather different and who fight against the theory of linguistic deficiency, although these children face
problems in learning this language, due to the very use of the material that may seem strange to them.
It is known that in most societies a non-standard dialect would not be accepted as a medium of instruction.
However, there is already a range of accepted and often unnoticed variation in comparison in
many other languages.
Another problem mentioned is the case of the children of immigrants who are minorities and are divided between
two languages and two cultures, where there are advantages and disadvantages for bilingualism and its maintenance

linguistics (official policy practiced in some countries).

The author concludes the section by mentioning the contribution of sociolinguistics - theoretical, descriptive and

applied to understanding the educational, social, and political implications of this and other aspects of
linguistic planning.

9.6 Stylistic variation and stylistics

The notion of stylistic variation was introduced in the Chapter, where it was contrasted, on one hand, with
differences in accent and dialect, and on the other hand, differences in medium.
One of the ways to approach the phenomenon of stylistic variation is to consider the fact that a
The linguistic system often provides its users with alternative means to say the same thing.
As it is a matter of choice between lexemes, we can talk about synonymy (rarely
complete). Two words or phrases can be equivalent from a descriptive point of view, and yet,
differ in terms of social meaning and expression (e.g. 'father' vs. 'daddy'). Such synonymous expressions of
incomplete ways can be called stylistic variants.
The author clarifies that if two or more synonymous expressions are acceptable in a certain context
context, there are two more possibilities to distinguish. The expressions in question will either differ in their
degree of acceptability, property, and normality. If they differ in this regard, once again we can
talk about stylistic variation. If not, the variation is not significant stylistically: we are faced with a
a case that could be called completely free variation (which encompasses complete synonymy -
therefore rare).
 Much of what is understood about the term 'context' is of a social nature and falls within the scope of the notion

of the discourse domain, which includes not only the most obvious sociolinguistic variables, but also the
feelings and the communicative intentions of the author.
As stylistic variation is determined or conditioned by the social context, it is situated in
scope of the sociolinguistic concept of register.
Stylistic variation in general and particularly register variation is not a simple matter of
vocabulary. They also affect grammar, and, when it comes to spoken language, pronunciation. It is important
to be aware that informal records are governed by rules in the same way as more formal records
They are formal. They are immanent and not transcendent: it is the prescriptive or normative prejudice of grammar.
traditional that tends to obscure this fact and that promoted the viewpoint according to which informal daring
is relaxed and disorganized.
The author reports that stylistic variation applies to stylistically significant differences in grammar and
pronunciation:
Is it raining?
Is it raining?
(Where 1, in itself, is stylistically more neutral than 2 and 2 has the additional expressive function of indicating or

reveal the surprise, sadness, indignation - the author presents what he calls the functional perspective of
sentence).
Incongruity stylistically would be the existence of two linguistically accepted functions, in
as long as there is a preference for one native speaker over another, for this 'other' to be
stylistically marked, where this marking has more to do with the context in which it occurs, and not in
relation to the linguistic system as a whole.
Chapter 10 - Language and Culture

What is culture?

The author begins by explaining that there are two important concepts of cultures that can be mentioned and
to distinguish. The first is more or less synonymous with 'civilization', and, an older and more extreme formulation
The contrast, opposed to 'barbarism'. It is based, ultimately, on the classical conception of what constitutes
excellence in art, literature, manners, and social institutions. This view was questioned by the ideas of
Enlightenment and by Herder saying: 'Nothing is more indeterminate than this word, and nothing is more'
disappointing of what application to all nations and periods
The author chooses the option of the word 'culture' that should not be interpreted not in its sense.
classical, but in what could be described approximately as its anthropological sense, where each
society has its own culture; and different subgroups within a society may have their own.
subculture; and different subgroups within a society can have their own distinctive subculture.
For Herder, the word 'culture' in this sense was connected to his thesis of the interdependence of language and
of thought, on one hand, and, on the other, to his opinion that the language and culture of a nation were
manifestations of their spirits or of their distinctive national minds. This thought belongs to what
we call it the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which dominated the entire discussion of language and culture, as well as
language and thought, there has been a generation.

Culture can be described as knowledge acquired socially: that is, as knowledge

that a person has by virtue of being a member of a certain society (knowledge - both knowing how to do it
how much, knowing that something is or is not so, where scientific knowledge should not take precedence in
to the detriment of common knowledge, not even of superstition.)
It is also clarified that although there is an innate faculty for language acquisition, and although this
intelligence can be genetically transmitted, it cannot result in the acquisition and knowledge of
a language unless the data on which the faculty of language operates is
provided by the society in which the child grows up and, it can be argued, under conditions that do not affect
seriously the cognitive and emotional development of the child. This means that the cultural and emotional
in language they are interdependent.
It is concluded that a person's linguistic competence, regardless of its biological basis, is
finds within our definition of culture.

