4 In tr o d u c tio n

w ill now briefly turn to two examples o f branches that are distin­
guished for other reasons, namely applied linguistics and corpus
linguistics.
Applied linguistics can be broadly defined as the branch o f lin­
guistics that seeks to solve language-related problems in the real
world. Originally, applied linguistics essentially focussed on the rel­
evance o f linguistic study for language teaching, particularly for­
eign language teaching, but has since much expanded its scope.
Other fields o f application now include, for example, the linguistic
analysis o f language disorders and the planning o f national
language policies. Today, the label “applied” in the broader sense
is occasionally even used in combination with other branches
o f linguistics, as in applied psycholinguistics or applied socio­
linguistics.
Corpus linguistics, on the other hand, is not defined by the
possible application o f the results o f linguistic study, but by the
methodology used. A corpus is a collection o f authentic language
material, now frequently in the form o f machine-readable data­
bases. Corpus linguists are interested in actual language use. For
example, linguists can search these corpora for all occurrences o f a
certain linguistic feature and interpret both the number o f occur­
rences as well as the context in which such a feature occurs.
The variety o f approaches and specialisations frequently shows
in differences in terminology. In this book, we will, wherever pos­
sible, use widely accepted terminology that can be found in most
international textbooks o f linguistics. However, it has to be kept in
mind that there is some variation in the use o f linguistic termin­
ology, even among linguists. W e w ill point out some o f the most
important cases o f terminological variation as w e go along.

1.3 | Central Concepts of Linguistics

Ferdinand de Saussure Linguistics at the beginning o f the 21st century is still to a large
extent based on the ideas o f the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saus­
sure (1857-1913), which were responsible for a fundamental
change o f direction o f linguistic study in the early 20th century.
This holds particularly true for linguistics as viewed from a Euro­
pean perspective. Saussure’s ideas were only published after his
death, when some o f his students compiled the Cours de linguistique
 C e n t r a l C o n c e p t s of L i n g u i s t i c s 5

générale (or Course in General Linguistics) from his lecture materials in

1916. Many linguists have since considered Saussure the founder
o f modern linguistics.

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) Fig. 1.2

One o f the major changes brought about by Saussure’s ideas is the Synchrony versus
distinction between the study o f languages at a certain point in Diachrony
time called synchrony (or synchronic linguistics), and the study o f
language change over time termed diachrony (or diachronic lin­
guistics, or historical linguistics). Saussure’s call for the primacy
o f synchrony led to a paradigm shift from a predominantly histori­
cal orientation o f linguistics in the 19th
century to a predominantly synchronic
orientation o f linguistics in the 20th and “The object of study in linguistics is not a
21st century. Historical linguistics has not com bination of the w ritten and the spoken
completely ceased to exist, but it is now w ord. The spoken w ord alone constitutes
rather based on systematic synchronic that object.”
descriptions at different points in time (Saussure 1916:24-25)
during the history o f a language.
Another major change was caused by Saussure’s call for the pri- Spoken versus Written
macy o f the spoken word. Most linguistic study in the 19th centu- Language
ry had been concerned with the written form o f language, but
Saussure (1983:24) insisted that “ [t]he sole reason for the existence
o f the latter [i.e. the written form] is to represent the form er [i.e.
the spoken form ]”. This notion is o f fundamental importance to
Saussure’s model o f the linguistic sign (cf. Fig. 1.3).
A further fundamental change o f direction in linguistic study Prescriptivism versus
that is connected with Saussure’s ideas, and the last w e would like Descriptivism
to mention here, is the transition from a prescriptive (or norma­
tive) period o f linguistics to a descriptive approach. Descriptive
linguistics aims to describe the facts o f linguistic usage as they are
 Introduction

