language of analysis meaning

At LanguageHumanities, we're committed to delivering accurate, trustworthy information. Our expert-authored content is rigorously fact-checked and sourced from credible authorities. Discover how we uphold the highest standards in providing you with reliable knowledge.

Learn more...

What Is Linguistic Analysis?

Linguistic analysis refers to the scientific analysis of a language sample. It involves at least one of the five main branches of linguistics , which are phonology , morphology , syntax , semantics , and pragmatics . Linguistic analysis can be used to describe the unconscious rules and processes that speakers of a language use to create spoken or written language , and this can be useful to those who want to learn a language or translate from one language to another. Some argue that it can also provide insight into the minds of the speakers of a given language, although this idea is controversial.

The discipline of linguistics is defined as the scientific study of language. People who have an education in linguistics and practice linguistic analysis are called linguists. The drive behind linguistic analysis is to understand and describe the knowledge that underlies the ability to speak a given language, and to understand how the human mind processes and creates language.

The five main branches of linguistics are phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. An extended language analysis may cover all five of the branches, or it may focus on only one aspect of the language being analyzed. Each of the five branches focuses on a single area of language.

Phonology refers to the study of the sounds of a language. Every language has its own inventory of sounds and logical rules for combining those sounds to create words. The phonology of a language essentially refers to its sound system and the processes used to combine sounds in spoken language .

Morphology refers to the study of the internal structure of the words of a language. In any given language, there are many words to which a speaker can add a suffix, prefix, or infix to create a new word. In some languages, these processes are more productive than others. The morphology of a language refers to the word-building rules speakers use to create new words or alter the meaning of existing words in their language.

Syntax is the study of sentence structure. Every language has its own rules for combining words to create sentences. Syntactic analysis attempts to define and describe the rules that speakers use to put words together to create meaningful phrases and sentences.

Semantics is the study of meaning in language. Linguists attempt to identify not only how speakers of a language discern the meanings of words in their language, but also how the logical rules speakers apply to determine the meaning of phrases, sentences, and entire paragraphs. The meaning of a given word can depend on the context in which it is used, and the definition of a word may vary slightly from speaker to speaker.

Pragmatics is the study of the social use of language. All speakers of a language use different registers, or different conversational styles, depending on the company in which they find themselves. A linguistic analysis that focuses on pragmatics may describe the social aspects of the language sample being analyzed, such as how the status of the individuals involved in the speech act could affect the meaning of a given utterance .

Linguistic analysis has been used to determine historical relationships between languages and people from different regions of the world. Some governmental agencies have used linguistic analysis to confirm or deny individuals' claims of citizenship. This use of linguistic analysis remains controversial, because language use can vary greatly across geographical regions and social class, which makes it difficult to accurately define and describe the language spoken by the citizens of a particular country.

AS FEATURED ON:

Related Articles

• What Is a Diminutive?
• What Is an Idiolect?
• What Is a Coreference?
• What Is Evidentiality?
• What Is a Functional Load?
• What Is Semantic Analysis?
• What Is Double Discourse?

Discussion Comments

Post your comments.

• By: Kadmy The scientific study of language may be referred to as linguistic analysis.
• By: Focus Pocus LTD The five main branches of linguistics are phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics.
• By: Minerva Studio Linguistics studies how the mouth and vocal chords are shaped to produced specific sounds.

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game New
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• College University and Postgraduate
• Academic Writing

How to Write a Language Analysis

Last Updated: April 30, 2020 Approved

This article was co-authored by Jamie Korsmo, PhD . Jamie Korsmo is a Ph.D. candidate in English at Georgia State University. There are 11 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. wikiHow marks an article as reader-approved once it receives enough positive feedback. In this case, 85% of readers who voted found the article helpful, earning it our reader-approved status. This article has been viewed 171,455 times.

Understanding how to structure and write a language analysis is a useful skill that is necessary to succeed in many academic settings and college courses. Strong language analysis essays identify how the author of a particular piece of writing uses words to sway her readers' opinions. This type of essay provides the reader with a detailed analysis of the rhetorical devices used by an author and elucidates how these techniques persuade readers.

Understanding the Format

• For a language analysis, the text to be analyzed is usually chosen for you by your teacher. So you won't have to panic about choosing an appropriate text to analyze.

• The effectiveness of this type of essay depends on your ability to parse through the source material and uncover the moments of persuasion present, identify these moments, and explain their effectiveness to the reader. To this end, you must familiarize yourself with different kinds of rhetorical devices and persuasive techniques used by writers.

