Skip to main content

What linguists know that other people don't.

Studying languages is a privilege. When you analyze language and everyday speech you realize that there is an astonishing amount of wonder in this system that we take for granted. Linguists questioned the obvious, which is language, and got answers that forever changed mankind’s understanding of Language and human nature. In this article, you will see what linguists know that is not so evident to other people. So let's see what we've got.

  • We all speak one language.

One of the main discoveries of modern linguistics is that it made us aware that all the languages we speak are similar in astonishing respects; they manifest the same pattern, follow the same rules, they are learnt in exactly the same way, and that all the differences are only superficial. So, in a sense we all speak the same language. This was captured by Chomsky in an excellent metaphor in an excellent book of his titled Language and Mind in which he says that if a Martian scientist, somebody with a different kind of intelligence, were to study the world's languages, he would conclude that they are all dialects of a single language embodying a "universal grammar" reflecting a hardwired, genetically determined linguistic module inherent in the human brain.  A great deal of theories complied a huge base of evidence from topologically different languages to show that this is indeed the case. I will mention, in passing, one of probably the main arguments used to prove this. Take a child that was born in China, and have him raised in Saudi Arabia and he'll grow up speaking Arabic. What does that say to you? It says that a human child is hardwired to learn any language and that all human languages, say Mandarin and Arabic in this case are fundamentally the same, if they weren't, the task of child to learn any language would be impossible. This has  massive implications, the greatest of which is that all the 7000 human languages have the same source and that every language spoken today evolved from the same great-great...great-grandmother tongue, the first language of homo sapiens. Another implication is that if a Martian would fly past our planet, he  would hear Japanese and Ojibwe like we hear British and American English.  This is an interesting line of thought, If you want to read more about it, I got a good book you could read. It's called Chomsky's Universal Grammar: An Introduction. Find it [here].

  • Language change is natural:

People so soften combat language change and are feared by it. Linguists know that natural language change is not bad for a language. Adopting loan words from other languages, losing inflection, cases, genders, articles and formerly distinct sounds...This happens in all languages and is nothing to worry about. For a linguist, it's an interesting phenomenon, worth analyzing. For some people it's proof for the demise of language, the end of civilized culture and the beginning of the dying of the proper language. But languages constantly change and this is certainly not how languages die.

Too many people fear language change. Many people think that if we don't attempt to regulate the "correct" way of speaking -- from spelling to pronunciation to word choice -- then we will all plunge into anarchy or some other misfortune. It's a sham. Language constantly evolves, and even those political/cultural elites who claim to use it "correctly" fail to do so themselves; this is why you find split infinitives in written opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court, for example. (And even those who fancy themselves guardians of The Correct Way of Speaking can't even agree on whether split infinitives are kosher). Societies rise and fall, but not because too many people started to say "ain't" when they should have said "isn't."

  • There are no bad grammars:

One of the things you know when you start studying languages is that you realize how stupid is the claim that says there are bad grammars. Linguists know that all dialects, even those considered "bad grammar" by many people, are as fully formed and rule-bound as any other language. Someone who uses Appalachian dialect or African American Vernacular English (to use two U.S. examples), is not simply ignorant of grammatical rules taught in school, or speaking "sloppily." They are following a different set of rules, which are consistent within their own dialect. Sometimes the linguistic complexity of languages associated with underprivileged societies and that we call bad grammars far exceeds that of modern and privileged societies. William Labov in fact analyzed African American Vernacular English and showed us that it is a beautiful language  with a sophisticated structure and has many features that Standard English lacks. Read more about this is Labov's own book titled Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. You can get it [here].


  • There are monolingual linguists: 

I don't know how to stress this further. Being a linguist does not equal being a polyglot. While it is true that linguists study all languages, this does not mean that they engage in learning them. They only study them to test certain hypotheses related to how language works.  Linguists know that there are monolingual linguists, there are even linguists who advise against learning languages. Seriously, people should stop using "linguist" and "polyglot" or "language lover" synonymously. The surest way to annoy a linguist is to ask: "so how many languages do you speak?" Read about what linguists do [here].

  • Language is fractal: 

Linguists know that you really can't fully describe any human language. It seems to be impossible to produce enough rules to fully describe any natural language. You always find that there are valid expressions that your rules forbid and invalid expressions that your rules permit. (That's what we mean when we say "all grammars leak.") Of course you can create new rules to cover those exceptions, but teams have spent decades at this without closing all the holes--despite creating tens of thousands of rules. This is one reason linguists have trouble taking grammar "prescriptivists" seriously; we know that no description of grammar small enough to fit in a single volume can be anything more than a set of guidelines.

  • Fucking insertion is systematic:

linguists know that the process of infixing fucking to emphasize a word is systematic. Fucking always goes before the primary stressed syllable in a word. Anything else sounds wrong:

fan-fucking-tàstic, not fantà-fucking-stic

abso-fucking-lùtely, not ab-fucking-solùtely

hippo-fucking-pòtamus, not hi-fucking-ppopòtamus or hippopò-fucking-tomus. 

Phila-fuckin-delphia and anything else is wrong.

  • Monoglots can become polyglots: 

Linguists know that everybody who speaks one language, can learn others, if they want to. The mathematics behind linguistics (e.g. Automata Theory and Chomsky's hierarchy of languages), indicate that an astonishing amount of intelligence is required to become a monoglot. The more we study computational linguistics and automata theory, the more we understand this.

