From Bharatpedia, an open encyclopedia
Information red.svg
Scan the QR code to donate via UPI
Dear reader, We need your support to keep the flame of knowledge burning bright! Our hosting server bill is due on June 1st, and without your help, Bharatpedia faces the risk of shutdown. We've come a long way together in exploring and celebrating our rich heritage. Now, let's unite to ensure Bharatpedia continues to be a beacon of knowledge for generations to come. Every contribution, big or small, makes a difference. Together, let's preserve and share the essence of Bharat.

Thank you for being part of the Bharatpedia family!
Please scan the QR code on the right click here to donate.



transparency: ₹0 raised out of ₹100,000 (0 supporter)


Linguistics is the scientific study of language.[1][2] The modern-day scientific study of linguistics takes all aspects of language into account[3] — i.e., the cognitive, the social, the cultural, the psychological, the environmental, the biological, the literary, the grammatical, the paleographical, and the structural.[4]

Linguistics is based on a theoretical as well as descriptive study of language, and is also interlinked with the applied fields of language studies and language learning, which entails the study of specific languages. Before the 20th century, linguistics evolved in an informal manner that did not employ scientific methods.[3]

Modern linguistics is considered to be an applied science as well as an academic field of general study within the humanities and social sciences.[5] Traditional areas of linguistic analysis correspond to syntax (rules governing the structure of sentences), semantics (meaning), morphology (structure of words), phonetics (speech sounds and equivalent gestures in sign languages), phonology (the abstract sound system of a particular language), and pragmatics (how social context contributes to meaning).[6] Subdisciplines such as biolinguistics (the study of the biological variables and evolution of language) and psycholinguistics (the study of psychological factors in human language) bridge many of these divisions.[7]

Linguistics encompasses many branches and subfields that span both theoretical and practical applications.[5] Theoretical linguistics (including traditional descriptive linguistics) is concerned with understanding the universal and fundamental nature of language and developing a general theoretical framework for describing it.[8] Applied linguistics seeks to utilise the scientific findings of the study of language for practical purposes, such as developing methods of improving language education and literacy.[9]

Linguistic features may be studied through a variety of perspectives: synchronically (by describing the shifts in a language at a certain specific point of time) or diachronically (through the historical development of language over several periods of time), in monolinguals or in multilinguals, amongst children or amongst adults, in terms of how it is being learned or how it was acquired, as abstract objects or as cognitive structures, through written texts or through oral elicitation, and finally through mechanical data collection or through practical fieldwork.[10]

Linguistics emerged from the non-scientific[3] field of philology, and both are now variably described as related fields, subdisciplines, or the latter[clarification needed] to have been[clarification needed] superseded by linguistics altogether.[11] Linguistics is also related to the philosophy of language, stylistics, rhetoric, semiotics, lexicography, and translation.

Major subdisciplines

Swiss linguistician Ferdinand de Saussure is regarded as the creator of semiotics

Historical linguistics

Historical linguistics is the study of how language changes in history, particularly with regard to a specific language or a group of languages. Western trends in historical linguistics date back to roughly the late 18th century, when the discipline grew out of philology, the study of ancient texts and oral traditions.[12]

Historical linguistics emerged as one of the first few sub-disciplines in the field, and was most widely practised during the late 19th century.[13] Despite a shift in focus in the 20th century towards formalism and generative grammar, which studies the universal properties of language, historical research today still remains a significant field of linguistic inquiry. Subfields of the discipline include language change and grammaticalisation.[14]

Historical linguistics studies language change either diachronically (through a comparison of different time periods in the past and present) or in a synchronic manner (by observing developments between different variations that exist within the current linguistic stage of a language).[15]

At first, historical linguistics was the cornerstone of comparative linguistics, which involves a study of the relationship between different languages.[16] At that time, scholars of historical linguistics were only concerned with creating different categories of language families, and reconstructing prehistoric proto-languages by using both the comparative method and the method of internal reconstruction. Internal reconstruction is the method by which an element that contains a certain meaning is re-used in different contexts or environments where there is a variation in either sound or analogy.[16][better source needed]

The reason for this had been to describe well-known Indo-European languages, many of which had long written histories. Scholars of historical linguistics also studied Uralic languages, another European language family for which very little written material existed back then. After that, there also followed significant work on the corpora of other languages, such as the Austronesian languages and the Native American language families.

The above approach of comparativism in linguistics is now, however, only a small part of the much broader discipline called historical linguistics. The comparative study of specific Indo-European languages is considered a highly specialised field today, while comparative research is carried out over the subsequent internal developments in a language: in particular, over the development of modern standard varieties of languages, and over the development of a language from its standardized form to its varieties.[15]

For instance, some scholars also tried to establish super-families, linking, for example, Indo-European, Uralic, and other language families to Nostratic.[17] While these attempts are still not widely accepted as credible methods, they provide necessary information to establish relatedness in language change. This is generally hard to find for events long ago, due to the occurrence of chance word resemblances and variations between language groups. A limit of around 10,000 years is often assumed for the functional purpose of conducting research.[18] It is also hard to date various proto-languages. Even though several methods are available, these languages can be dated only approximately.[19]

Today, with a subsequent re-development of grammatical studies, historical linguistics studies the change in language on a relational basis[clarification needed] between dialect to dialect during one period, as well as between those in the past and the present period, and looks at morphological, syntactical, and phonetical evolution and shifts.[20]

Syntax and morphology

Major levels of linguistic structure

Syntax and morphology are branches of linguistics concerned with the order and structure of meaningful linguistic units such as words and morphemes. Syntacticians study the rules and constraints that govern how speakers of a language can organize words into sentences. Morphologists study similar rules for the order of morphemes—sub-word units such as prefixes and suffixes—and how they may be combined to form words.[20]

Words, along with clitics, are generally accepted as being the smallest units of syntax. But in most languages, if not all, many words can be related to other words by rules that collectively describe the grammar for that language. For example, English speakers recognize that the words dog and dogs are closely related, differentiated only by the plurality morpheme "-s", only found bound to noun phrases. Speakers of English recognize these relations from their innate knowledge of the English language's rules of word formation. They infer intuitively that dog is to dogs as cat is to cats; and, in similar fashion, dog is to dog catcher as dish is to dishwasher. By contrast, Classical Chinese has very little morphology, using almost exclusively unbound morphemes ("free" morphemes) and depending on word order to convey meaning. (Most words in modern Standard Chinese ["Mandarin"], however, are compounds and most roots are bound.) These are understood as grammars that represent the morphology of the language. The rules understood by a speaker reflect specific patterns or regularities in the way words are formed from smaller units in the language they are using, and how those smaller units interact in speech. In this way, morphology is the branch of linguistics that studies patterns of word formation within and across languages and attempts to formulate rules that model the knowledge of the speakers of those languages.[21]