• Some common persuasive techniques include logical fallacies and rhetorical appeals (to ethos, pathos, or logos).

Getting Started

• Try an initial scan, followed by a more thorough detail reading. Reading once broadly and another time in detail can help you to define the overall ideas of the article or articles. Then go back and focus on the details you want to use in your language analysis.

• Taking notes as you go (by highlighting or underlining) will save you a lot of time later when you want to go back to the text for details to support your claims.

• Understanding an author's intention and point of view will help you organize your own thoughts and formulate your analysis.

Identifying Rhetorical Language Use

• Rhetorical situations usually involve employing language that is intended to persuade someone toward a particular view or belief. That is why rhetoric is important in a language analysis essay. These types of essays aim to uncover specific language used by authors in order to persuade readers.

• For example, if an author uses the word terminate to indicate an ending, this has a much more final, definite ending than to simply say that something is finished or came to an end. Choosing this word over others is a deliberate act on the part of the author, one that can be interrogated in a language analysis essay.

• An appeal to ethos is an ethical appeal that emphasizes the reliability or credibility of the author and their sources to prove a point.
• An appeal to logos is a logical application of evidence that appeals to the readers sense of logic or reason.
• An appeal to pathos is a rhetorical technique that weighs on people's emotions to sway their opinion one way or another.

• One example of a logical fallacy is a hasty generalization. [4] X Research source This fallacy involves reaching a conclusion before you have gathered adequate evidence on the subject. An example of a hasty generalization would be that all cows are black with white spots because you've seen three cows and all three of them were black with white spots.
• Another example of a logical fallacy is a slippery slope argument. [5] X Research source This fallacy involves arguing that if one event is allowed to happen, it will inevitably lead to an extreme and undesirable result. An example of a slippery slope argument would be: If we allow one hotel to be built on the lake, pretty soon the whole place will be worse than Las Vegas.

• In his play As You Like It, William Shakespeare’s Jacques famously says, All the world's a stage, / And all the men and women merely players: / They have their exits and their entrances. [7] X Research source This is a metaphor that compares the action of real life with the action of a theatrical play. Shakespeare says that world is a stage and all the people are actors, not merely that they are like actors.

• For example, saying she was as quiet as a mouse is an analogy that lets the reader know something about the subject, she , by relating a fact about her to a fact everyone knows (that mice are quiet).

Writing Your Analysis

• A good thesis statement is concise and clear. It tells the reader what the point of the paper is and why it's important. The thesis must make a claim of some sort. [8] X Research source
• For this type of essay, your thesis claim will probably be something like this: Through his use of ______ (whatever rhetorical technique you think your author employs), this author attempts to _______ (whatever you think the purpose of his persuasion is).
• Here is an example of a strong thesis statement: Excessive meat consumption in America is the leading cause of pollution today, and, thus, is a significant influence on global warming. This thesis makes a claim (specifically a cause and effect claim) about a debatable topic with a narrow enough focus to create an interesting, manageable argumentative essay.
• Here is an example of a weak thesis statement: Pollution is a problem in the world today. This is not a debatable issue; few people would argue that pollution is not a problem. The topic is also too broad. You can't write a paper on every single aspect of pollution.

• An example of a three-part thesis statement might look something like this: Global warming is caused by industrial pollution, automobile exhaust fumes, and waste dumping in the oceans. In this case, you would expect to find three body paragraphs: one about industrial pollution, one about car exhaust fumes, and one about trash in the ocean. Any other causes of pollution would not fit anywhere in this essay, which restricts the meaning and the message of the paper.
• Changing the thesis to avoid this form will make for a much more functional essay that is written at a more advanced level. A more effective thesis would be something like this: Due to increasing global temperatures and rising ocean levels, global warming has become an issue that needs to be acknowledged by a wider audience in order to begin reversing the effects.

• A good introduction should give enough background information that the reader feels intrigued and knows what to look for in the rest of the paper.

• Be sure to review your main points and restate your thesis. But make sure not to introduce any new information in the conclusion so that you can effectively wrap up what you've already said.

Revising and Applying Final Touches

• Sentence fragments. [10] X Research source Fragments are incomplete phrases that cannot stand alone as a sentence because they are missing either a verb, a noun, or a complete thought.
• Parallelism. [11] X Research source Errors in parallelism occur when words or groups of words do not appear in the same format or structure within a sentence.
• Subject-verb agreement. [12] X Research source Errors with subject-verb agreement happen when an incorrect verb form is used with a particular subject. For example, he know instead of he knows.

