The Linguistic Facts of Life – Vocabulary Flashcards

The Linguistic Facts of Life

All living languages change over time across all subsystems: sounds (phonetics/phonology), morphology/lexicon, syntax, and semantics. Only moribund (dead) languages are static. This is an observable, verifiable fact, not a matter of opinion.
All languages are equal in linguistic potential; no language is inherently more capable of expressing ideas than another. When needs arise (e.g., new technology), languages adapt by creating or borrowing terms and structures.
Grammaticality and communicative effectiveness are distinct and independent concerns. A sentence can be grammatically well-formed yet poor in conveying a desired meaning, or conversely, be unacceptable in prescriptive grammar but perfectly effective in communication.
Written language and spoken language are fundamentally different in history, structure, and function. Written norms emerged for practical reasons (e.g., standardization, record-keeping) and carried social power, often at the expense of spoken variation.
Variation is intrinsic to all spoken language at every level and often serves emblematic or social purposes. Speakers draw on multiple variants and stylistic choices to signal identity, stance, and membership in a community.
The field recognizes a spectrum of linguists (syntacticians, cognitive grammarians, sociolinguists, variationists, phoneticians, historical linguists, etc.) who disagree on theory and emphasis, yet share some core facts about language (e.g., all living languages change; all varieties are equal in linguistic potential).
The book frames language as a social construct whose attitudes and beliefs influence policies and practices with real consequences. Critical theorists emphasize collective, cultural dimensions of language attitudes, not just individual beliefs.
The innate capacity for language: Noam Chomsky argued that children universally acquire comparable grammars quickly, suggesting a brain wired for language. This is framed as a universal, species-wide capacity rather than a learned skill alone. The FOXP2 gene has been identified as a contributor to language-related abilities, discovered through studies of a family with severe speech and language disorders; it is not a simple “grammar gene” but part of a broader molecular basis for language development. See Gopnik (1990); Vargha-Khadem and Liégeois (2007).
The big picture: to understand language, one must be familiar with universal facts about structure and function; these facts underpin debates about language change, standardization, social attitudes, and policy.

The Written vs. The Spoken Language

Written language and spoken language are historically, structurally, and functionally different creatures. Writing evolved to convey constellated information across time and space; speech is an immediate, social, interactive act embedded in context.
Variation is intrinsic to spoken language at every level, and much of that variation serves emblematic social purposes (e.g., signaling group membership, social meaning, or stance).
The discussion centers on American English (AE) but argues these issues are universal across languages and communities.
There is a deliberate distinction between individual beliefs about language and the social consequences of those beliefs; attitudes toward variation can drive policy and practice with real-world impact (e.g., education, law, work environments).
The introductory note about critical theory and the social life of language foregrounds the connection between language ideology and policy. Dennis Preston’s work is cited on attitudes toward language and their relevance to variation and change (speakers vs. analyst-centered perspectives).
Core linguistic facts highlighted:
- All spoken language changes over time.
- All language varieties are equal in linguistic potential.
- Grammaticality and communicative effectiveness are distinct concerns.

All Spoken Languages Change; All Varieties Are Equal

All living languages change over time in all subsystems; only languages without native speakers (moribund) are static. This applies across regions (Asia, North America, etc.).
Language change is a universal phenomenon; no language is exempt from change.
All spoken languages are equal in linguistic potential; no language is inherently more capable of expressing ideas than another, given the needs of its community. The book uses examples to illustrate how vocabularies expand or shift in response to technology and social needs.
This equivalence extends to variations within a language. Dialects and regional varieties (e.g., in the U.S.: Orange County, Northwest Chicago, Boston Southie, Smith’s Island) are equally competent for their communities’ purposes, even if some varieties are stigmatized.
The history of language is often written with a bias toward the dominant group; language histories reflect ideology as much as data. Crystal (The Stories of English) is cited as a counter-example that highlights language variation and stratification across communities.
The social diagnosis: prescriptivists often argue for a single “correct” form, but empirical linguistics shows extensive variation and adaptability across contexts.
The social and historical contexts shape language change and standards; standardization can act as a fossilizing force that suppresses variation to preserve a particular social order.