Changes in sound and spelling between a base word and its origin[clarification needed] may be partial to[clarification needed] literacy skills. Studies show that the presence of modification in phonology and orthography makes morphologically complex words harder to understand and that the absence of modification between a base word and its origin makes morphologically complex words easier to understand. Morphologically complex words are easier to comprehend when they include a base word.[22]

Polysynthetic languages, such as Chukchi, have words composed of many morphemes. The Chukchi word "təmeyŋəlevtpəγtərkən", for example, meaning "I have a fierce headache", is composed of eight morphemes t-ə-meyŋ-ə-levt-pəγt-ə-rkən that may be glossed. The morphology of such languages allows for each consonant and vowel to be understood as morphemes, while the grammar of the language indicates the usage and understanding of each morpheme.[citation needed]

The discipline that deals specifically with the sound changes occurring within morphemes is morphophonology.[23]

Semantics and pragmatics

Semantics and pragmatics are branches of linguistics concerned with meaning. These subfields have traditionally been divided according to aspects of meaning: "semantics" refers to grammatical and lexical meanings, while "pragmatics" is concerned with meaning in context. The framework of formal semantics studies the denotations[clarification needed] of sentences and how they are composed from the meanings of their constituent expressions. Formal semantics draws heavily on philosophy of language and uses formal tools from logic and computer science. Cognitive semantics ties linguistic meaning to general aspects of cognition, drawing on ideas from cognitive science such as prototype theory.

Pragmatics includes features like speech acts, implicature, and talk in interaction.[24] Unlike semantics, which examines meaning that is conventional or "coded" in a given language, pragmatics studies how the transmission of meaning depends not only on the structural and linguistic knowledge (grammar, lexicon, etc.) of the speaker and listener, but also on the context of the utterance,[25] any pre-existing knowledge about those involved, the inferred intent of the speaker, and other factors.[26] In that respect, pragmatics explains how language users can overcome apparent ambiguity since meaning relies on the manner, place, time, etc. of an utterance.[24][27]

Phonetics and phonology

Phonetics and phonology are branches of linguistics concerned with sounds (or the equivalent aspects of sign languages). Phonetics is largely concerned with the physical aspects of sounds such as their articulation, acoustics, production, and perception. Phonology is concerned with the linguistic abstractions and categorizations of sounds, and it tells us what sounds are in a language, how they do and can combine into words, and explains why certain phonetic features are important to identifying a word.[28]


Page 'Linguistic typology' not found

Language varieties

Languages exist on a wide continuum of conventionalization with blurry divisions between concepts such as dialects and languages. Languages can undergo internal changes which lead to the development of subvarieties such as linguistic registers, Accents, and dialects. Similarly, languages can undergo changes caused by contact with speakers of other languages, and new language varieties may be born from these contact situations through the process of language genesis.

Contact varieties

Contact varieties such as pidgins and creoles are language varieties that often arise in situations of sustained contact between communities that speak different languages. Pidgins are language varieties with limited conventionalization where ideas are conveyed through simplified grammars that may grow more complex as linguistic contact continues. Creole languages are language varieties similar to pidgins but with greater conventionalization and stability. As children grow up in contact situations, they may learn a local pidgin as their native language. Through this process of acquisition and transmission, new grammatical features and lexical items are created and introduced to fill gaps in the pidgin eventually developing into a complete language.

Not all language contact situations result in the development of a pidgin or creole, and researchers have studied the features of contact situations that make contact varieties more likely to develop. Often these varieties arise in situations of colonization and enslavement, where power imbalances prevent the contact groups from learning the other's language but sustained contact is nevertheless maintained. The subjugated language in the power relationship is the substrate language, while the dominant language serves as the superstrate. Often the words and lexicon of a contact variety come from the superstrate, making it the lexifier, while grammatical structures come from the substrate, but this is not always the case.[29]


A dialect is a variety of language that is characteristic of a particular group among the language's speakers.[30] The group of people who are the speakers of a dialect are usually bound to each other by social identity. This is what differentiates a dialect from a register or a discourse, where in the latter case, cultural identity does not always play a role. Dialects are speech varieties that have their own grammatical and phonological rules, linguistic features, and stylistic aspects, but have not been given an official status as a language. Dialects often move on to gain the status of a language due to political and social reasons. Other times, dialects remain marginalized, particularly when they are associated with marginalized social groups.[31][page needed] Differentiation amongst dialects (and subsequently, languages) is based upon the use of grammatical rules, syntactic rules, and stylistic features, though not always on lexical use or vocabulary. The popular saying that "a language is a dialect with an army and navy" is attributed as a definition formulated by Max Weinreich.

We may as individuals be rather fond of our own dialect. This should not make us think, though, that it is actually any better than any other dialect. Dialects are not good or bad, nice or nasty, right or wrong – they are just different from one another, and it is the mark of a civilised society that it tolerates different dialects just as it tolerates different races, religions and sexes.[32]

Standard language

When a dialect is documented sufficiently through the linguistic description of its grammar, which has emerged through the consensual laws from within its community, it gains political and national recognition through a country or region's policies. That is the stage when a language is considered a standard variety, one whose grammatical laws have now stabilised from within the consent of speech community participants, after sufficient evolution, improvisation, correction, and growth.[33][34] The English language, besides perhaps the French language, may be examples of languages that have arrived at a stage where they are said to have become standard varieties.[35]


As constructed popularly through the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, relativists believe that the structure of a particular language is capable of influencing the cognitive patterns through which a person shapes his or her world view. Universalists believe that there are commonalities between human perception as there is in the human capacity for language, while relativists believe that this varies from language to language and person to person. While the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis is an elaboration of this idea expressed through the writings of American linguists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, it was Sapir's student Harry Hoijer who termed it thus. The 20th century German linguist Leo Weisgerber also wrote extensively about the theory of relativity. Relativists argue for the case of differentiation at the level of cognition and in semantic domains. The emergence of cognitive linguistics in the 1980s also revived an interest in linguistic relativity. Thinkers like George Lakoff have argued that language reflects different cultural metaphors, while the French philosopher of language Jacques Derrida's writings, especially about deconstruction,[36] have been seen to be closely associated with the relativist movement in linguistics, for which he was heavily criticized in the media at the time of his death.[37]


Linguistic structures are pairings of meaning and form. Any particular pairing of meaning and form is a Saussurean linguistic sign. For instance, the meaning "cat" is represented worldwide with a wide variety of different sound patterns (in oral languages), movements of the hands and face (in sign languages), and written symbols (in written languages). Linguistic patterns have proven their importance for the knowledge engineering field especially with the ever-increasing amount of available data.

