The Linguistic Facts of Life
Universal Language Acquisition and Innateness
All around the world, very young children acquire a first language through the same stages at about the same ages.
A child born on the same day in different places will mirror the same developmental stages regardless of language modality (spoken vs Sign Language).
Noam Chomsky’s proposal (early foundational idea): human language is hard-wired in the brain; there is an innate capacity to acquire language with data-handling or hypothesis-formulating abilities of unknown character and complexity.
The brain uses a developmental blueprint for language, which environmental data help fill and adapt to form a mother tongue.
FOXP2 gene: identified through studies of a multigenerational family with severe speech and language disorders; notable as a genetic contribution to the language faculty and a starting point for future molecular studies of language and evolution, not a single “grammar gene.”
FOXP2 is a piece of the broader neurobiological basis for language, not a sole determinant.
The core argument here emphasizes universal human language capacity, while acknowledging that the primary focus in the study is American English; the larger issues apply to all languages.
The content requires familiarity with basic universal facts about structure and function of human language to understand broader sociolinguistic issues.
Language study involves reconciling intuitive beliefs with linguistic evidence; some findings may seem counter-intuitive at first, and the field faces obstacles when presenting them.
Contextual note: Some quotes and references anchor the discussion in broader debates about justice, discourse, and social order (e.g., Anatole France) to frame the social dimensions of language study.
The Linguistic Facts of Life: Core Assertions
All spoken language changes over time (in sound, word structure, syntax, semantics).
Only moribund, dead languages are static.
This is an observable, not a faith-based claim; supported by observation, experimentation, and deduction.
All languages are equal in linguistic potential.
The idea that one language is inherently superior to another is not a valid scientific stance; language flexibility allows rapid adaptation to new needs and technologies.
Grammaticality and communicative effectiveness are distinct and independent issues.
An utterance can be grammatical by rule-governed structure yet be poor or powerful in its communicative impact depending on context, intent, and social meaning.
The author uses these principles as foundational facts that shape subsequent discussion of variation, standardization, and ideology.
Variation, Change, and the Sociolinguistic Perspective
Linguists are not a monolithic club; there are rivalries and diverse methods (syntacticians, cognitive grammarians, sociolinguists, variationists, phoneticians, historical linguists).
Despite differences, there is broad agreement on key facts:
All living languages change; none is fixed eternally.
All languages are equal in their potential to convey meaning and function.
The study of language as a social construct requires attention to attitudes, performance, and perception, not just abstract rules.
Shifts in focus from analyst-centered to participant-centered approaches reflect growing recognition that language attitudes and social perception affect variation and change (Dennis Preston’s work).
The Everyday Language of White Racism and related critical perspectives emphasize that collective cultural dynamics and attitudes influence language policy and practice, not just individual beliefs.
Foundational statements for the course:
All spoken languages change over time. ext{All living languages change}.
All spoken languages are equal in linguistic potential. ext{Equality of linguistic potential}.
Grammaticality and communicative effectiveness are distinct. ext{Grammaticality}
eq ext{Effectiveness}.
Written vs Spoken Language; Variation as Embodiment of Social Meaning
Written language and spoken language are fundamentally different in history, structure, and function.
Variation is intrinsic to all spoken language at every level (phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics).
Variation serves emblematic social purposes (indexing identity, stance, group membership).
The book foregrounds attitudes toward variation in American English (AE) and shows how those attitudes influence policy and practice with real consequences.
A key concept: social attitudes toward language matter as much as linguistic rules in shaping social outcomes and power dynamics.
The Everyday Language of White Racism (Hill, 2008) is cited to illustrate the collective, cultural dimensions of language ideology and its social consequences.
Language History, Standardization, and Ideology
Language change is continuous; the history of English is shaped by ideology and power relations.
Language standardization (e.g., spelling, grammar) is historically tied to printing, education, and institutional authority.
The rise of a standardized written language was driven by the business need to market texts consistently; it was institutionalized by educators and clerks who taught and enforced norms.
Written language has been cultivated as a commodity with authority; this has reinforced the primacy of written norms in many domains, even as spoken language remains primary in everyday life.
The history of English is often narrated from the perspective of dominant groups (“histories are written by the winners”); this can obscure the variation and social realities of broader communities.
Crystal’s The Stories of English is highlighted as a remedy to overly narrow histories by examining language in its full variation and stratification.
The idea that all languages and dialects are equal in expressive potential is challenged only by arguments based on practical and sociopolitical considerations, not on pure linguistics.
All Languages Equal in Potential; Pronouns and Sentence Variation
All spoken varieties of a language are equally capable of conveying ideas and meeting communicative needs; no single variety has a monopoly on expressivity or efficiency.
English is flexible and responsive to social and technological changes; new vocabulary and grammatical strategies emerge as needed (e.g., terms for scientific and technological concepts).
The notion of an idealized Standard American English (SAE) is often debated; prescriptivist views may claim standard forms are rigid, but real-world usage demonstrates that variation and adaptability exist across regions and social groups.