Social Life of Language: Ideology, Attitude, and Policy

Language attitudes influence policy and practice in schools, workplaces, and institutions; everyday beliefs about “proper English” can govern access and opportunity.
The Everyday Language of White Racism (Hill, 2008) is cited to illustrate how individual beliefs translate into collective, cultural structures that shape social outcomes.
Critical theory: focus shifts from individual prejudice to the cultural and institutional level, where language ideologies support or resist power structures.
The concept of a standard language ideology (SLI) is used to explain how formal norms become proxies for social status, authority, and legitimacy, even when variation is functionally adequate for communication.

Written Language, Standardization, and Authority

Written language has historically been standardized and commodified. Printing and literacy increased the social power of a standard form, controlled by clerks, educators, and institutions who teach and enforce norms.
The standardization project is not neutral: it privileges certain social groups and viewpoints, and suppresses variation associated with other groups.
The primacy of written language is a relatively modern cultural development; historically, speech is primary in everyday life, but education and policy have sometimes treated written language as the true or higher form of language.
The literacy myth (Gee; Bernstein) treats literacy as a universal ladder to social and cognitive advantages, a view that must be critically examined because literacy is not evenly distributed across populations. The belief that literacy automatically equates to superior thinking or social power is contested.
Bernstein’s restricted vs elaborated codes are discussed as a way of thinking about how home language variety interacts with literacy and formal education; literacy is not a universal amplifier of cognitive ability, but a social asset that interacts with cultural context.
The relationship between writing and speaking is not simply a matter of “same language, different medium.” Writing serves to decontextualize information over time and space, while speech conveys immediate social meaning through paralinguistic cues (tone, gesture, facial expression).

Variation, Social Identity, and Dialectal Difference

Variation is intrinsic to all spoken language at every level and is not merely a sign of incompetence; speakers deliberately navigate multiple variants to encode social meaning.
Three primary sources of variation:
1) Language-internal pressures from production and perception (phonetics/phonology constraints, motor control, etc.).
2) External influences from mobility, social behavior, and normative pressures.
3) Variation as a creative vehicle for expression and identity.
Variation across space includes communities that maintain language identities within insular groups (e.g., Amish, Mennonites; Mormons; Hassidic Jews). It also includes historical bilingual pockets (French in Michigan/Texas; French Creole in Louisiana).
The book uses Figure 1.1 (French and French Creole at home, 2007) to illustrate real-world geographic distribution of language varieties.
The neural and physiological bases of sound production provide a universal platform for variation, but the social meaning assigned to variations is determined by community norms and power relations.

The Singularity Problem: Singular They; Gender, Pronouns, and Pragmatic Flexibility

English lacks an impersonal third-person singular pronoun; speakers must rely on he/ she or alternatives to address gender-neutral references.
The use of they/them as singular pronouns is long-standing and widely used in practice, even if some authorities (Chicago Manual of Style) have regarded singular they as a recent development. Examples include historical usage in Jane Austen, Shakespeare, and Bible translations.
The standard language ideology often upholds a gendered or gender-neutral pronoun system that may feel awkward or insufficient in some contexts. regional and social varieties provide flexible strategies: you/you guys; you/youse; you’uns; ya’ll; you folks/people/kids, etc.
The argument is that a standardized form is not strictly required for clear communication; speakers can rely on discourse cues, context, and prosody to disambiguate reference even when a single grammatical form is not ideal.
The point is not to celebrate “bad grammar,” but to recognize that linguistic systems are adaptive and that standard forms are social constructs that may not align with functional communication in diverse communities.

