Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-lqwgf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-25T12:17:36.374Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What does the Public Think about Language Science?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Laura Wagner ,
Nikole D. Patson  and
Sumurye Awani
Laura Wagner*
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
Nikole D. Patson*
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
Sumurye Awani*
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
*
Wagner, 1835 Neil Ave, Columbus, OH 43210, [wagner.602@osu.edu]
[patson.3@osu.edu]
[awani.1@osu.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite the long tradition of using the scientific method to study language, there is a widespread, if largely anecdotally based, feeling among language scientists that the general public does not perceive language to be a classic object of scientific study. The goal of the current study was to investigate this notion. We report the results of three experiments conducted in informal science learning environments that: (i) confirm the public thinks of science and language as fundamentally different objects, and (ii) show there are some areas of language science that are more readily accepted as science than others. Our results also suggest that high-impact demonstrations of core linguistic phenomena may be used to encourage people to recognize that language can be, and often is, an object of scientific study. Although the public has an incomplete understanding of the study of language, we argue that the strong humanistic approach with which the public associates the study of language can be seen as an opportunity to broaden participation in science.

Keywords

informal sciencelanguage sciencepublic perception

Information

Type
Commentary
Information
Language , Volume 98 , Issue 4 , December 2022 , pp. e224 - e249
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

The authors would like to thank Nick Bednar, A'Niyah Brown, Evan Chuu, Kyra Freeman, Helena (Teta) Howe, Lilly Lin, and Tori Paxton for their assistance developing stimuli and collecting data. Thanks also go to Sue Allen, Cecile McKee, and Colin Phillips for their helpful suggestions. Finally, thanks go to the staff and visitors of the Columbus Center of Science and Industry, where these data were collected. This work was funded by NSF BCS Award #1823381.