Expert Q&A

• Compare or contrast multiple articles. In an assignment that involves multiple pieces of source material, it can be extremely helpful to compare and contrast these clearly as part of the overall language analysis. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
• Always read the syllabus or special instructions. Many teachers who assign this type of work will include specific directions for those who need to complete it. Make sure you pay attention to these in creating the best and most effective language analysis. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/625/01/
• ↑ https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/588/04/
• ↑ http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/101-hasty-generalization
• ↑ http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/163-slippery-slope
• ↑ http://literarydevices.net/metaphor/
• ↑ http://shakespeare.mit.edu/asyoulikeit/asyoulikeit.2.7.html
• ↑ https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/588/01/
• ↑ https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/section/1/5/
• ↑ https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/620/01/
• ↑ https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/623/01/
• ↑ https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/599/01/

About This Article

A language analysis is an essay that explores how an author tries to sway their readers about a subject. While you’re reading your text, highlight examples where the author's trying to convince you of something. Some common methods of persuasion include using metaphors, writing with emotional language, and using logical fallacies. Then, try to figure out what the author's overall goal is and come up with a thesis for your paper. For example, your thesis might look something like, "Through his use of emotional language, the author is attempting to persuade his readers that excessive meat consumption causes pollution." Write a paragraph for each method of persuasion and include quotes from the text to support your thesis. For more tips from our English co-author, including how to conclude your language analysis, read on! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Dec 15, 2016

Did this article help you?

Tukwasi Nwazota

Nov 12, 2016

Veronica NG

Mar 9, 2017

Allen Atukunda

Dec 21, 2016

Jun 17, 2016

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Develop the tech skills you need for work and life

Language Analysis: The Basics

• The Visuals

Analysing language

Analysis refers to how the writer conveys meaning through language techniques, such as figures of speech, sentence structure, tone and word choice. When analysing language you must show that you are aware of how it is written. This means identifying the language features used and explaining their effect.

For example, in persuasive speaking or writing what you are primarily examining is the art of rhetoric. This means more than the identification of persuasive techniques used by writers; it means that you must identify how writers use these techniques to persuade. If you only identify the technique being used you are only halfway there. Although it is a necessary step in the analytical process, of itself, it is not sufficient.

• Language analysis checklist A checklist of important language analysis elements - written and visual.

Language Analysis Tips

• Quick tips to ace language analysis Whether Language Analysis is your favourite section of the English course or you just wish you could read an article without analysing the effect of a generalisation, here are some quick and simply tips to ensure you can maximise your marks in Section C.

The T.E.E. rule

• Technique:  what persuasive technique is used?
• Example:  which text that shows it?
• Effect:  what is the intended impact on readers’ attitudes?

The ultimate goal is to demonstrate your understanding of how the author attempts to persuade the reader to agree with his or her contention.

Break up the essential parts of analysing language so you can pinpoint exactly the part that is most problematic and also how you can finally get a strong grasp on how to be successful in this area.

To find out more, read How the author intends to persuade their readers  

• 195 language analysis tones Struggling with identifying tones for language analysis? A compilation of an assortment of tones you can choose from, categorised into their 'intensities'.

10 questions to ask when analysing a text's tone:

1. What are 2-3 words that describe the tone of the text?

2. Are there shifts in tone? (From ____ to ____)

3. At what point(s) do(es) shift(s) in tone occur?

4. What is the function of the shift(s) in tone?

5. What is the effect of the tone at the beginning of the text?

6. What is the effect of the tone at the middle of the text?

7. What is the effect of the tone at the end of the text?

8. How does the tone impact the author’s credibility?

9. How does the tone impact the audience’s reception of the message?

10. What is the overall effect of the tone?

14 questions to ask when analysing a text's style :

1. What is the point of view ?

2. What patterns exist in the author’s word choice?

3. What patterns exist in the author’s sentence structure?

4. Does the text tend to be concise or verbose ? How does this impact the conveyance of meaning?

5. Is the author’s approach to central idea objective or subjective ?

6. How does the author use diction to emphasise information that supports the argument?

7. How does the author use diction to minimise information that detracts from the argument?

8. How does the author use syntax to emphasise information that supports the argument?

9. How does the author use syntax to minimise information that detracts from the argument?

10. What rhetorical devices are used? What is their effect?

11. Is the language formal or informal ? How does this meet/not meet the audience’s needs?

12. Does the author use satire ? What is its effect?

13. Does the author omit but imply key words, phrases, or ideas? What effect does this have on the meaning of the text?

14. Are the descriptions/images concrete or abstract ? How does this contribute to the argument?

Metalanguage

• What is metalanguage? Metalanguage is language that DESCRIBES language - symbols, personification, characterisation, motifs, imagery - are all types of metalanguage.
• Metalanguage for books: Word bank
• Metalanguage for film: Word bank
• Next: Terms >>
• Last Updated: May 10, 2018 10:20 AM
• URL: https://libguides.stalbanssc.vic.edu.au/language-analysis