in practice, whereas prescriptive linguistics attempts to prescribe

rules o f “correctness”, i.e. to lay down normative rules as to how
language should be used. Since the beginning o f the 20th centuiy,
linguistics has been increasingly critical o f prescriptivism and has
been favouring the approach o f descriptivism.
Structuralism At the heart o f Saussure’s ideas is the focus o f linguistics on the
structure o f the language system shared by members o f a certain
speech community. This is why the Saussurean type o f linguistics
is also referred to as structural linguistics (or structuralist lin­
guistics). The centre o f study is the language system (or langue)
and not the concrete language use by the individual (or parole).
Structural linguistics aims at the description and analysis o f all ele­
ments o f the language system and the relationships that exist
between them. These elements and their interrelationships are
investigated at all structural levels o f linguistics, such as sounds,
words and sentences.
The Linguistic Sign Related to Saussure’s call for the primacy o f the spoken word is
another one o f his groundbreaking contributions to modern lin­
guistics, namely his model o f the linguistic sign. According to
Saussure, the linguistic sign is made up o f two inseparably con­
nected parts, like two sides o f a coin. The linguistic sign consists o f
a sound or usually a sound sequence (or sound pattern), the so-
called signifiant (or signifier), at the level o f expression, and a con­
cept, the so-called signifié (or signified), at the level o f meaning:

Fig. 1.3

Saussure’s model o f meaning concept

the linguistic sign
(signifié/signified)
(adapted from Saus­
sure 1983:67)
sound pattern
expression [tri: (signifiant/s\gn\f\er)

Arbitrariness Saussure emphasises that there is no internal natural link between

the sound shape and the meaning o f the linguistic sign. Neither
does the form o f a word dictate its meaning, nor is the meaning
predictable from the form. This is illustrated by the fact that the
same concept can be referred to by completely different sound pat-
 C e n t r a l C o n c e p t s of L i n g u i s t i c s 7

terns in different languages. For example, the same animal that can
be represented by [dog] in English, is usually referred to as [hunt] in
German and [Jjê] in French. The relationship between the sound
pattern and the concept is thus said to be arbitraiy. The principle
o f arbitrariness o f the linguistic sign states that the connection
between the sound pattern and the concept o f a sign is by conven­
tion only.

| Fig-1.4

m ea ning Arbitrariness o f the

linguistic sign

e xpre ssio n [dog] [hunt] [Jjê]

English German French

There are, however, a small number o f expressions for which the Onomatopoeia
principle o f arbitrariness does not hold completely true. Words
such as boom [bu:m] or bang [baerj] show at least a partial corres­
pondence o f sound pattern and meaning. Such expressions which
include sounds that are similar to the noises they describe are
called onomatopoeic. Onomatopoeia is thus frequently cited as
an exception to the principle o f arbitrariness.
The important influence o f Saussure’s ideas and structuralist Post-Saussurean
linguistic thinking on modern linguistics is essentially undisputed. Developments
However, at least two other influential linguistic schools o f
thought have to be mentioned when we speak about the discipline
o f linguistics since the beginning o f the 20th centuiy.
One o f the other important schools o f thought started to devel­ Functionalism
op around 1930 and is commonly referred to as functionalism (or
Prague School o f functionalism). Functionalism partly continues
structuralist ideas but focuses on the function or functions o f lan­
guage and individual linguistic features. For example, the so-called
organon model o f languages as suggested by Karl Biihler distin­
guishes between three main functions o f language: an expressive
function that allows the addressers to express their own beliefs
and feelings, a representative function that allows us to talk about
the world, and an appellative function that allows the addresser to
make a request or issue a command.
8 I Introduction

Generative Linguistics Since the 1950s, a linguistic school o f thought called generative
linguistics (or: formalism) has become increasingly influential,
particularly in American linguistics. The term generative was intro­
duced by Noam Chomsky in his influential book Syntactic Structures
in 1957. Extremely simplified, we can say that the generative
approach reflects the fact that all speakers o f a language can pro­
duce, or generate, a theoretically unlimited number o f grammati­
cal sentences from a limited number o f means, i.e. words and the
rules for their combination. Chomsky distinguishes between com­
petence, the knowledge w e have o f the language we grow up with,
and performance, the speech we actually produce. Our complete
knowledge o f our native language is often also referred to as our
grammar. Generative linguistics is traditionally most influential
in the subfleld o f syntax (cf. Chapter 5).

Fig. 1-5 | structuralism

Structuralism,
functionalism
functionalism and
formalism (adapted
from Kortmann formalism
2005:32)

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Today, structuralism, functionalism and formalism exist side by

side in modern linguistics, as indicated in Fig. 1.5. Additionally, the
interest in historical linguistics has been on the rise since the early
1990s. Historical linguistics now incorporates findings and meth­
ods developed in different branches o f synchronic linguistics, mak­
ing use o f language corpora and forming new subfields such as his­
torical semantics and historical sociolinguistics.