10.2 The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

Edward Sapir (his disciple Benjamin Lee Whorf) proposed the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis or thesis of
linguistic relativity. Sapir was influenced by a tradition in European thought that very much
probably played an important role in the development of structuralism. This tradition
Herder's rise and Wilhelm von Humboldt as one of its first representatives. It is marked by its
emphasis on the positive value of linguistic and cultural diversity and, in general, on its connection with the
principles of romantic idealism.
Humboldt saw the structural diversity of languages (their internal form) as the product of faculty,
universally operative and specifically human, of the mind. Already Herder spoke of the interdependence of
language and thought. Humboldt is closer to linguistic determinism. The Sapir hypothesis -
Whorf, as it is normally presented, combines linguistic determinism ('Language determines the ...
thought" and linguistic relativity ("There are no limits to the structural diversity of languages"):
(a) We are, in all our thinking and forever, 'at the mercy of the determined language that is
became the medium of expression for our society,” because we can only “see and hear and experience from
"other forms" in terms of the categories and distinctions coded in language; (b) the categories and
distinctions coded in a system are unique to that system and incomparable to those of others
systems.

The author is not sure if this hypothesis was properly formulated and would be in accordance with the
thoughts of Sapir or Whorf. It also emphasizes that this hypothesis does not exclude bilingualism, but in its
the stronger version is in conflict with the evident fact that bilinguals do not show any
obvious symptom of working with radically incompatible worldviews and stating
often be able to say the same thing in both languages.
The interest of psychologists in the influence of language on thought predates the formulation of
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. It was already known that memory and perception are affected by the availability of words.
and the appropriate expressions ("Uncle" - "brother of my mother", where the first is more easily coded).
The vocabularies of languages tend to be, to a greater or lesser extent, non-isomorphic, where things will be
but highly susceptible to coding in one language than in another. (The Eskimos and the absence of
the word snow and the presence of various words to designate the different types of snow, since snow is
important element in your daily life.
Thus, it is questioned that coding is not necessarily constant or uniform throughout.
a linguistic community, especially when we deal with such complex, diffuse and
diversified in terms of native English speakers. Generally, language and culture are correlated, from
a way that language necessarily has to share the same culture (such an assumption is manifestly
false in relation to many languages and cultures). No less important is the fact that the possibility of
coding is not simple the issue of the existence of one-word lexemes. It mentions the resources
productive aspects of the linguistic system can empower group members to increase on their own the
possibility of coding what particularly interests them, we can continue to use the
concept of the possibility of coding as if it were a global property of linguistic systems.
The author gives some examples to demonstrate how the stronger and more deterministic version failed.
to be confirmed. It mentions the case of monolingual Zuni speakers who have greater difficulty in
decode the differences between an orange and yellow object than a monolingual English speaker or
Zuni and English speaker. Research has confirmed the weaker version: that the structure of the language of a
individual influences perception and memory.
 In summary, it would seem that, despite contrary claims by proponents of determinism
extreme, no good reason has yet been found to dismiss the more traditional opinion that
speakers of different languages essentially have the same worldview, or conceptual model, in that
deals with deeper and more philosophically interesting concepts such as time, space,
number, subject etc.
The author revisits the issue that many proponents of the thesis of linguistic relativity would say is that
Some things that can be said in one language cannot be said in another. However, he counters this.
questioning reminding that it is often possible to increase the possibility of encoding
based on the resources of a linguistic system and constructing expressions that by virtue of use
continued in certain contexts, they can then acquire the same specificity of meaning as the
what lexemes. The author then mentions the possibility of expanding the linguistic system by borrowing
lexemes from other languages (e.g.: 'summit conference'). However, reflect on the translation process by
Lending is a process that involves changes in the lexical structure of the linguistic system and neither
It is always possible to carry out this type of translation, as there is vocabulary in the other language. The author mentions

some examples of the difficulties of translating some statements and exemplifies the case 'The man is sick'
and how this statement would be translated into three indigenous languages without any additional information
by the translator, due to the particularities of the grammatical categories of each language.
What the author means is that many authors have presented the same general opinion, which was not
it has been demonstrated, however, that there is some correlation between differences in grammatical structure and differences

in the mentality of speakers of grammatically different languages and that we are led to agree with
a modified version of the thesis of linguistic relativity. It concludes by stating that we cannot put
example justify the absence of a definite article (cf. English and Russian) by the correlation of a difference
cultural identifiable, that is, the lexical and grammatical differences have a cultural background behind them.

Terms that denote colors

To examine the vocabulary of colors and its relationship with linguistic relativity was an investigation
conducted in the 1950s to confirm the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Colors were chosen because,
we can isolate the purely descriptive meaning of the terms used to denote the colors of their
expressive and social meanings, as well as their descriptive meaning, are related to the physical world
from daily experience, in terms of denotation, many more than other semantic fields. It was
chosen as the basic colors (what the author refers to as basic terms), as they are less susceptible to
controversies regarding the definition of the concept of color. (E.g.: the color orange and its association or not with the fruit).