Pronoun systems and social address reflect cross-language differences:
English often lacks a formal impersonal third singular pronoun; options like he/ she/ they are used with varying acceptability.
Singular they has historical usage and is increasingly accepted in many varieties, despite some authorities opposing it (e.g., Chicago Manual of Style).
Regional and social variants (you/you guys; you/youse; ya’ll; you/yousns) illustrate how speakers maneuver pronouns to signal solidarity or distance.
The key lesson: Standard language ideology does not fix all linguistic gaps; speakers employ strategy and context to convey meaning and social stance.
Grammaticality vs Communicative Effectiveness; The Taxicab Maxim
Grammaticality: a linguist’s concept based on rule-governed structures of a native grammar; often demonstrated through native speaker judgments and pseudodata like Colorless Green Ideas Sleep Furiously.
The Layperson’s notion of correctness often hinges on social acceptability and clarity rather than strict grammar rules.
Pinker’s Taxicab Maxim (adapted): a taxicab must obey the laws of physics but can flout the laws of a jurisdiction; i.e., language must be grammatically possible, but it can violate prescriptive norms in everyday use if it remains understandable.
Table 1.1: Grammaticality judgments can diverge between linguists and laypeople for certain sentences (e.g., Colorless green ideas sleep furiously is grammatical; some forms like "That house needs painted" are judged differently by laypeople vs. linguists depending on the context).
Example lines (illustrative):
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously → linguist: Yes; layperson: Yes
Furiously sleep ideas green colorless → linguist: No; layperson: No
That house needs painted → linguist: Yes; layperson: Yes
I seen it yesterday when I got home → linguist: Yes; layperson: Yes
My daughter is taller than me → linguist: Yes; layperson: Yes
Dr. Hallahan might could give you a call → linguist: Yes; layperson: Yes
Significance: Grammaticality is not a direct predictor of communicative success; context, intent, and social meaning determine effectiveness.
Examples show that everyday speakers routinely produce nonstandard forms that are fully understandable and communicatively effective within a social context.
Singular They and Other Pronoun Strategies in Real Use
The singular they is increasingly established in practice, despite prescriptive objections.
Examples include: "A person can’t help their birth."; "Whoever it is, I won’t see them tonight."; biblical attestations (King James Bible) demonstrate long-standing use.
Critics (e.g., certain authorities) label singular they as a recent or unhappy development, but its usage is well attested historically.
Speakers manage gender and number in pronouns through various strategies:
You/you guys; you/youse; ya’ll; you folks/people/chaps/fellows/kids; other lexical variants to maintain social meaning without gendered ambiguity.
The broader point: Standardization attempts to enforce a fixed pronoun system clash with the realities of diverse social varieties and pragmatic needs of signaling social relations.
Language, Education, and the Social Consequences of Prescriptivism
Grammaticality versus prescriptive norms: prescriptivists may challenge usage, but the meaning usually remains clear in everyday speech.
A variety of English can be perfectly grammatical and communicatively effective even when it violates prescriptive norms.
The difference between structural grammar (linguistic competence) and socially construed grammar (norms about where and when to use forms) is central to understanding language attitudes.
The Chomskian demonstration (1957) of agrammatical vs. grammatical status shows that some forms are clearly ungrammatical, while many everyday forms fall into a gray area of acceptability.
Rhetoric and persuasion have historically been taught through the Trivium (grammar, logic, rhetoric), illustrating that language’s social function extends beyond mere correctness to effectiveness and persuasion.
By examining social responses to language choices (e.g., corrections in public spaces), we see that social authority about language often overrides linguistic rules in shaping behavior.
The role of language authorities (dictionaries, usage guides, style manuals) is contested; dictionaries are not the ultimate arbiters of correctness, and their authority can be questioned.
Media coverage of politicians’ language use often reflects normative judgments about language style rather than content or policy.
The phenomenon of language authority is tied to religious or political institutions in some contexts (e.g., references to King’s English and authority figures such as Charles or Cranmer), illustrating how language norms become part of broader power structures.
Written vs Spoken Language: The Literacy Myth and the Disciplining of Discourse
Written language is historically recent in the grand arc of human history; literacy is a social resource with unequal access.
The rise of writing systems and standardized orthography was driven by practical needs and commercial considerations, not purely by linguistic necessity.
The primacy of written language is reinforced by education systems, dictionaries, and publishing, creating a perceived hierarchy that places written form above spoken language in importance.
The discipline of discourse (Foucault) explains how power relations determine who has the right to talk and be heard; the act of standardizing language is part of broader social control.
Milroy and Milroy argue that training is often biased toward written language, with insufficient attention to spoken language as a living social activity.
The literacy myth (Gee) posits that literacy automatically yields higher cognition, critical thinking, and social equity; this is a contested claim, and the relationship between literacy and cognitive outcomes is complex.
The tension between spoken and written forms leads to a “disconnection” where written norms are treated as if they were the sole standard for all communication, even though writing often serves different social functions than speech.