References

American Academy of Arts & Sciences. 2015. The state of the humanities: Higher education 2015. Humanities Indicators. Online: https://www.amacad.org/sites/default/files/publication/downloads/HI_HigherEd2015.pdf.Google Scholar
Anderson, David, Storksdieck, Martin; and Spock, Michael. 2007. Understanding the long-term impacts of museum experiences. In principle, in practice: Museums as learning institutions, ed. by Falk, John H., Dierking, Lynn D., and Foutz, Susan, 197–215. Lanham, MD: AltaMira.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aud, Susan, Hussar, William, Planty, Michael, Snyder, Thomas, Bianco, Kevin, Fox, Mary Ann, Frohlich, Lauren, Drake, Lauren, Ferguson, Katie, Nachazel, Thomas; and Hannes, Gretchen. 2010. The condition of education 2010. (NCES 2010-028.) Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education. Online: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010028_1.pdf.Google Scholar
Baker, Nathan, Patson, Nikole; and Wagner, Laura. 2019. Informal learning in a museum setting: A case study with language science. Poster presented at the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD) Conference, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
Ballantyne, Roy, Packer, Jan; and Sutherland, Lucy A.. 2011. Visitors' memories of wildlife tourism: Implications for the design of powerful interpretive experiences. Tourism Management 32(4). 770–79. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2010.06.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, Nicoleta. 2019. Linguistics in middle school: Incorporating linguistics into project-based learning. Language 95(2). e300–e326. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2019.0046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Philip, Lewenstein, Bruce, Shouse, Andrew E.; and Feder, Michael A. (eds.) 2009. Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Bender, Emily M. 2013. Linguistic fundamentals for natural language processing: 100 essentials from morphology and syntax. (Synthesis lectures on human language technologies 6(3).) Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.2200/S00493ED1V01Y201303HLT020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, Paul, and Markson, Lori. 1998. Capacities underlying word learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2(2). 67–73. DOI: 10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01121-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caplan-Bricker, Nora. 2013. New evidence: There is no science-education crisis. The New Republic, September 5, 2013. Online: https://newrepublic.com/article/114608/stem-funding-dwarfs-humanities-only-one-crisis.Google Scholar
Charity Hudley, Anne H., Mallinson, Christine; and Bucholtz, Mary. 2020. Toward racial justice in linguistics: Interdisciplinary insights into theorizing race in the discipline and diversifying the profession. Language 96(4). e200–e235. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2020.0074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, Joo, Cannady, Matthew A., Schunn, Christian, Dorph, Rena; and Bathgate, Meghan. 2016. Measures technical brief: Fascination in science, version 3.2, Mar 2016. Learning Activation Lab. Online: http://activationlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Fascination-Report-3.2-20160331.pdf.Google Scholar
Conti-Ramsden, Gina, Botting, Nicola; and Faragher, Brian. 2001. Psycholinguistic markers for specific language impairment (SLI). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 42(6). 741–48. DOI: 10.1111/1469-7610.00770.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denham, Kristin, and Lobeck, Anne (eds.) 2010. Linguistics at school: Language awareness in primary and secondary education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenichel, Marilyn, and Schweingruber, Heidi A.. 2010. Surrounded by science: Learning science in informal environments. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Friederici, Angela D., Chomsky, Noam, Berwick, Robert C., Moro, Andrea; and Bolhuis, Johan J.. 2017. Language, mind and brain. Nature Human Behaviour 1(10). 713–22. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-017-0184-4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Funk, Cary, and Goo, Sara Kehaulani. 2015. A look at what the public knows and does not know about science. Pew Research Center, September 2015. Online: https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2015/09/2015-09-10_science-knowledge_FINAL.pdf.Google Scholar
Garraffa, Maria, and Fyndanis, Valantis. 2020. Linguistic theory and aphasia: An overview. Aphasiology 34(8). 905–26. DOI: 10.1080/02687038.2020.1770196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, Dedre, and Goldin-Meadow, Susan (eds.) 2003. Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, Michael T. 2019. Higher education R&D funding from all sources increased for the third straight year in FY 2018. (NSF 20-302.) Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Online: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2020/nsf20302/.Google Scholar
Gil-Perez, Daniel, and Carrascosa, Jamie. 1990. What to do about science ‘misconceptions’. Science Education 74(5). 531–40. DOI: 10.1002/sce.3730740504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsberg, Daniel, Honda, Maya; and O'Neil, Wayne. 2011. Looking beyond English: Linguistic inquiry for English language learners. Language and Linguistics Compass 5(5). 249–64. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00271.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Ben. 2016. ‘I always remember that moment’: Peak music experiences as epiphanies. Sociology 50(2). 333–48. DOI: 10.1177/0038038514565835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handelsman, Jo, and Smith, Megan. 2016. STEM for all. The White House: President Barack Obama, February 11, 2016. Online: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/02/11/stem-all#:~:text=From%20early%20in%20his%20Administration,and%20for%20the%20Nation's%20future.Google Scholar
Hill, Catherine, Corbett, Christianne; and Rose, Andresse St.. 2010. Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: AAUW.Google Scholar