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous
• Next chapter >

1 Introduction

Bernd Heine is Emeritus Professor at the Institut für Afrikanistik, University of Cologne. He has held visiting professorships in Europe, Eastern Asia (Japan, Korea, China), Australia, Africa (Kenya, South Africa), North America (University of New Mexico, Dartmouth College), and South America (Brazil). His 33 books include Possesson: Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization (CUP, 1997); Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization (OUP, 1993); Cognitive Foundations of Grammar (OUP, 1997) (with Tania Kuteva); World Lexicon of Grammaticalization (CUP, 2002); Language Contact and Grammatical Change (CUP, 2005); The Changing Languages of Europe (OUP, 2006), and The Evolution of Grammar (OUP, 2007); and with Heiko Narrog as co-editor, The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis (OUP, 2011), and The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization (OUP, 2012).

Heiko Narrog is professor at Tohoku University, Japan. He received a PhD in Japanese studies from the Ruhr University Bochum in 1997, and a PhD in language studies from Tokyo University in 2002. His publications include Modality in Japanese and the Layered Structure of Clause (Benjamins, 2009), Modality, Subjectivity, and Semantic Change: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective (OUP, 2012), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis (OUP, 2010), and The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization (OUP, 2011), both co-edited with Bernd Heine.

• Published: 09 July 2015
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This handbook aims at offering an authoritative and state-of-the art survey of current approaches to the analysis of human languages, serving as a source of reference for scholars and graduate students. The main objective of the handbook is to provide the reader with a convenient means of comparing and evaluating the main approaches that exist in contemporary linguistics. Each of the chapters is devoted to one particular approach, theory, model, program, or framework of linguistics.

Like the other volumes of the Oxford Handbook in Linguistics series, the present volume aims at offering “an authoritative and state-of-the art survey of current thinking and knowledge in a particular field” to serve as a source of reference for scholars and graduate students. Its format, however, differs from that of most other volumes of the series. The volume does not really have the internal structure that one might expect a handbook to have: Rather than grouping the chapters according to a catalog of more general themes, the table of contents has the format of a “shallow” taxonomy, simply listing the chapter titles and contributors. The editors have given the question of how the various chapters should be arranged and presented in a volume of this kind quite some thought. In the end they decided to simply arrange the chapters in alphabetical order of the first key word figuring in the chapter title, for the following reason: Current linguistic analysis has turned into an extremely complex field and imposing a rigid classification of theoretical concepts and orientations has become increasingly difficult and controversial. The editors therefore came to the conclusion that it would be best to leave it to the reader to find his or her own way in comparing and relating the chapters to one another. We are aware that this is a procedure that is not really the one expected from a handbook-type treatment but we believe that it suggests itself on the basis of the nature of the volume.

A major objective that the editors had in mind when embarking on the handbook project was to give those scholars who were responsible for, or are prominently involved in the development of a given approach, program, or theory a chance to describe and promulgate their work. Another objective was that, rather than offering a limited selection of mainstream lines of linguistics, we wanted to expose the reader to a broad range of theoretical discussions. To this end, the reader will find strongly contrasting perspectives on analyzing syntax, as they surface, for example, in the chapters by Boeckx at one end and O’Grady at the other, or of accounting for typological data, as they can be found, for example, in the chapters by Baker and Van Valin at one end and those of Bickel and Haspelmath at the other.

In accordance with the general theme of this volume, authors tend to emphasize what is common to human languages across genetic and geographical boundaries and how the commonalities are best to be accounted for in linguistic analysis. The editors consider it important, however, to also draw the reader’s attention to areas where languages differ from one another, and they decided to devote one chapter to linguistic relativity and the effects it might have on purportedly non-linguistic cognition ( Pederson , this volume).

In concluding, we wish to make it clear that a student looking for guidance on how to analyze a given language may be disappointed when consulting this book since its concern is not primarily with offering means of analysis but rather with a survey of ‘models’ that may be of help in finding or developing the right framework for analyzing a language or set of linguistic data.