The difference between speaking and writing is not just a matter of presentation; they are different activities serving different purposes, which has implications for education and policy.
Variation, Social Context, and Language Ideology
Variation is not merely error; it is a resource that speakers use to negotiate identity, social relations, and group membership.
Language variation arises from three main sources:
Language-internal pressures (production and perception limitations)
External influences (geography, mobility, social networks, normative pressures)
Language as a creative vehicle for expression (stylistic and rhetorical variation)
These forces often operate together during language change.
Language communities show regional and social stratification (e.g., dialects within the same language). Examples include: Chicago, Boston, and regional variants within the U.S.; French-speaking pockets in the U.S. (Figure 1.1 shows French at home in 2007).
Variation is also tied to neurological and physiological universals of speech production and perception; the human vocal tract provides a common set of possibilities, while language-specific systems select among sounds.
The author stresses that linguists are outnumbered by prescriptivists and are often limited to academic settings, while prescriptivists wield greater public influence.
By the end of the chapter, readers should be able to answer: Are you comfortable with institutional practices that enforce ‘proper English,’ and what can you do as an individual to resist injustice?
Practical Connections: Real-World Implications and Exercises
Sociolinguistic variation influences policy decisions in education, law, and governance; attitudes toward language can perpetuate social injustice.
The book invites readers to explore resources such as the Speech Accent Archive to compare varieties and reflect on representativeness.
Discussion questions and exercises at the end of the chapter encourage critical reflection on language attitudes, norms, and social consequences, and suggest empirical activities (e.g., interviewing strangers about judgments on usage).
The concluding message emphasizes that language ideology shapes social outcomes; resistances and changes in language policy require critical engagement with both linguistic data and social context.
Notes on Key People, Concepts, and References
Chomsky (1959): Universal grammar and innate language faculty; data-handling capacity in language development.
FOXP2: The gene associated with language abilities; highlighted as a starting point for future genetic studies, not a sole determinant of language.
Dennis Preston (1993): Work on attitudes toward language and social variation; framing of participant-oriented vs analyst-centric approaches.
Anatole France quote (contextual framing of justice and social order).
Hill (2008): The Everyday Language of White Racism; link between attitudes to language and social power.
Milroy & Milroy (1999): Commentary on the emphasis on spoken language vs written language in education.
Crystal (2005): The Stories of English; argument for examining language in all its variation and stratification.
Pinker (1994) Taxicab Maxim concept; contrast between physical laws and social norms.
Chomsky (1957): Colorless Green Ideas Sleep Furiously; classic demonstration of grammaticality vs semantic meaningfulness.
Bernstein (1966) and Gee (2007): Discussions of literacy, codes, and the impact of literacy on thought and social positioning.
The discussion of singular they: historical usage and evolving acceptance across varieties and authorities.
The role of Caxton, printers, and early standardization efforts in shaping written norms.
The “circle of intimidation” (Cameron 1995) and other critical perspectives on language and power.
Quick Reference: Core Comparisons and Key Distinctions
Universal language acquisition vs. specific language systems:
Innateness vs. data-driven learning
Change and equality in languages:
All languages change; all varieties are equal in potential
Grammaticality vs. communicative effectiveness:
Grammar rules vs. real-world meaning, context, and social impact
Written vs. spoken language:
Historical development, standardization, authority, and social functions differ
Variation and ideology:
Variation is a resource; ideology can shape policy and practice
Literacy myths and social consequences:
Access to literacy as a social resource; debates about cognitive and democratic benefits
Pronouns and social signaling:
Singular they as evidence of pragmatic and social adaptation vs. prescriptive norms
Language authority and policy:
Dictionaries, style guides, and national/cultural authorities shape what counts as “proper English,” often reflecting power structures rather than purely linguistic correctness
Suggested Reflections for Exam Preparation
How do innateness and universal stages of language development interact with cultural and environmental factors in shaping a child’s language?
In what ways do attitudes toward language influence language policy in education, law, and public discourse?
How can we distinguish grammaticality from communicative effectiveness in everyday speech, and what are the implications for teaching English as a second language?
Why is it important to recognize variation as a social resource rather than merely a mistake, and how can this understanding inform more equitable language practices?
How do historical standardization efforts (e.g., Caxton, printers, and educators) impact contemporary views of “proper English,” and what are the ethical implications of enforcing standard forms?
Discuss the role of literacy in social inequality and whether literacy necessarily translates into improved thinking or social outcomes.
Examine the debates around singular they and gendered pronouns in terms of linguistic adaptability and social inclusivity.
Notes: The above notes synthesize the major and minor points from the provided transcript, incorporating key quotes, examples, and references to support exam preparation in sociolinguistics and language ideology. For deeper study, consult the referenced works cited in the transcript (e.g., Crystal 2005; Hill 2008; Milroy & Milroy 1999; Chomsky 1957, 1959; Gee 2007a) and explore the Discussion Questions and Exercises at the end of the chapter.