Grammar and Communication: Grammaticality vs. Communicative Effectiveness

Grammaticality refers to whether a sentence can be generated by the grammar of a language; linguists distinguish between grammatical sentences and those that are ill-formed per prescriptive norms.
Examples illustrate the difference between linguists’ judgments and laypeople’s judgments:
- Colorless green ideas sleep furiously (grammatical; semantically odd).
- Furiously sleep ideas green colorless (ungrammatical).
- The pair of sentences that seem natural to laypeople but may be judged differently by linguists (e.g., "That house needs painted" vs. "That house needs to be painted").
The Taxicab Maxim (Pinker's illustration): a taxicab must obey the laws of physics, but it can flout the laws of a particular jurisdiction; i.e., grammar constrains but does not rigidly define acceptable language in all social contexts.
A key distinction is that grammar governs form, while communicative effectiveness concerns whether the message is clear, logical, concise, persuasive, and well-delivered. The evaluation of effectiveness involves content and delivery, not merely grammatical correctness.
Table 1.1 (Lippi-Green) demonstrates judgments of grammaticality by linguists versus laypeople on various sentences (e.g., Colorless green ideas sleep furiously; That house needs painted; I seen it yesterday; My daughter is taller than me; Dr. Hallahan might could give you a call; The data does not support your conclusion). The table shows that linguists and laypeople can agree or disagree on grammaticality and on communicative clarity, highlighting that grammaticality does not guarantee communicative success, and vice versa.

Language as Social Practice: Attitudes, Power, and Discourse

Language attitudes influence perception, evaluation, and social outcomes. Judges, educators, and media often critique speech for its conformity to SAE (Standard American English), even when the content is strong. This reflects social judgments about the speaker rather than the message’s quality.
The distinction between form and function is central: variations in how people speak may carry social meaning and identity signals (class, race, gender, region, etc.).
The social consequences discussed include how language standardization and ideology can reinforce inequality and power dynamics within society.
The discussion also covers how individuals realize pragmatic intent across contexts, relationships, and social stakes; the same sentence can convey very different meanings depending on context, tone, and delivery.

The Written Language: Disciplining Discourse and the Literacy Myth

Widespread literacy is a relatively recent development, tied to printing, schooling, and the social need to standardize written forms. Early printers faced decisions about which orthography to standardize, which created a powerful standard language that served as a social asset.
The written language norm can suppress variation and impose standard forms as benchmarks of legitimacy. Spoken language is often the primary focus of linguists because it is the primary vehicle of daily communication and social interaction.
The literacy myth posits that literacy is inherently linked to higher cognitive abilities and social advancement; this view is critiqued as not fully accounting for context, access, and cultural differences. Gee (literacy) critiques the idea that literacy alone guarantees social progress or cognitive advantage, highlighting the social construction of literacy as a resource.
Milroy and Milroy argue that education has traditionally focused on written language, often at the expense of spoken language, which remains crucial for everyday social interaction. This imbalance contributes to a gap between language research and classroom practice.
The discussion introduces Foucault’s concept of the disciplining of discourse: standards define who has the right to talk and be heard, shaping power relations within society.

The Directory of Language Variation and Social Identity

Variation is intrinsic to all spoken language and is not evidence of failure; it is a resource speakers use strategically.
Space and community: isolated, insular communities maintain language identities; bilingual pockets persist due to historical and cultural factors.
Phonetics/phonology: language production and perception constraints provide the underpinnings for variation, while social norms determine which variant is appropriate in a given context.

The FOXP2 Gene and Innateness of Language

The innateness claim: humans have an innate capacity for language, a blueprint-like capacity in the brain that enables rapid acquisition of complex grammars across children and languages.
FOXP2: identified as a gene linked to language capability through multi-generational studies of a family with severe speech and language disorders. It is not a single determinant “grammar gene,” but one piece of a broader genetic architecture that interacts with environmental input to support language development. See Gopnik (1990); Vargha-Khadem and Liégeois (2007).
The takeaway is not that language is purely genetic, but that biology provides a foundational substrate for language, which unfolds through data-driven interaction with environmental linguistic input.