The simplest theoretical machine that could accurately parse a human language and map to meanings, would be incredibly complex. Surprisingly, the amount of complexity one must add in order to parse a second language is almost negligible. In other words, there is no real difference in the intelligence necessary to become a monoglot or a polyglot.

Perceived differences in difficulty have more to do with learning as an adult vs. as a child (during the critical period), and with enjoyment of learning and willingness to work.

I'm sure linguists know so much more than can be said in a blog post. Linguists changed our perceptions about language, changed the way we regard minority languages, and most importantly linguists made us aware that no language is inferior. Join the bandwagon to recognize the efforts of linguists by subscribing by email and sharing the article. Thank you very much for reading. I will see you in my next article. 


  1. I'm a huge fan of uncle Noam, but let's say it: this article is soooooooo generativist-oriented, never relating to the fact that the UG is regularly proven wrong in some of its points by typological studies. You should have mentioned that, for the sake of intellectual honesty, at least.

    1. You're right, the author should mention it and yet you have to understand that it's a text for people who know absolutely nothing about linguistics. Do not confuse them anymore: P

    2. Hiya, I agree with you. I studied a unit in Linguistics and even in our class, they say that Chomsky is not entirely correct. There are points that UG cannot prove to be true.

  2. "Sometimes the linguistic complexity of languages associated with retarded societies and that we call bad grammars far exceeds that of modern and privileged societies."

    Which societies does the author refer to as "retarded societies" in the above passage and what does that even mean? I want to believe s/he wasn't implying that everyone who lives in a non-modern or non-privileged society is a "retard". A different word would have been more appropriate and "politically correct", as they say in the US.

    1. The word has stirred a lot of controversy and thus has been removed. Thank you for pointing that out!

  3. Thank you for this article! So plain language!

  4. The phenomenon described as "insertion" in the article has a specific name, in case anyone is interested: tmesis. Some good examples on the Wiki article:

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. Yes, and its more common term is infixing.

  5. The title is engaging, Chomsky's picture and citation make you read further, but in the end you end up asking yourself: "Wh-f*cking-at have I just read?". Some criticism above is fair, the article is far from being scientific. The usage of the terms is rather superficial, the tone is quite self-apologetic, and no conclusion is made at the end. I'd wish a more pleasant post-reading impression.

  6. Do you really think that "linguists made us aware that no language is inferior"? How about Esperanto then? Many linguists I met do think that Esperanto would not be a "real" language or not a living language. But this is just a conclusion, made because they are just not informed about the Esperanto speakers community. They do not know about Esperanto families and native speakers, about Esperanto literature, songs in Esperanto, wordplays, wikipedia, Esperanto in Google Translate or daily news from China, . If you don't know, you can't judge...

    It's really amazing how many linguists just produce anything but reasonable information about Esperanto. See the answers on linguist list about Esperanto, e. g. Larry Trask seems to think that Esperanto would not be "necessarily any easier than any other European language for a speaker of a non-European language". Not true at all, as the regularity of Esperanto is helpful for anyone who learns Esperanto. (The base can be learned in about a fourth of the time needed for most other languages.) And he is not at all informed about the living Esperanto language community... ("lack of a community of speakers", haha) :-|

    It's really impressing to read all the answers of different linguists about Esperanto there (Google search: Esperanto site: Some linguists know a lot about Esperanto, others are completely lost, but are quite confident in their knowledge...

  7. I am close to a know-nothing about linguistics. This article was very helpful. The comments were just as helpful, especially those about the iffiness of universal grammar (UG).

  8. I have an in-law who doesn't use past participles when he says sentences that use verbs in present perfect and past perfect tenses. He says things like "I haven't went there before." I have never heard anybody else talk this way, even among his own extended family. Amazingly, he is completely consistent in this.

    1. I have friends and colleagues in the south of the US who use the same (e.g. "haven't went"). It's true. They use it consistently. Aftering hearing it for some time, it sounds natural to me now.

  9. My ultimate goal is to study a master degree in linguistics in an other country rather Morocco.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What can you do with a degree in linguistics?

People so often assume that a linguist's job is to learn as many languages as possible, when in actuality it is not anything near that. So, let us put an end to this erroneous assumption once and for all. 
Linguists do not engage in learning languages, linguists engage in studying how language works. And when I say language, I mean human language, an umbrella term that subsumes all languages spoken by humans, including pidgins, creoles, and sign languages. Thanks to linguists the world is a better place now, many daunting problems that existed for centuries have been solved because now we have a better understanding of language and language-related issues. in this article, you will see, in full-length, the contributions of linguists to the modern world. And you are going to see that it's a disgrace to confine a linguist's job to just learning languages. 
Let me just give you some examples before we break things down in more detail. A linguist's job could involve explo…

8 books everyone into linguistics should read.

When you want to decide on what to read in language and linguistics, it is never easy to pick a reading list; there is just so many books out there under the label of linguistics, especially that publications in linguistics have been growing like wild fire in the last couple of decades. So with your limited time and the unlimited number of books, it is always wise to make some research beforehand on what exactly you want to read. There is a lot to choose from, and the best book will depend on what you are specifically interested in. This is why we, at The Language Nerds, compiled a list of linguistics books that will entertain the novice and the expert alike. Here are some places to start: 

1.The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker

This is a book for the general science readers, it is very accessible whether you have a background in linguistics or not. It is considered by many as a landmark in linguistics. It is a great introduction and primer to some of the more basic problems and que…