The main goal of this volume thus is to provide the student of language with alternatives that have been proposed in contemporary linguistics for analyzing and understanding the structure of human languages. To this end, the authors were confronted with the following questions that were meant to provide guidelines in the preparation of chapters:

How can the main goals of your model be summarized?

What are the central questions that linguistic science should pursue in the study of language?

What kinds of categories are distinguished?

What is the relation between lexicon, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and phonology?

How is the interaction between cognition and grammar defined?

What counts as evidence in your model?

How does your model account for typological diversity and universal features of human languages?

How is the distinction synchrony vs. diachrony dealt with?

Does your model take sociolinguistic phenomena into account?

How does your model relate to studies of acquisition and to learning theory?

How does your model generally relate to variation?

How does your model deal with usage data?

What kind of explanations does your model offer?

How does your model relate to alternative models?

For good reasons, the authors of this volume highlight the potential that their work offers to the student of language or linguistics, and are therefore less concerned with areas where their work offers less satisfactory or no solutions. Accordingly, the way and the extent to which the questions are addressed in the following chapters differ greatly from one chapter to another. To be sure, not all of the questions are relevant to what a particular framework of linguistic analysis is about; hence, such questions are ignored by the authors concerned. There are also authors who relate their framework explicitly to the catalogue of questions, and simply admit that their work has scope only over a limited set of linguistic phenomena, or that it does not provide meaningful answers to specific questions. For example, Hudson (this volume) admits that his theory of Word Grammar has research gaps in areas such as phonology, language change, metaphor, and typology, or Van Valin (this volume), observes that there is no theory of phonology related to Role and Reference Grammar, and that work on morphology is in its initial stages, and Baker (this volume) notes that extending the kind of questions that he is concerned with in Formal Generative Typology to the domains of phonology and the lexicon would simply be outside his expertise.

Some of the questions received relatively little attention. This applies in particular to the question of what counts as evidence in a given model. In approaches relying largely or entirely on quantitative data though, such as corpus linguistics or probabilistic linguistics ( Biber and Bod , this volume), there is a clear answer to this question. Thus, Biber says: “Considered within the larger context of quantitative social science research, the major strengths of the corpus-based approach are its high reliability and external validity.”

The main objective of this handbook is to have current influential approaches to linguistic analysis represented and to provide the reader with a convenient means of comparing and evaluating the various approaches. To this end, the editors aimed at reserving one chapter for each of the approaches. In a few cases, however, it turned out desirable to have more than one chapter devoted to one and the same approach in order to take account of contrasting orientations characterizing the relevant approach. Accordingly, Optimality Theory is represented with chapters on phonology (Gouskova) on the one hand and on grammatical categories (de Swart and Zwarts) on the other, and the Chomskian tradition of linguistics is represented not only with a general chapter on language-internal analysis (Boeckx) but also with chapters highlighting its potential of dealing with typological diversity (Baker) and of analyzing the cartography of syntactic structures (Cinque and Rizzi), respectively.

1.2 Approach, Framework, Model, Program, or Theory?

How to refer to one’s work: Does it qualify as an “approach,” a “framework,” a “model,” a “program,” a “theory,” or something else? The decisions made differ greatly from one author to another, depending on the goals underlying their work. Functional Discourse Grammar, Lexical-Functional Grammar, and others are theories ( Asudeh and Toivonen , and Hengeveld and Mackenzie , this volume), Minimalism is a program (Boeckx), natural semantic metalanguage is an approach (Goddard). But perhaps more importantly, one and the same author may refer to his or her work as a “model” in some contexts, as an “approach” in other contexts, or as a “framework” in still other contexts. More generally, authors with a generativist orientation tend to phrase their work in terms of a theory, and for equally good reasons, other linguists avoid this term; for quite a number of linguists with a functionalist orientation, there is some reluctance to recognize “theory” of any kind as being of use in doing linguistics.

The problem with the terminology is that there is not much agreement across the various schools on how to define these terms. Dryer (2006 a : 28–9) says that “[t]he notion of theory widely assumed in formal linguistics is essentially equivalent to that of a metalanguage for describing languages. Providing an analysis of a particular set of data within a formal theory involves providing a description of that data within the metalanguage that constitutes that theory.” But Haspelmath (this volume) uses a similar definition for “framework,” characterized by him as a sophisticated and complex metalanguage for linguistic description that is intended to work for any language.