Linguists focusing on structure attempt to understand the rules regarding language use that native speakers know (not always consciously). All linguistic structures can be broken down into component parts that are combined according to (sub)conscious rules, over multiple levels of analysis. For instance, consider the structure of the word "tenth" on two different levels of analysis. On the level of internal word structure (known as morphology), the word "tenth" is made up of one linguistic form indicating a number and another form indicating ordinality. The rule governing the combination of these forms ensures that the ordinality marker "th" follows the number "ten." On the level of sound structure (known as phonology), structural analysis shows that the "n" sound in "tenth" is made differently from the "n" sound in "ten" spoken alone. Although most speakers of English are consciously aware of the rules governing internal structure of the word pieces of "tenth", they are less often aware of the rule governing its sound structure. Linguists focused on structure find and analyze rules such as these, which govern how native speakers use language.


Grammar is a system of rules which governs the production and use of utterances in a given language. These rules apply to sound[38] as well as meaning, and include componential subsets of rules, such as those pertaining to phonology (the organisation of phonetic sound systems), morphology (the formation and composition of words), and syntax (the formation and composition of phrases and sentences).[6] Modern frameworks that deal with the principles of grammar include structural and functional linguistics, and generative linguistics.[39]

Sub-fields that focus on a grammatical study of language include the following:

  • Phonetics, the study of the physical properties of speech sound production and perception, and delves into their acoustic and articulatory properties
  • Phonology, the study of sounds as abstract elements in the speaker's mind that distinguish meaning (phonemes)
  • Morphology, the study of morphemes, or the internal structures of words and how they can be modified
  • Syntax, the study of how words combine to form grammatical phrases and sentences
  • Semantics, the study of lexical and grammatical aspects of meaning[40]
  • Pragmatics, the study of how utterances are used in communicative acts, and the role played by situational context and non-linguistic knowledge in the transmission of meaning[40]
  • Discourse analysis, the analysis of language use in texts (spoken, written, or signed)
  • Stylistics, the study of linguistic factors (rhetoric, diction, stress) that place a discourse in context
  • Semiotics, the study of signs and sign processes (semiosis), indication, designation, likeness, analogy, metaphor, symbolism, signification, and communication


Discourse is language as social practice (Baynham, 1995) and is a multilayered concept. As a social practice, discourse embodies different ideologies through written and spoken texts. Discourse analysis can examine or expose these ideologies. Discourse influences genre, which is chosen in response to different situations and finally, at micro level, discourse influences language as text (spoken or written) at the phonological or lexico-grammatical level. Grammar and discourse are linked as parts of a system.[41] A particular discourse becomes a language variety when it is used in this way for a particular purpose, and is referred to as a register.[42] There may be certain lexical additions (new words) that are brought into play because of the expertise of the community of people within a certain domain of specialization. Registers and discourses therefore differentiate themselves through the use of vocabulary, and at times through the use of style too. People in the medical fraternity, for example, may use some medical terminology in their communication that is specialized to the field of medicine. This is often referred to as being part of the "medical discourse", and so on.


The lexicon is a catalogue of words and terms that are stored in a speaker's mind. The lexicon consists of words and bound morphemes, which are parts of words that can not stand alone, like affixes. In some analyses, compound words and certain classes of idiomatic expressions and other collocations are also considered to be part of the lexicon. Dictionaries represent attempts at listing, in alphabetical order, the lexicon of a given language; usually, however, bound morphemes are not included. Lexicography, closely linked with the domain of semantics, is the science of mapping the words into an encyclopedia or a dictionary. The creation and addition of new words (into the lexicon) is called coining or neologization,[43] and the new words are called neologisms.

It is often believed that a speaker's capacity for language lies in the quantity of words stored in the lexicon. However, this is often considered a myth by linguists. The capacity for the use of language is considered by many linguists to lie primarily in the domain of grammar, and to be linked with competence, rather than with the growth of vocabulary. Even a very small lexicon is theoretically capable of producing an infinite number of sentences.


Stylistics also involves the study of written, signed, or spoken discourse through varying speech communities, genres, and editorial or narrative formats in the mass media.[44] It involves the study and interpretation of texts for aspects of their linguistic and tonal style. Stylistic analysis entails the analysis of description of particular dialects and registers used by speech communities. Stylistic features include rhetoric,[45] diction, stress, satire, irony, dialogue, and other forms of phonetic variations. Stylistic analysis can also include the study of language in canonical works of literature, popular fiction, news, advertisements, and other forms of communication in popular culture as well. It is usually seen as a variation in communication that changes from speaker to speaker and community to community. In short, Stylistics is the interpretation of text.

In the 1960s, Jacques Derrida, for instance, further distinguished between speech and writing, by proposing that written language be studied as a linguistic medium of communication in itself.[46] Palaeography is therefore the discipline that studies the evolution of written scripts (as signs and symbols) in language.[47] The formal study of language also led to the growth of fields like psycholinguistics, which explores the representation and function of language in the mind; neurolinguistics, which studies language processing in the brain; biolinguistics, which studies the biology and evolution of language; and language acquisition, which investigates how children and adults acquire the knowledge of one or more languages.



The fundamental principle of humanistic linguistics is that language is an invention created by people. A semiotic tradition of linguistic research considers language a sign system which arises from the interaction of meaning and form.[48] The organisation of linguistic levels is considered computational.[49] Linguistics is essentially seen as relating to social and cultural studies because different languages are shaped in social interaction by the speech community.[50] Frameworks representing the humanistic view of language include structural linguistics, among others.[51]

Structural analysis means dissecting each linguistic level: phonetic, morphological, syntactic, and discourse, to the smallest units. These are collected into inventories (e.g. phoneme, morpheme, lexical classes, phrase types) to study their interconnectedness within a hierarchy of structures and layers.[52] Functional analysis adds to structural analysis the assignment of semantic and other functional roles that each unit may have. For example, a noun phrase may function as the subject or object of the sentence; or the agent or patient.[53]

Functional linguistics, or functional grammar, is a branch of structural linguistics. In the humanistic reference, the terms structuralism and functionalism are related to their meaning in other human sciences. The difference between formal and functional structuralism lies in the way that the two approaches explain why languages have the properties they have. Functional explanation entails the idea that language is a tool for communication, or that communication is the primary function of language. Linguistic forms are consequently explained by an appeal to their functional value, or usefulness. Other structuralist approaches take the perspective that form follows from the inner mechanisms of the bilateral and multilayered language system.[54]