Intersections with Real-World Questions and Ethics

The chapter invites readers to reflect on their comfort with institutional practices around ‘proper English’ and to recognize that what is taught in schools and enforced in workplaces carries social and ethical implications: access, opportunity, and prestige are tied to language norms.
Discussion prompts include evaluating whether linguistic “correctness” should be a gatekeeper for social participation, and how to navigate language norms in diverse, multilingual settings.

Discussion Questions, Exercises, and Suggested Readings

Browse Speech Accent Archive and compare speech samples from familiar regions; reflect on personal variation and representativeness.
Conduct a five-person survey asking why it’s considered wrong to say "I seen it yesterday when I got home" and compare answers.
Compare and contrast responses in class: similarities, differences, how gender or age might influence perceptions.
Relate the exercise to the taxicab maxim and consider how it applies to language judgments.
Explore the readings and suggested bibliography for deeper topics:
- The Stories of English (Crystal, 2005)
- Language change and language history (Aitchison, Crystal, etc.)
- Sociolinguistics (Alim, Eckert, Winford, Wolfram & Schilling-Estes)
- Milroy & Milroy on language and social identity
- Bernstein on restricted vs elaborated codes
- Gee on literacy myths and social implications

Key Terms and Concepts (glossary-style)

Grammaticality: Whether a sentence conforms to the syntactic rules of a language’s grammar. Distinct from message clarity or communicative success.
Communicative effectiveness: The extent to which a sentence/speech achieves its intended communicative goals (clarity, logic, conciseness, persuasiveness, delivery).
Standard Language Ideology (SLI): Belief that there is a single correct form of a language, against which all other varieties are judged as inferior or wrong.
Variation: Differences in language use across speakers, regions, social groups, and contexts; not random but often socially meaningful.
Literacy myth: The belief that literacy singularly drives cognitive development, social status, and political power; contested by scholars who emphasize contextual and cultural factors.
Disciplining of discourse (Foucault): The mechanisms by which societies regulate who may speak, what may be spoken, and where power is exercised through language.
FOXP2: A gene linked to language-related abilities; identified through studies of families with language disorders; part of the biological substrate for language, not a standalone determinant.
SAE (Standard American English): A prestige variety that often functions as a social gatekeeping reference in educational and professional contexts.

*Notes on sources and context:

The material draws on Rosina Lippi-Green, English with an Accent: Language, Ideology and Discrimination in the United States (2012), plus references to Chomsky (1959) on universal grammar, Pinker (1994) on the Taxicab Maxim, Hill (2008) on language and racism, and a broad range of sociolinguistic literature cited in the book (Milroy & Milroy, Gee, Bernstein, Crystal, etc.).

Quick Reference: Illustrative Examples Mentioned

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously — classic demonstration that grammatical structure does not guarantee semantic plausibility.
Furiously sleep ideas green colorless — ungrammatical.
Singular they usage with examples spanning historical and modern usage: A person can’t help their birth; Whoever it is, I won’t see them tonight; God send every one their heart’s desire!
Examples of regional pronoun strategies: you/you guys; you/youse; you’uns; ya’ll; you folks/people/kids.
The sentence “When hell freezes over” as a descriptive but non-concise response illustrating how content matters beyond grammar.
“Susie loudly announces ‘I gotta pee’” vs. standard corrections in social contexts; illustrate the tension between prescriptive norms and actual usage.

Summary of the Chapter’s Core Message

Language is a dynamic, social, and culturally embedded system. Change is constant; no language holds a monopoly on expressiveness.
The social life of language—attitudes, norms, and power relations—shapes how language is taught, evaluated, and governed.
Written language is not synonymous with spoken language; both serve different purposes and carry different social weights.
Prescriptivism and standardization can uphold social hierarchies by privileging certain forms over others; a critical view recognizes variation as a resource rather than a defect.
An informed approach to language studies should consider both linguistic structure and social context, including issues of race, class, gender, and power.