In addition to the diversity just sketched there is also some range of diversity in what should be the main goals of linguistic analysis. The main goal of Functional Discourse Grammar is to give an account of morphosyntactically and phonologically codified phenomena in languages ( Hengeveld and Mackenzie , this volume), and Langacker (this volume) states that for Cognitive Grammar the goal is to describe the structure of particular languages and develop a general framework allowing the optimal description of any language. For others again, the declared goal is to explain the structure of language (e.g. Hudson , this volume), or to understand the cognitive organization of language ( Bybee and Beckner , this volume).

1.3 Orientations

There is no shortage of classifications in the relevant literature proposing groupings and cleavages among the various approaches to linguistic analysis; the reader is referred to relevant works such as Newmeyer (1998) , Darnell et al. (1999) , Butler (2008) , etc., for information. More generally, linguistic approaches tend to be divided into generativist (or formalist) and functionalist ones, and when we submitted a proposal for the present book to the publisher, an anonymous reviewer suggested that “[s]omething could be said about the mutual antipathy that seems to exist between the two camps. Some formalists are dismissive of the functionalist approach, and some functionalists have a variety of negative feelings about formalism including in some cases an almost pathological fear of even drawing a tree diagram.” An obvious way of structuring this volume might therefore have been to present the chapters in accordance with such a divide.

Our reasons for not adopting such a procedure are the following. First, we believe that the overall goals of linguists are essentially the same, namely understanding what languages are about, and how they can best be described and explained. Second, our main concern is not with differences in linguistic methodology but rather with finding answers to the questions listed above. And third, it would seem that this “divide” is gradually losing much of the significance it once had.

There is neither agreement on how the two main kinds of approaches should be referred to nor on what their distinguishing properties are. For reasons given in Newmeyer (1998 : 7–11) we will refer to what are frequently called formal or formalist approaches as generativist ones and retain the widely accepted term functionalist for the second kind of approaches or orientation,. 1 even if we do not know if the term “generativist” would really be accepted as a synonym for ‘formal,” for example by those doing work in representational frameworks outside of the Chomskian Principles and Parameters or Minimalist traditions. The term “functionalist” is seemingly less controversial for the second kind of approaches, but the problems with this term are of a different nature: What is commonly subsumed under this label includes such a wide range of directions and schools that some feel tempted to subsume anything that excludes a generativist perspective under this label.

This divide between two basic orientations is associated with a range of contrasting perspectives; it surfaces in a number of antagonisms that have been pointed out in the relevant literature. One distinguishing feature is that for many generativists—that is, by no means for all—a central task for linguists is to characterize the formal relationships among grammatical elements largely independent of some characterization of the semantic and pragmatic properties of those elements. On the functionalist view, by contrast, language is explained with reference to the functions it is argued to serve. For most linguists with a functionalist orientation, language is foremost an instrument for communication, and the following claim made by Simon Dik (1986 : 21) more than two decades ago is still endorsed by many students of language: “The primary aim of natural languages is the establishment of inter-human communication; other aims are either secondary or derived.” This view contrasts with that prominent among linguists with a generativist orientation; for Chomsky (1980 : 239), human language “is a system for free expression of thought, essentially independent of stimulus control, need-satisfaction or instrumental purpose.”

In defense of the former view one might argue, as has in fact been done (e.g. Nuyts 1993 ), that many forms of presumed non-communicative behavior, such as self-talk, involve the same kind of mechanisms as linguistic communication and can be accounted for with reference to the latter. But in much the same way can one as well argue that language is a tool of thought and that any linguistic communication presupposes thought, or cognition and, hence, that communication is derivative of the latter.

Another area where contrasting opinions can be found is the following: On the one hand there are approaches relying on the notion of Universal Grammar (UG) and an autonomous system of generative rules (e.g. Chomsky 1995 ); on the other hand there are approaches that do without any form of universal grammar or the assumption that there is something like grammar and rules, arguing, as is done for example in the emergentist approach of O’Grady (this volume), that language evolves as a product of efficient processing. This raises the question of what the ontological status of a “rule” is or should be, whether rules are really required in linguistic analysis or whether “rule-like behavior” may be no more than, for example, a side-effect of maximizing probability, as is argued for by students of probabilistic linguistics (see Bod , this volume).

Another distinction concerns the question of whether linguistic analysis (and linguistic explanation) should focus on language knowledge or on language use. The central concern of generative grammar is with what constitutes knowledge of language, how this knowledge is acquired, and how it is put to use ( Chomsky 1986 a : 3). But there is also the contrasting view according to which the main concern of the linguist should be with understanding the structure of languages; as Bybee and Bybee and Beckner (this volume) argue, “the units and structure of language emerge out of specific communicative events.”