Approaches such as cognitive linguistics and generative grammar study linguistic cognition with a view towards uncovering the biological underpinnings of language. In Generative Grammar, these underpinning are understood as including innate domain-specific grammatical knowledge. Thus, one of the central concerns of the approach is to discover what aspects of linguistic knowledge are innate and which are not.[55][56]

Cognitive Linguistics, in contrast, rejects the notion of innate grammar, and studies how the human mind creates linguistic constructions from event schemas,[57] and the impact of cognitive constraints and biases on human language.[58] In cognitive linguistics, language is approached via the senses.[59][60]

A closely related approach is evolutionary linguistics[61] which includes the study of linguistic units as cultural replicators.[62][63] It is possible to study how language replicates and adapts to the mind of the individual or the speech community.[64][65] Construction grammar is a framework which applies the meme concept to the study of syntax.[66][67][68][69]

The generative versus evolutionary approach are sometimes called formalism and functionalism, respectively.[70] This reference is however different from the use of the terms in human sciences.[71]


Modern linguistics is primarily descriptive.[72] Linguists describe and explain features of language without making subjective judgments on whether a particular feature or usage is "good" or "bad". This is analogous to practice in other sciences: a zoologist studies the animal kingdom without making subjective judgments on whether a particular species is "better" or "worse" than another.[73]

Prescription, on the other hand, is an attempt to promote particular linguistic usages over others, often favouring a particular dialect or "acrolect". This may have the aim of establishing a linguistic standard, which can aid communication over large geographical areas. It may also, however, be an attempt by speakers of one language or dialect to exert influence over speakers of other languages or dialects (see Linguistic imperialism). An extreme version of prescriptivism can be found among censors, who attempt to eradicate words and structures that they consider to be destructive to society. Prescription, however, may be practised appropriately in language instruction, like in ELT, where certain fundamental grammatical rules and lexical items need to be introduced to a second-language speaker who is attempting to acquire the language.[citation needed]


Most contemporary linguists work under the assumption that spoken data and signed data are more fundamental than written data. This is because

  • Speech appears to be universal to all human beings capable of producing and perceiving it, while there have been many cultures and speech communities that lack written communication;
  • Features appear in speech which are not always recorded in writing, including phonological rules, sound changes, and speech errors;
  • All natural writing systems reflect a spoken language (or potentially a signed one), even with pictographic scripts like Dongba writing Naxi homophones with the same pictogram, and text in writing systems used for two languages changing to fit the spoken language being recorded;
  • Speech evolved before human beings invented writing;
  • Individuals learn to speak and process spoken language more easily and earlier than they do with writing.

Nonetheless, linguists agree that the study of written language can be worthwhile and valuable. For research that relies on corpus linguistics and computational linguistics, written language is often much more convenient for processing large amounts of linguistic data. Large corpora of spoken language are difficult to create and hard to find, and are typically transcribed and written. In addition, linguists have turned to text-based discourse occurring in various formats of computer-mediated communication as a viable site for linguistic inquiry.

The study of writing systems themselves, graphemics, is, in any case, considered a branch of linguistics.


Before the 20th century, linguists analysed language on a diachronic plane, which was historical in focus. This meant that they would compare linguistic features and try to analyse language from the point of view of how it had changed between then and later. However, with the rise of Saussurean linguistics in the 20th century, the focus shifted to a more synchronic approach, where the study was geared towards analysis and comparison between different language variations, which existed at the same given point of time.

At another level, the syntagmatic plane of linguistic analysis entails the comparison between the way words are sequenced, within the syntax of a sentence. For example, the article "the" is followed by a noun, because of the syntagmatic relation between the words. The paradigmatic plane, on the other hand, focuses on an analysis that is based on the paradigms or concepts that are embedded in a given text. In this case, words of the same type or class may be replaced in the text with each other to achieve the same conceptual understanding.


The earliest activities in the description of language have been attributed to the 6th-century-BC Indian grammarian Pāṇini[74][75] who wrote a formal description of the Sanskrit language in his Aṣṭādhyāyī.[76][77] Today, modern-day theories on grammar employ many of the principles that were laid down then.[78]


Before the 20th century, the term philology, first attested in 1716,[79] was commonly used to refer to the study of language, which was then predominantly historical in focus.[80][81] Since Ferdinand de Saussure's insistence on the importance of synchronic analysis, however, this focus has shifted[81] and the term philology is now generally used for the "study of a language's grammar, history, and literary tradition", especially in the United States[82] (where philology has never been very popularly considered as the "science of language").[79]

Although the term linguist in the sense of "a student of language" dates from 1641,[83] the term linguistics is first attested in 1847.[83] It is now the usual term in English for the scientific study of language,[citation needed] though linguistic science is sometimes used.

Linguistics is a multi-disciplinary field of research that combines tools from natural sciences, social sciences, formal sciences, and the humanities.[84][85][86][87] Many linguists, such as David Crystal, conceptualize the field as being primarily scientific.[88] The term linguist applies to someone who studies language or is a researcher within the field, or to someone who uses the tools of the discipline to describe and analyse specific languages.[89]

Early grammarians

An early formal study of language was in India with Pāṇini, the 6th century BC grammarian who formulated 3,959 rules of Sanskrit morphology. Pāṇini's systematic classification of the sounds of Sanskrit into consonants and vowels, and word classes, such as nouns and verbs, was the first known instance of its kind. In the Middle East, Sibawayh, a Persian, made a detailed description of Arabic in AD 760 in his monumental work, Al-kitab fii an-naħw (الكتاب في النحو, The Book on Grammar), the first known author to distinguish between sounds and phonemes (sounds as units of a linguistic system). Western interest in the study of languages began somewhat later than in the East,[90] but the grammarians of the classical languages did not use the same methods or reach the same conclusions as their contemporaries in the Indic world. Early interest in language in the West was a part of philosophy, not of grammatical description. The first insights into semantic theory were made by Plato in his Cratylus dialogue, where he argues that words denote concepts that are eternal and exist in the world of ideas. This work is the first to use the word etymology to describe the history of a word's meaning. Around 280 BC, one of Alexander the Great's successors founded a university (see Musaeum) in Alexandria, where a school of philologists studied the ancient texts in Greek, and taught Greek to speakers of other languages. While this school was the first to use the word "grammar" in its modern sense, Plato had used the word in its original meaning as "téchnē grammatikḗ" (Template:Script/Greek), the "art of writing", which is also the title of one of the most important works of the Alexandrine school by Dionysius Thrax.[91] Throughout the Middle Ages, the study of language was subsumed under the topic of philology, the study of ancient languages and texts, practised by such educators as Roger Ascham, Wolfgang Ratke, and John Amos Comenius.[92]

Comparative philology

In the 18th century, the first use of the comparative method by William Jones sparked the rise of comparative linguistics.[93] Bloomfield attributes "the first great scientific linguistic work of the world" to Jacob Grimm, who wrote Deutsche Grammatik.[94] It was soon followed by other authors writing similar comparative studies on other language groups of Europe. The study of language was broadened from Indo-European to language in general by Wilhelm von Humboldt, of whom Bloomfield asserts:[94]

This study received its foundation at the hands of the Prussian statesman and scholar Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835), especially in the first volume of his work on Kavi, the literary language of Java, entitled Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluß auf die geistige Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechts (On the Variety of the Structure of Human Language and its Influence upon the Mental Development of the Human Race).