Honda, Maya, and O'Neil, Wayne. 2017. On thinking linguistically. Revista Linguíʃtica 13(1). 52–65. Online: https://revistas.ufrj.br/index.php/rl/article/view/10420/7912.Google Scholar
Houston, Stephen D. 1988. The phonetic decipherment of Mayan glyphs. Antiquity 62(234). 126–35. DOI: 10.1017/S0003598X00073610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janko, Richard. 1987. Aristotle: Poetics. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Jaschik, Scott. 2016. What you teach is what you earn. Inside Higher Ed, March 28, 2016. Online: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/28/study-finds-continued-large-gaps-faculty-salaries-based-discipline.Google Scholar
Jones, M. Gail, Howe, Anne; and Rua, Melissa J.. 2000. Gender differences in students' experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education 84. 180–92. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200003)84:2%3C180::AID-SCE3%3E3.0.CO;2-X.3.0.CO;2-X>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, Hosun, Barton, Angela Calabrese, Tan, Edna, Simpkins, Sandra D., Rhee, Hyang-Yon; and Turner, Chandler. 2019. How do middle school girls of color develop STEM identities? Middle school girls' participation in science activities and identification with STEM careers. Science Education 103(2). 418–39. DOI: 10.1002/sce.21492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul, and Youmans, Gilbert (eds.) 2014. Phonetics and phonology, vol. 1: Rhythm and meter. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Krishnamurthi, Anita, Ottinger, Ron; and Topol, Tessie. 2013. STEM learning in after-school and summer programming: An essential strategy for STEM education reform. Expanding minds and opportunities: Leveraging the power of afterschool and summer learning for student success, ed. by Peterson, Terry K., 133–39. Washington, DC: Collaborative Communications Group. Online: http://expandinglearning.org/sites/default/files/em_articles/2_stemlearning.pdf.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lederman, Norman G. 1992. Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29(4). 331–59. DOI: 10.1002/tea.3660290404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenhard, Wolfgang, and Lenhard, Alexandra. 2014. Hypothesis tests for comparing correlations. Bibergau: Psychometrica. Online: https://www.psychometrica.de/correlation.html.Google Scholar
Linguistic Society of America. 2020. The state of linguistics in higher education: Annual report 2019. Online: https://www.linguisticsociety.org/sites/default/files/Annual_Rept_Final_2019.pdf.Google Scholar
Mitkov, Ruslan (ed.) 2004. The Oxford handbook of computational linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199276349.001.0001.Google Scholar
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. 2015. Snapshot report: Science & engineering degree attainment, 2004–2014. Online: https://nscresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/SnapshotReport15-DegreeAttainment.pdf.Google Scholar
Norris, John M., and Ortega, Lourdes. 2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50(3). 417–528. DOI: 10.1111/0023-8333.00136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Caroline, and Kelly, Michael H.. 1992. Linguistic prosody and musical meter in song. Journal of Memory and Language 31(4). 525–42. DOI: 10.1016/0749-596X(92)90027-U.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, Heekyeong, and Reder, Lynne M.. 2004. Moses illusion: Implication for human cognition. Cognitive illusions, ed. by Pohl, Rüdiger F., 275–91. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2018. Linguistics: Why it matters. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Robinshaw, Helen M. 1995. Early intervention for hearing impairment: Differences in the timing of communicative and linguistic development. British Journal of Audiology 29(6). 315–34. DOI: 10.3109/03005369509076750.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seidenberg, Mark S. 2013. The science of reading and its educational implications. Language Learning and Development 9(4). 331–60. DOI: 10.1080/15475441.2013.812017.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Şentürk, Eray, and Özdemir, Ömer Faruk. 2014. The effect of science centres on students' attitudes towards science. International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement 4(1). 1–24. DOI: 10.1080/21548455.2012.726754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, C. P. 2012 [1959]. The two cultures. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiippana, Kaisa. 2014. What is the McGurk effect? Frontiers in Psychology 5:725. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00725.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Traxler, Matthew, and Gernsbacher, Morton (eds.) 2011. Handbook of psycholinguistics. Boston, MA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Tuana, Nancy. 2013. Embedding philosophers in the practices of science: Bringing humanities to the sciences. Synthese 190(11). 1955–57. DOI: 10.1007/s11229-012-0171-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, Sarah, and Bowen, William G.. 1999. Choice of major: The changing (unchanging) gender gap. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 52(2). 289–313. DOI: 10.1177/001979399905200208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Laura, Speer, Shari R., Moore, Leslie C., McCullough, Elizabeth A., Ito, Kiwako, Clopper, Cynthia G.; and Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn. 2015. Linguistics in a science museum: Integrating research, teaching, and outreach at the Language Sciences Research Lab. Language and Linguistics Compass 9(7). 420–31. DOI: 10.1111/lnc3.12164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Laura, Patson, Nikole D., Awani, Sumurye K., Stanhope, Rebekah; and Deleon, Katriese. 2022. To what extent does the public endorse language myths? Talk presented in the Public Understanding of Linguistics symposium at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Washington, DC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, Tony B., and Marek, Edmund A.. 2014. Teachers teaching misconceptions: A study of factors contributing to high school biology students' acquisition of biological evolution-related misconceptions. Evolution: Education and Outreach 7(1). 1–18. DOI: 10.1186/s12052-014-0007-2.Google Scholar