Finally, there is also the question relating to what should be the most central domain of linguistic analysis. In an attempt to summarize the main contrasting positions on this issue, Butler (2003 a : 27) concludes that “a functional approach to language would place semantics/pragmatics at the very heart of the model, thus differing radically from formal approaches, which consider syntax as central.” This is echoed, for example, in the conception of language in relevance theory ( Yus , this volume), or of Systemic Functional Grammar, where language is viewed as meaning potential where all strata of the linguistic system contribute to the making of meaning ( Caffarel-Cayron , this volume). As the following chapters suggest, however, the answer to this question is not always all that unambiguous.

This is but a small catalog of distinguishing properties that have been mentioned. There are many other contrasting positions in addition; suffice it to mention that linguists working in the tradition of Michael Halliday emphasize that “[t]he image of language as rule is manifested in formal linguistics; the image of language as resource is manifested in functional linguistics” ( Caffarel-Cayron , this volume), and one might also mention that there is a remarkable pragmatic difference in the role played by the central exponents of the two ‘camps’, characterized by Newmeyer thus:

For better or worse [… ], Chomsky is looked upon as the pied piper by the majority of generative linguists. No functionalist has managed to play the pipes nearly as enticingly to the graduate students of Hamlin. ( Newmeyer 1998 : 13)

That there is a fundamental divide in current linguistics on what language is, or is about, is undeniable, but this divide is far from watertight; rather, it is leaky and—as far as recent developments in general linguistics suggest—leakiness is increasing. First, neither students of approaches such as Relational Grammar, Lexical-Functional Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, etc. nor many other students working on formal syntax would necessarily look upon Chomsky as the pied pieper. Second, each of the two “camps” is associated with a wide range of different approaches and, as will become obvious in the following chapters, there are considerable areas of overlap between the two. As Van Valin (2000 : 335–6) maintains, many of the ideas and methodologies subsumed under the heading “functional linguistics” are more distant from each other than they are from many formalist ideas. If one were to use his classification into purely formalist, structural-functionalist, and purely functionalist as a basis then Role and Reference Grammar is located in the intermediate category of generativist-functionalist approaches ( Van Valin 1993 a : 2). And according to Hengeveld and Mackenzie (this volume), Functional Discourse Grammar is located halfway between radical formal and radical functionalist approaches.

That degree of formalization is no significant distinguishing feature between generativist and functionalist approaches is also suggested by recent developments in what is commonly referred to as construction grammar: Whereas some directions within this general research paradigm, such as probabilistic linguistics ( Bod , this volume) and Embodied Construction Grammar ( Feldman et al. , this volume) are highly formalist, others, such as radical construction grammar ( Croft 2001 ) or cognitive grammar ( Langacker , this volume) are distinctly less so.

Second, there are also commonalities among differing approaches. Many of the approaches, if not all, are concerned—in some way or other—with searching for the most appropriate, economic, or most elegant way of analyzing language structure. For example, when Langacker (this volume) concludes that Cognitive Grammar “shares with generative grammar the goal of explicitly describing language structure” then this also applies to many other approaches across the “divide.” And all approaches have some typological basis, that is, they rest on generalizations about languages across genetic phyla and continents, even if the role played by typology varies considerably from one approach to another (see Baker , this volume, for discussion). And finally, in spite of all the specialized terminologies that characterize individual approaches, there is a common core of technical vocabulary figuring in many different theoretical frameworks. Terms such as sentence, verb, noun, determiner, agreement, passive, tense, aspect, negation, complement, voice, subordination, relative clause, etc. belong to the technical vocabulary of most approaches.

While linguists across different theoretical orientations in fact share a large range of technical vocabulary, one has to be aware, however, that there are also many contrasting definitions and uses of one and the same term, reflecting alternative theoretical orientations. When students of the natural semantic metalanguage approach discuss issues of “universal grammar” and “language universals” ( Goddard , this volume) then the theoretical assumptions underlying this usage are fairly different from those that students working in the Chomskian tradition make (see e.g. Baker , this volume). And much the same applies to a number of other terms; what is defined in Lexical-Functional Grammar theory as a “functional constraint” (cf. Asudeh and Toivonen , this volume) has little in common with the use of the same term in many functionalist approaches. Conversely, there are also quite a number of cases where one and the same general linguistic phenomenon is referred to by different terms in the various approaches—what is called a “head” in many schools of linguistics corresponds to the “regent” in dependency theory, and the notion “subcategorization” corresponds in a number of ways to what in other traditions would be referred to as “valency” ( Ágel and Fischer , this volume). Such differences are far from arbitrary; rather, they are indicative of the diversity of theoretical concepts that are the subject matter of the following chapters.