20th-century developments

There was a shift of focus from historical and comparative linguistics to synchronic analysis in early 20th century. Structural analysis was improved by Leonard Bloomfield, Louis Hjelmslev; and Zellig Harris who also developed methods of discourse analysis. Functional analysis was developed by the Prague linguistic circle and André Martinet. As sound recording devices became commonplace in the 1960s, dialectal recordings were made and archived, and the audio-lingual method provided a technological solution to foreign language learning. The 1960s also saw a new rise of comparative linguistics: the study of language universals in linguistic typology. Towards the end of the century the field of linguistics became divided into further areas of interest with the advent of language technology and digitalised corpora.[citation needed]

Areas of research


Sociolinguistics is the study of how language is shaped by social factors. This sub-discipline focuses on the synchronic approach of linguistics, and looks at how a language in general, or a set of languages, display variation and varieties at a given point in time. The study of language variation and the different varieties of language through dialects, registers, and idiolects can be tackled through a study of style, as well as through analysis of discourse. Sociolinguists research both style and discourse in language, as well as the theoretical factors that are at play between language and society.

Developmental linguistics

Developmental linguistics is the study of the development of linguistic ability in individuals, particularly the acquisition of language in childhood. Some of the questions that developmental linguistics looks into are how children acquire different languages, how adults can acquire a second language, and what the process of language acquisition is.


Neurolinguistics is the study of the structures in the human brain that underlie grammar and communication. Researchers are drawn to the field from a variety of backgrounds, bringing along a variety of experimental techniques as well as widely varying theoretical perspectives. Much work in neurolinguistics is informed by models in psycholinguistics and theoretical linguistics, and is focused on investigating how the brain can implement the processes that theoretical and psycholinguistics propose are necessary in producing and comprehending language. Neurolinguists study the physiological mechanisms by which the brain processes information related to language, and evaluate linguistic and psycholinguistic theories, using aphasiology, brain imaging, electrophysiology, and computer modelling. Amongst the structures of the brain involved in the mechanisms of neurolinguistics, the cerebellum which contains the highest numbers of neurons has a major role in terms of predictions required to produce language.[95]

Applied linguistics

Linguists are largely concerned with finding and describing the generalities and varieties both within particular languages and among all languages. Applied linguistics takes the results of those findings and "applies" them to other areas. Linguistic research is commonly applied to areas such as language education, lexicography, translation, language planning, which involves governmental policy implementation related to language use, and natural language processing. "Applied linguistics" has been argued to be something of a misnomer.[96] Applied linguists actually focus on making sense of and engineering solutions for real-world linguistic problems, and not literally "applying" existing technical knowledge from linguistics. Moreover, they commonly apply technical knowledge from multiple sources, such as sociology (e.g., conversation analysis) and anthropology. (Constructed language fits under Applied linguistics.)

Today, computers are widely used in many areas of applied linguistics. Speech synthesis and speech recognition use phonetic and phonemic knowledge to provide voice interfaces to computers. Applications of computational linguistics in machine translation, computer-assisted translation, and natural language processing are areas of applied linguistics that have come to the forefront. Their influence has had an effect on theories of syntax and semantics, as modelling syntactic and semantic theories on computers constraints.

Linguistic analysis is a sub-discipline of applied linguistics used by many governments to verify the claimed nationality of people seeking asylum who do not hold the necessary documentation to prove their claim.[97] This often takes the form of an interview by personnel in an immigration department. Depending on the country, this interview is conducted either in the asylum seeker's native language through an interpreter or in an international lingua franca like English.[97] Australia uses the former method, while Germany employs the latter; the Netherlands uses either method depending on the languages involved.[97] Tape recordings of the interview then undergo language analysis, which can be done either by private contractors or within a department of the government. In this analysis, linguistic features of the asylum seeker are used by analysts to make a determination about the speaker's nationality. The reported findings of the linguistic analysis can play a critical role in the government's decision on the refugee status of the asylum seeker.[97]

Language documentation

Language documentation combines anthropological inquiry (into the history and culture of language) with linguistic inquiry, in order to describe languages and their grammars. Lexicography involves the documentation of words that form a vocabulary. Such a documentation of a linguistic vocabulary from a particular language is usually compiled in a dictionary. Computational linguistics is concerned with the statistical or rule-based modeling of natural language from a computational perspective. Specific knowledge of language is applied by speakers during the act of translation and interpretation, as well as in language education – the teaching of a second or foreign language. Policy makers work with governments to implement new plans in education and teaching which are based on linguistic research.

Since the inception of the discipline of linguistics, linguists have been concerned with describing and analysing previously undocumented languages. Starting with Franz Boas in the early 1900s, this became the main focus of American linguistics until the rise of formal linguistics in the mid-20th century. This focus on language documentation was partly motivated by a concern to document the rapidly disappearing languages of indigenous peoples. The ethnographic dimension of the Boasian approach to language description played a role in the development of disciplines such as sociolinguistics, anthropological linguistics, and linguistic anthropology, which investigate the relations between language, culture, and society.

The emphasis on linguistic description and documentation has also gained prominence outside North America, with the documentation of rapidly dying indigenous languages becoming a focus in some university programmes in linguistics. Language description is a work-intensive endeavour, usually requiring years of field work in the language concerned, so as to equip the linguist to write a sufficiently accurate reference grammar. Further, the task of documentation requires the linguist to collect a substantial corpus in the language in question, consisting of texts and recordings, both sound and video, which can be stored in an accessible format within open repositories, and used for further research.[98]


The sub-field of translation includes the translation of written and spoken texts across media, from digital to print and spoken. To translate literally means to transmute the meaning from one language into another. Translators are often employed by organizations such as travel agencies and governmental embassies to facilitate communication between two speakers who do not know each other's language. Translators are also employed to work within computational linguistics setups like Google Translate, which is an automated program to translate words and phrases between any two or more given languages. Translation is also conducted by publishing houses, which convert works of writing from one language to another in order to reach varied audiences. Academic translators specialize in or are familiar with various other disciplines such as technology, science, law, economics, etc.

