Linguistics Response Paper

Dear Readers,

Here's a response paper I did for my linguistics class. Lately I've been wondering about the usefulness of a lot of the stuff I'm learning in graduate school. I question the value of studying literature and linguistics in graduate school at all. I feel like maybe it's time for me to move on, to read on my own and write on my own and become an independent scholar or become a high school English teacher. But... uh... when I wrote my response paper for my linguistics class, I wanted to write something that was meaningful to me, something that applied to my life and something that I could take with me after the semester is over. I wanted to get at the root of why I'm learning what I'm learning, how learning the phoenetic alphabet will be helpful to me. Anyway, here's the paper.

Language Universals

One of the more interesting parts to me in the textbook was found on pages 215 to 216, under the heading, “Why Uncover Universals?”

I have often thought that studying language is interesting because language is a uniquely human behavior. Both animals and humans eat, drink, have brains (or some kind of central nervous system), reproduce, gather into groups, etc., but only humans use language. What else separates us from the animals? Well, my mother in law would say, while looking in a body-length mirror and trying on several pairs of pastel-colored bracelets, “Humans know how to accessorize.” But all joking aside, there’s not much else besides language that separates humans from animals.
So… if language the most prominent uniquely human behavior, then the study of language is basically the study of humanity, right? We can discover what it is to be human by studying linguistics… hmmm…. sort of.

Finegan explains the value of uncovering language universals this way, “The study of language universals offers a glimpse of the cognitive and social foundations of human language, about which so little is known.” My response is, “Maybe the study of language universals’ does offer us a glimpse of the ‘coginitive and social foundations of human lanugae,’ but only a glimpse, not a long stare.” And just what does Finegan mean, exactly, by “the cognitive and social foundations of human language”? Does Finegan mean the origin of humanity? Is he talking about cavemen clubbing women and hunting wooly mammoths? Maybe. But maybe Finegan is talking about human brains and human society in general.

By the way, my gut tells me that there are better ways than studying language universals to learn about human brains and human society. For example, I think we could learn more about human brains and human society through the study of theatre, religion, or literature. I find it very curious to attempt to understand the mysterious inner-workings of human brains and human societies through the study of language universals. A catechism I have just invented will show what I mean:

A Catechism on the Usefulness of Uncovering Language Universals

Q: What does the language universal, “All languages have vowels and consonants,” say about humanity?

A: Nothing really.

Q: What does the language universal, “All languages have at least three vowels,” say about humanity?

A: Nothing really.

Q: What does the language universal “All languages have predicate-like things and subject-like things,” say about humanity?

A: Nothing really.

I suppose you could say that the language universal, “All languages have predicate-like things and subject-like things,” says that all humans are able to separate things from other things in their mind, and that humans are able to identify things that act and things that are acted upon. But that inference is a logical argument, and not an inference from scientific evidence. Just like Finegan says, “More often than not, explanations for language universals as symptoms of cognitive or social factors rely on logical arguments rather than solid scientific proof.”

To drive the point home, Finegan also wisely writes, “Caution must also be exercised in drawing inferences from language universals. These universal principles help explain why language is species-specific, but there is a big step between uncovering a universal and explaining it in terms of human cognitive and social abilities.”

In the chapter on language universals and typology, Finegan doesn’t try to make inferences based on language universals, he just lists a bunch of things that all languages have in common. Still though, an irresistible question nags linguists, a question that we can’t seem to put away: “What do these language universals mean?” Finegan recounts some of the theoretical answers to this question towards the back of chapter 7, in an interesting section headed, “Explanations for Language Universals,” in which a few theoretical inferences are made about language universals. But none of the explanations are factual, they’re based on logical arguments, basically.

The moral of this response is: What do language universals say about humanity? Nothing really, but they sure are neat!

THE END