Throughout Chapter 5, we approached the description of processes involved in word formation as if the unit called the “word” was always a regular and easily identifiable form, even when it is a form such as ambimoustrous that we may never have seen before. This new word is based on an established form, ambidextrous (“able to use either hand equally well”), with the middle element, dext(e)r (“right hand”), replaced by mous(e). Clearly this single word has more than one element contributing to its meaning. Yet we don’t normally think of a “word” as having internal elements. We tend to think of words as those individual forms marked in black with bigger spaces separating them in written English. In this chapter, we’ll investigate ways of taking a closer look inside words.

Some children grow up in a supportive social environment where more than one language is used and are able to acquire a second language in circumstances similar to those of first language acquisition. However, most of us are not exposed to a second language until much later and, like David Sedaris, our ability to use a second language, even after years of study, rarely matches ability in our first language.

This origin story from the Iwaidja people of Australia, illustrated in the painting above, offers an explanation of not only where language came from, but also why there are so many different languages. Among the English-speaking people, there have been multiple attempts to provide a comparable explanation, but not much proof to support any of them. Instead of a belief in a single mythical earth mother, we have a variety of possible beliefs, all fairly speculative.

We can define writing as the symbolic representation of language through the use of graphic signs. Unlike speech, it is a system that is not simply acquired, but has to be learned through sustained conscious effort. Not all languages have a written form and, even among people whose language has a well-established writing system, there are large numbers of individuals who cannot use the system.

In Chapter 7, we moved from the general categories of traditional grammar to more specific methods of describing the structure of phrases and sentences. When we concentrate on the structure and ordering of components within a sentence, we are studying the syntax of a language. The word “syntax” comes originally from Greek and literally means “a putting together” or “arrangement.” In earlier approaches, there was an attempt to produce an accurate description of the sequence or ordering “arrangement” of elements in the linear structure of the sentence. In more recent attempts to analyze structure, there has been a greater focus on the underlying rule system that is the basis of that linear structure.

In the preceding chapters we have reviewed in some detail the various features of language that people use to produce and understand linguistic messages. Where is this ability to use language located? The obvious answer is “in the brain.” However, it can’t be just anywhere in the brain. For example, it can’t be where damage was done to the right hemisphere of the patient’s brain in Alice Flaherty’s description. The woman could no longer recognize her own leg, but she could still talk about it. The ability to talk was unimpaired and hence clearly located somewhere else in her brain.

In the preceding chapter, we investigated the physical production of speech sounds in terms of the articulatory mechanisms of the human vocal tract. That investigation was possible because of some rather amazing facts about the nature of language. When we considered the human vocal tract, we didn’t have to specify whether we were talking about a fairly large person, over 6 feet tall, weighing over 200 pounds, or about a rather small person, about 5 feet tall, weighing less than 100 pounds. Yet those two physically different individuals would inevitably have physically different vocal tracts, in terms of size and shape. In a sense, every individual has a physically different vocal tract. Consequently, in purely physical terms, every individual will pronounce sounds differently. There are, then, potentially millions of physically different ways of saying the simple word me.

In Chapter 9, we focused on referential meaning and the relationships between words. There are other aspects of meaning that depend more on context and the communicative intentions of speakers. In Gill Brown’s story, the American tourists and the Scottish boy seem to be using the word war with essentially the same basic meaning. However, the boy was using the word to refer to something the tourists didn’t expect, hence the initial misunderstanding. Communication clearly depends on not only recognizing the meaning of words in an utterance, but also recognizing what speakers mean by their utterances in a particular context. The study of what speakers mean, or “speaker meaning,” is called pragmatics.

However, we have not accounted for the fact that the three words in this phrase can only be combined in a particular sequence. We recognize that the phrase the lucky boys is a well-formed phrase in contemporary English, but that the following two “phrases” are not at all well-formed.

The creation of new words in a language never stops and English is one language that is particularly fond of adding to its large vocabulary. Traditionally, we would check in a dictionary to be sure that we were using the right word, with correct spelling, but technological advances have provided us with programs that do the checking for us, or, even more insidiously, as in the situation described by Mary Norris above, try to choose the words for us. Unfortunately, at the moment, these programs do not seem to have any way of knowing if the words that are chosen are appropriate or if it is quite normal to send someone a communication out of the blue that reads “cute nachos.” In this chapter, we won’t solve the problem of inappropriate choice of words, but we will look in some detail at how those words came to be part of the language.

There are a lot of stories about creatures that can talk. We usually assume that they are fantasy or fiction or that they involve birds or animals simply imitating something they have heard humans say (as Terrence Deacon discovered was the case with the loud seal in the Boston Aquarium). Yet we believe that creatures can communicate, certainly with other members of their own species. Is it possible that a creature could learn to communicate with humans using language? Or does human language have properties that make it so unique that it is quite unlike any other communication system and hence unlearnable by any other creature? To answer these questions, we first look at some special properties of human language, then review a number of experiments in communication involving humans and animals.

The type of sociolinguistic variation described in Chapter 19 is sometimes attributed to cultural differences. It is not unusual to find aspects of language identified as characteristic features of African American culture or European culture or Japanese culture or multicultural communities. This approach to the study of language originates in the work of anthropologists who have used language as a source of information in the general study of “culture.”

This is a barely recognizable version of the Lord’s Prayer from over a thousand years ago. A later version is included for comparison at the end of the chapter, on page 289. The different versions provide a rather clear indication that the language of the “Englisc” has gone through substantial changes to become the English we use today. Investigating the features of older languages, and the ways in which they developed into modern languages, involves us in the study of language history and change, also known as philology.

In the preceding chapter, we focused on variation in language use found in different geographical areas. However, not everyone in a single geographical area speaks in the same way in every situation. As Captain Marryat learned, in the quotation above (cited in Mohr, 2013: 192), some individuals can have very specific views on socially appropriate language. We are also aware of the fact that people who live in the same region, but who differ in terms of education and economic status, often speak in quite different ways.