Clinical linguistics

Clinical linguistics is the application of linguistic theory to the field of speech-language pathology. Speech language pathologists work on corrective measures to treat communication and swallowing disorders.

Chaika (1990) showed that people with schizophrenia who display speech disorders like rhyming inappropriately have attentional dysfunction, as when a patient was shown a color chip and then asked to identify it, responded "looks like clay. Sounds like gray. Take you for a roll in the hay. Heyday, May Day." The color chip was actually clay-colored, so his first response was correct.'

However, most people suppress or ignore words which rhyme with what they've said unless they are deliberately producing a pun, poem or rap. Even then, the speaker shows connection between words chosen for rhyme and an overall meaning in discourse. People with schizophrenia with speech dysfunction show no such relation between rhyme and reason. Some even produce stretches of gibberish combined with recognizable words.[99]

Computational linguistics

Computational linguistics is the study of linguistic issues in a way that is "computationally responsible", i.e., taking careful note of computational consideration of algorithmic specification and computational complexity, so that the linguistic theories devised can be shown to exhibit certain desirable computational properties and their implementations. Computational linguists also work on computer language and software development.

Evolutionary linguistics

Evolutionary linguistics is a sociobiological approach to analyzing the emergence of the language faculty through human evolution, and also the application of evolutionary theory to the study of cultural evolution among different languages. It is also a study of the dispersal of various languages across the globe, through movements among ancient communities.[100]

Forensic linguistics

Forensic linguistics is the application of linguistic analysis to forensics. Forensic analysis investigates the style, language, lexical use, and other linguistic and grammatical features used in the legal context to provide evidence in courts of law. Forensic linguists have also used their expertise in the framework of criminal cases.