It exemplifies that certain translations of color terms into other languages make them unfeasible.
This is the case of the color 'blue' which has no equivalent. In this case, the translator tends to be arbitrary. Although the

the author recognizes translation as a process that at least maintains the context of what is said,
in terms of the propositions involved, he acknowledges that given the nature of the things in question the translator
there's no way to do them.
 Berlin and Kay (1960), in their book, demonstrate that native speakers of a language seem to coincide.
in basic terms of colors, giving when asked to point out what would be a genuine example
of these colors. The difficulty is demonstrated, however, when asked to identify an example of the
which author initially referred to as secondary colors (secondary terms). This first observation was
call of focal meaning, where speakers tend to agree on what would be the focal area, for example
from 'red-English' and 'rouge-French.'
There are two general aspects that can be highlighted in reference to the hypothesis, both relevant.
for the theory of relativity and for the relationship between language and culture. The first is that although there may be

a substructure in the vocabulary of colors, there is clearly a non-universal superstructure as well. The
the author mentions that there is cultural evidence, as well as perceptual evidence as a biological basis, plays a
role in the identification of designative terms of colors; and, as we have seen, the biological and the cultural are,
generally, interdependent in language acquisition. There are many everyday uses of color terms - and
not only the most obviously symbolic ones (black for mourning) that are culture-dependent, in the sense of
that one cannot acquire them without simultaneously acquiring relevant social knowledge. The second
aspect has to do with the notion of focal areas and visual continuum, where humans have a
constitution such (just like animals) that respond neurophysiologically to certain stimuli and
not to others and therefore the greatest prominence of some color spots and their universality.
The author concludes by stating that most lexemes in all languages do not denote natural types; and,
secondly, those who do so require cultural support.

Forms of address

The author begins by illustrating the polite and familiar forms of address in the English language.
Spanish, French, Italian, and Russian. It clarifies that it is not known exactly when the origin of this distinction began.

possibly having its source in the Latin of the late Roman Empire or the early Middle Ages and which is well
probably that its distribution in European languages has come from loans, there being
loans at various levels since this distinction has not always been drawn from Latin and that there was the
influence of one language on another. The consequence of this borrowing the author calls cultural diffusion.
Next, understand: T - familiar, V - polite.
The author mentions the case of the uses of these pronouns from the perspective of the terms of the concepts of power.

solidarity and on the other about reciprocal and non-reciprocal use, where non-reciprocal use denotes difference
of social status. In societies where there is this non-reciprocal use, a person who is socially superior or more
powerful, will use T and will treat its inferiors with V. The author also reports that this usage has been suffering

decline since the 19th century.

Although the author generalizes the above example, he points out that he cannot categorize the example.
For all languages, it cannot be predicted with total accuracy whether two people will use T or V in a given situation.

situation based solely on information about your social class, age, gender, political tendencies, etc.
The example was given so that when it comes to T or V it means in a certain language, it is necessary
provide much more details about social structure and social functions than what is understood in the
global notions of power and solidarity. T and V obviously depend on the culture, it is a case of
socially acquired knowledge.
The author mentions the issue of translating forms of address and exemplifies it with the
situation where the speaker is in diglossia between French and Russian, due to aristocracy (being a speaker
native of Russian) and can navigate between T/V and their differences in application in French and Russian. In the case of

author Tolstoy makes this transition in his works, even using Russian, he employs the paradigm of French
in the T∕V relationship and its contemporary readers can infer this relationship. This would not happen with
readers and current and out of context. The author points out that it is not necessary to be only bilingual,
but it certainly has to be bicultural.
The author concludes that most languages, if not all, present distinctions in their grammatical structure.
or lexical that derive their meaning from their correlation with functional distinctions in
culture or subculture in which the language is used.

Cultural juxtapositions, cultural diffusion, and the possibility of translation.

The author begins by clarifying that throughout this chapter and indeed throughout the book, we saw
developing and exemplifying the view that language is both a biological and cultural phenomenon.
Different languages, it seems, have a universal substructure, certainly in grammar and
vocabulary and perhaps also in phonology, and a non-universal superstructure that not only builds itself
about such substructure, but it is completely integrated with it.

Universal substructure: determined by cognitive faculties, genetically transmitted by

human impulses and appetites, genetically determined; and partly by the interaction of these factors
cognitive and non-cognitive, biologically determined, like the physical world.
Non-universal superstructure: a question of cultural transmission.

Translation is a function of the degree of cultural Juxtaposition.

The most obvious linguistic consequences of cultural diffusion have already been mentioned: borrowing and
translation by borrowing. Despite the translation problems of some terms such as the term 'sophia',
the author insists on stating that translation is relative to the purpose for which a certain translation is made
planned, as well as the knowledge on the part of those who will use it. This is why the
literal translation is sometimes more appropriate than free translation. The author defines literal translation
like the type of translation that does not adjust to the differences in symbolism and metaphor in the two languages.

It concludes by affirming that all languages are equally suitable for all purposes of
communication, despite linguists' own opinions on the subject.

**************************************************************************************