See also


  1. Halliday, Michael A.K.; Jonathan Webster (2006). On Language and Linguistics. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. vii. ISBN 978-0-8264-8824-4.
  2. "What is Linguistics? | Linguistic Society of America". Archived from the original on 8 February 2022. Retrieved 8 February 2022.
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 Crystal, David (1981). Clinical linguistics. Wien: Springer-Verlag. p. 3. ISBN 978-3-7091-4001-7. OCLC 610496980. What are the implications of the term "science" encountered in the definition on p. 1? Four aims of the scientific approach to language, often cited in introductory works on the subject, are comprehensiveness, objectivity, systematicness and precision. The contrast is usually drawn with the essentially non-scientific approach of traditional language studies—by which is meant the whole history of ideas about language from Plato and Aristotle down to the nineteenth century study of language history (comparative philology).
  4. "Concepts, origin, and Noam Chomsky's contribution to linguistics | Britannica". Archived from the original on 1 April 2022. Retrieved 1 April 2022.
  5. 5.0 5.1 "Studying Linguistics | Linguistic Society of America". Archived from the original on 8 March 2022. Retrieved 1 April 2022.
  6. 6.0 6.1 Adrian Akmajian; Richard A. Demers; Ann K. Farmer; Robert M. Harnish (2010). Linguistics (6th ed.). The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-51370-8. Archived from the original on 14 December 2012. Retrieved 25 July 2012.
  7. "Linguistics Program – Linguistics Program | University of South Carolina". Archived from the original on 6 June 2022. Retrieved 3 June 2022.
  8. "Theoretical Linguistics". Archived from the original on 10 February 2023. Retrieved 3 June 2022.
  9. "The Fields of Applied Linguistics". Archived from the original on 21 May 2022. Retrieved 3 June 2022.
  10. Francis, Alexandre (27 September 2013). Theory in Social and Cultural Anthropology: An Encyclopedia. SAGE Publishing. pp. 184–187. ISBN 978-1412999632.
  11. "Philosophy of Linguistics". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. 2022. Archived from the original on 14 December 2022. Retrieved 3 June 2022.
  12. Campbell, Lyle (1998). Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. p. 391. ISBN 978-0-7486-4601-2.
  13. "The Idea System of the Early Comparative Grammarians." Amsterdamska, Olga (1987). Schools of Thought: The Development of Linguistics from Bopp to Saussure. Springer, Dordrecht. pp. 32–62. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-3759-8_2. ISBN 978-94-009-3759-8. Archived from the original on 15 April 2021. Retrieved 12 December 2020.
  14. Kosur, Heather Marie (27 April 2013). "Subfields of Linguistics Defined: Phonetics, Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics". LinguisticsGirl.
  15. 15.0 15.1 "Modern Science – Linguistics". The History of Creativity. Archived from the original on 3 October 2022. Retrieved 3 June 2022.
  16. 16.0 16.1 "Editors' Introduction: Foundations of the new historical linguistics." In. The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics Routledge p. 25.
  17. Quiles, Carlos (29 December 2019). "Early Uralic – Indo-European contacts within Europe". Archived from the original on 7 July 2022. Retrieved 10 June 2022.
  18. Baldi, Philip (2012). "Historical Linguistics and Cognitive Science" (PDF). Rheis, International Journal of Linguistics, Philology and Literature. 3 (1): 5–27. Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 July 2022. p. 11.
  19. "History of Historical Linguistics Essay on History, Linguistics". Essay Examples. 11 August 2019. Archived from the original on 2 October 2022. Retrieved 10 June 2022.
  20. 20.0 20.1 Fábregas, Antonio (January 2005). "The definition of the grammatical category in a syntactically oriented morphology". Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma. Archived from the original on 10 February 2023. Retrieved 10 June 2022.
  21. Tamesis, Dante. "Morphology". Archived from the original on 10 February 2023. Retrieved 10 June 2022.
  22. Wilson-Fowler, E.B.; Apel, K. (2015). "Influence of Morphological Awareness on College Students' Literacy Skills: A path Analytic Approach". Journal of Literacy Research. 47 (3): 405–32. doi:10.1177/1086296x15619730. S2CID 142149285.
  23. Emmanuel, Ortese. "In linguistics". Archived from the original on 10 February 2023. Retrieved 10 June 2022.
  24. 24.0 24.1 Mey, Jacob L. (1993) Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell (2nd ed. 2001).
  25. "Meaning (Semantics and Pragmatics) | Linguistic Society of America". Archived from the original on 24 September 2017. Retrieved 25 August 2017.
  26. Shaozhong, Liu. "What is pragmatics?". Archived from the original on 7 March 2009. Retrieved 18 March 2009.
  27. "What Is Pragmatics?". ThoughtCo. Archived from the original on 14 October 2017. Retrieved 11 July 2017.
  28. Szczegielniak, Adam, Introduction to Linguistic Theory – Phonology: The Sound Patterns of Language (PDF), Harvard University, archived (PDF) from the original on 22 March 2023, retrieved 11 May 2023
  29. Selbach, Rachel (2008). "The superstrate is not always the lexifier: Lingua Franca in the Barbary Coast 1530—1830". In Michaelis, Susanne (ed.). Roots of creole structures: Weighing the contribution of substrates and superstrates. Creole Language Library. Vol. 33.
  30. "Help". Oxford English Dictionary. Archived from the original on 7 April 2020. Retrieved 16 March 2021.
  31. Lippi-Green, Rosina (2012). English with an accent: Language, ideology and discrimination in the United States. Routledge.
  32. Trudgill, P. (1994). Dialects. Ebooks Online Routledge. Florence, KY.
  33. Fishman, Joshua (1967). "Fishman's (1967) Concept of Diglossia". Universität Osnabrück. Archived from the original on 10 May 2023. Retrieved 10 May 2023.
  34. Joseph, John (18 October 2009). "The engineering of a standard language". Mult. 3 (2): 87–92. doi:10.1515/mult.1984.3.2.87. S2CID 143983506. Retrieved 10 May 2023.
  35. A. Fishman, Joshua (April 1982). "Sociolinguistic Foundations of Bilingual Education". Bilingual Review / La Revista Bilingüe. 9 (1): 1–35. JSTOR 25743987. Archived from the original on 10 May 2023. Retrieved 10 May 2023.
  36. Derrida, Jacques (1978). Writing and Difference. Translated by Alan Bass. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-14329-3.
  37. Lea, Richard (18 November 2004). "Relative Thinking". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 25 September 2016. Retrieved 12 December 2016.
  38. All references in this article to the study of sound should be taken to include the manual and non-manual signs used in sign languages.
  39. Syntax: A Generative Introduction (2nd ed.), 2013. Andrew Carnie. Blackwell Publishing.
  40. 40.0 40.1 Chierchia, Gennaro & Sally McConnell-Ginet (2000). Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to Semantics. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. ISBN 978-0-262-53164-1.
  41. Ariel, Mira (2009). "Discourse, grammar, discourse". Discourse Studies. 11 (1): 5–36. doi:10.1177/1461445608098496. JSTOR 24049745. S2CID 62686879.
  42. Leckie-Tarry, Helen (1995). Language and Context: a Functional Linguistic Theory of Register, Continuum International Publishing Group, p. 6. ISBN 1-85567-272-3
  43. Zuckermann, Ghil'ad (2003). Language Contact and Lexical Enrichment in Israeli Hebrew. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 2ff. ISBN 978-1-4039-1723-2. Archived from the original on 27 August 2016. Retrieved 15 August 2016.
  44. ""Stylistics" by Joybrato Mukherjee. Chapter 49. Encyclopedia of Linguistics" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 October 2013. Retrieved 4 October 2013.
  45. Richards, I. A. (1965). The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Oxford University Press (New York).
  46. Derrida, Jacques (1967). Writing and Difference and Of Grammatology.
  47. Chapter 1, section 1.1 in Antonsen, Elmer H. (2002). Trends in Linguistics: Runes and Germanic Linguistics (6th ed.). Mouton de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-017462-5.
  48. Nöth, Winfried (1990). Handbook of Semiotics. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-20959-7.
  49. Hjelmslev, Louis (1969) [First published 1943]. Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 0-299-02470-9.
  50. de Saussure, Ferdinand (1959) [First published 1916]. Course in General Linguistics (PDF). New York: The Philosophical Library, Inc. ISBN 978-0-231-15727-8. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 August 2019.
  51. Austin, Patrik (2021). "Theory of language: a taxonomy". SN Social Sciences. 1 (3). doi:10.1007/s43545-021-00085-x.
  52. Schäfer, Roland (2016). Einführung in die grammatische Beschreibung des Deutschen (2nd ed.). Berlin: Language Science Press. ISBN 978-1-537504-95-7. Archived from the original on 28 July 2017. Retrieved 16 January 2020.
  53. Halliday, M. A. K.; Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed.) (PDF). London: Hodder. ISBN 0-340-76167-9. Archived (PDF) from the original on 3 March 2021. Retrieved 16 January 2020.
  54. Daneš, František (1987). "On Prague school functionalism in linguistics". In Dirven, R.; Fried, V. (eds.). Functionalism in Linguistics. John Benjamins. pp. 3–38. ISBN 978-90-272-1524-6.
  55. Everaert, Martin; Huybregts, Marinus A. C.; Chomsky, Noam; Berwick, Robert C.; Bolhuis, Johan J. (2015). "Structures, not strings: linguistics as part of the cognitive sciences". Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 19 (12): 729–743. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.09.008. hdl:1874/329610. PMID 26564247. S2CID 3648651. Archived from the original on 26 April 2021. Retrieved 5 January 2020.
  56. Chomsky, Noam (2015). The Minimalist Program (2nd ed.). MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-52734-7.
  57. Arbib, Michael A. (2015). "Language evolution – an emergentist perspective". In MacWhinney and O'Grady (ed.). Handbook of Language Emergence. Wiley. pp. 81–109. ISBN 978-1-118-34613-6.
  58. Tobin, Vera (2014). "Where do cognitive biases fit into cognitive linguistics?" (PDF). In Borkent (ed.). Language and the Creative Mind. Chicago University Press. pp. 347–363. ISBN 978-90-272-8643-7.[permanent dead link]
  59. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide (2002). "MIND-AS-BODY as a Cross-linguistic Conceptual Metaphor". Miscelánea. 25 (1): 93–119. Archived from the original on 27 April 2021. Retrieved 15 July 2020.
  60. Gibbs, R. W.; Colston, H. (1995). "The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations". Cognitive Linguistics. 6 (4): 347–378. doi:10.1515/cogl.1995.6.4.347. S2CID 144424435.
  61. Pleyer, Michael; Winters, James (2014). "Integrating cognitive linguistics and language evolution research". Theoria et Historia Scientiarum. 11: 19–44. doi:10.12775/ths-2014-002. Archived from the original on 9 March 2021. Retrieved 16 January 2020.
  62. Evans, Vyvyan; Green, Melanie (2006). Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction. Routledge. ISBN 0-7486-1831-7.
  63. Croft, William (2008). "Evolutionary linguistics" (PDF). Annual Review of Anthropology. 37: 219–234. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.37.081407.085156. Archived (PDF) from the original on 25 February 2021. Retrieved 16 January 2020.
  64. Cornish, Hanna; Tamariz, Monica; Kirby, Simon (2009). "Complex adaptive systems and the origins of adaptive structure: what experiments can tell us" (PDF). Language Learning. 59: 187–205. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00540.x. S2CID 56199987. Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 November 2020. Retrieved 16 January 2020.
  65. Sinnemäki, Kaius; Di Garbo, Francesca (2018). "Language Structures May Adapt to the Sociolinguistic Environment, but It Matters What and How You Count: A Typological Study of Verbal and Nominal Complexity". Frontiers in Psychology. 9: 187–205. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01141. PMC 6102949. PMID 30154738.
  66. Dahl, Östen (2001). "Grammaticalization and the life cycles of constructions". RASK – Internationalt Tidsskrift for Sprog og Kommunikation. 14: 91–134.
  67. Kirby, Simon (2013). "Transitions: the evolution of linguistic replicators". In Binder; Smith (eds.). The Language Phenomenon (PDF). The Frontiers Collection. Springer. pp. 121–138. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36086-2_6. ISBN 978-3-642-36085-5. Archived (PDF) from the original on 26 June 2021. Retrieved 4 March 2020.
  68. Zehentner, Eva (2019). Competition in Language Change: the Rise of the English Dative Alternation. De Gruyter Mouton. ISBN 978-3-11-063385-6.
  69. MacWhinney, Brian (2015). "Introduction – language emergence". In MacWhinney, Brian; O'Grady, William (eds.). Handbook of Language Emergence. Wiley. pp. 1–31. ISBN 978-1-118-34613-6.
  70. Nettle, Daniel (1999). "Functionalism and its difficulties in biology and linguistics". In Darnell (ed.). Functionalism and Formalism in linguistics, 1. Studies in Language Companion Series. Vol. 41. John Benjamins. pp. 445–468. doi:10.1075/slcs.41.21net. ISBN 978-1-55619-927-1.
  71. Croft, William (2015). "Functional Approaches to Grammar". International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Vol. 9 (2nd ed.). Elsevier. pp. 6323–6330. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.53009-8. ISBN 978-0-08-097087-5.
  72. Martinet, André (1960). Elements of General Linguistics. Studies in General Linguistics, vol. i. Translated by Elisabeth Palmer Rubbert. London: Faber. p. 15.
  73. "Linguistics | PDF | Lexicon | Linguistics". Archived from the original on 10 June 2022. Retrieved 10 June 2022.
  74. Rens Bod (2014). A New History of the Humanities: The Search for Principles and Patterns from Antiquity to the Present. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-966521-1.
  75. "Chapter VI: Sanskrit Literature". The Imperial Gazetteer of India. Vol. 2. 1908. p. 263.
  76. "Aṣṭādhyāyī 2.0". Archived from the original on 15 April 2021. Retrieved 27 February 2021.
  77. S.C. Vasu (Tr.) (1996). The Ashtadhyayi of Panini (2 Vols.). Vedic Books. ISBN 978-81-208-0409-8. Archived from the original on 27 March 2014. Retrieved 17 September 2012.
  78. Penn, Gerald; Kiparski, Paul. "On Panini and the Generative Capacity of Contextualised Replacement Systems" (PDF). Proceedings of COLING 2012: 943–950. Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 April 2021.
  79. 79.0 79.1 Harper, Douglas. "philology". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 5 March 2018.
  80. Nichols, Stephen G. (1990). "Introduction: Philology in a Manuscript Culture". Speculum. 65 (1): 1–10. doi:10.2307/2864468. JSTOR 2864468. S2CID 154631850.
  81. 81.0 81.1 McMahon, A.M.S. (1994). Understanding Language Change. Cambridge University Press. pp. 9, 19. ISBN 978-0-521-44665-5.
  82. Morpurgo Davies, A. (1998). Nineteenth-Century Linguistics. History of Linguistics. Vol. 4.
  83. 83.0 83.1 Harper, Douglas. "linguist". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 5 March 2018.
  84. Spolsky, Bernard; Hult, Francis M. (February 2010). The Handbook of Educational Linguistics. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-4443-3104-2.
  85. Berns, Margie (20 March 2010). Concise Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Elsevier. pp. 23–25. ISBN 978-0-08-096503-1.
  86. "The Science of Linguistics". Linguistic Society of America. Archived from the original on 17 April 2018. Retrieved 17 April 2018. Modern linguists approach their work with a scientific perspective, although they use methods that used to be thought of as solely an academic discipline of the humanities. Contrary to previous belief, linguistics is multidisciplinary. It overlaps each of the human sciences including psychology, neurology, anthropology, and sociology. Linguists conduct formal studies of sound structure, grammar and meaning, but they also investigate the history of language families, and research language acquisition.
  87. Behme, Christina; Neef, Martin. Essays on Linguistic Realism (2018). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp. 7–20
  88. Crystal, David (1990). Linguistics. Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-013531-2.
  89. "Linguist". The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 2000. ISBN 978-0-395-82517-4.
  90. Bloomfield 1983, p. 307.
  91. Seuren, Pieter A. M. (1998). Western linguistics: An historical introduction. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 2–24. ISBN 978-0-631-20891-4.
  92. Bloomfield 1983, p. 308.
  93. Bloomfield 1983, p. 310.
  94. 94.0 94.1 Bloomfield 1983, p. 311.
  95. Mariën, Peter; Manto, Mario (25 October 2017). "Cerebellum as a Master-Piece for Linguistic Predictability". Cerebellum (London, England). 17 (2): 101–03. doi:10.1007/s12311-017-0894-1. ISSN 1473-4230. PMID 29071518.
  96. Barbara Seidlhofer (2003). Controversies in Applied Linguistics (pp. 288). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-437444-6.
  97. 97.0 97.1 97.2 97.3 Eades, Diana (2005). "Applied Linguistics and Language Analysis in Asylum Seeker Cases" (PDF). Applied Linguistics. 26 (4): 503–26. doi:10.1093/applin/ami021. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 March 2009. Retrieved 31 January 2009.
  98. Himmelman, Nikolaus "Language documentation: What is it and what is it good for?" in P. Gippert, Jost, Nikolaus P Himmelmann & Ulrike Mosel. (2006) Essentials of Language documentation. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin & New York.
  99. Chaika, Elaine Ostrach. 1990. Understanding Psychotic Speech: Between Freud and Chomsky. Chas. Thomas Publishers.
  100. Croft, William (October 2008). "Evolutionary Linguistics". Annual Review of Anthropology. 37: 219–34. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.37.081407.085156.

General and cited references

External links

Template:Philosophy of language Template:Communication studies Template:Social sciences Template:Nonverbal communication