1.4 Locating Linguistic Analysis

There is consensus among most authors of this volume that linguistics is an autonomous discipline which requires its own theoretical foundation, methodological apparatus, and discipline-specific set of analytical techniques. Nevertheless, there are also authors arguing that linguistics is related to some other discipline in a principled way. Among the disciplines that are held to be particularly closely related to linguistics, especially in some more recent works, biology occupies a prominent position. Boeckx (this volume), for example, argues that “the generative enterprise is firmly grounded in biology” and, from a different perspective, Givón (this volume) emphasizes the analogies that exist between linguistics and biology; language diachrony, he argues, recapitulates many general features of biological evolution: Both abide by four principles of developmental control, namely graduality of change, adaptive motivation, terminal addition (of new structures to older ones), and local causation (with global consequences). Note also that Feldman et al. (this volume) claim that the correct linguistic analysis ultimately depends on evidence from biology, psychology, and other disciplines.

Up until the early 20th century, if not later, a common practice in linguistics was to use Latin grammar as a model for describing other languages, including non-European languages, and one of the major achievements of structuralism was that it freed linguistics of this straightjacket, making it possible to analyze each language in its own right. Now, it is argued by some modern linguists that after the 1950s the Latinist model was replaced in some schools of linguistics by an English model, in that the kinds of categorization used to describe grammatical structures to be found in the languages across the world were biased in favor of the categories of English; cf. Chomsky’s (1981 : 6) assertion that “[a] great deal can be learned about UG from the study of a single language”. This is an issue that also surfaces in some of the chapters of this volume; Van Valin illustrates the problem with the following example:

[…] theories starting from English and other familiar Indo-European languages often take the notion of subject for granted, whereas for one that starts from syntactically ergative and Philippine languages, this is not the case, and the notion of subject as a theoretical construct is called seriously into question. ( Van Valin , this volume)

But then the question arises of what should be one’s template or templates in deciding on how language structures should be analyzed. A somewhat extreme perspective, one that is biased neither in favor of any theoretical presuppositions nor of some specific language or group of languages, is suggested by Haspelmath:

The idea that a single uniform framework could be designed that naturally accommodates all languages is totally utopian at the moment. So instead of fitting a language into the Procrustean bed of an existing framework, we should liberate ourselves from the frameworks and describe languages in their own terms. ( Haspelmath , this volume)

1.5 Analogies Used for Understanding Linguistic Phenomena

Metaphors and other analogical figures provide convenient means for demonstrating, illustrating, or understanding salient features of one’s own road to linguistic analysis as against alternative roads. A paradigm example is provided by Newmeyer (1998 : 161–2), who offers a couple of relevant analogies to describe the status of internal explanations for autonomous syntax. One relates to bodily organs, such as the liver, the other concerns the game of chess. Like the principles of generative syntax, he observes, those of chess form an autonomous system: Through a mechanical application of these principles, every “grammatical” game of chess can be generated. But he also observes that the autonomy of this game does not exclude the possibility that aspects of the system were motivated functionally. One kind of functional motivation can be seen in the aims of the original developers and the influence that players may have exerted on the rules of the game; another one concerns the players who, subject to the rules of the game, have free choice of which pieces to choose and where to move them. Nevertheless, such factors are irrelevant to the autonomy of chess, and he concludes:

By the same reasoning, the autonomy of syntax is not challenged by the fact that external factors may have affected the grammar of some language or by the fact that a speaker of a language can choose what to say at a particular time. The only issue, as far as the autonomy of syntax is concerned, is whether one’s syntactic competence incorporates such external motivating factors. As we have seen, it does not do so. In short, the autonomy of syntax maintains that as a synchronic system, grammatical principles have an internal algebra. This fact, however, does not exclude the possibility that pressure from outside the system might lead to a changed internal algebra. ( Newmeyer 1998 : 161)

One may add that this does not conclude the list of analogical features shared by the two kinds of phenomena compared; for example, like chess, language is a social institution, created by humans for humans. Newmeyer’s primary concern is with the system and the ‘internal algebra’ of the principles underlying the system, including the competence of the persons concerned. But there are a number of alternative perspectives that one may adopt in analyzing such institutions, and each of these perspectives is associated with a different set of questions. Two possible alternatives are hinted at by Newmeyer. One of them would invite questions such as the following: Who designed the institution, and why was it designed in the first place? How, or to what extent, does the present design of the institution reflect the motivations of those who designed it? The other perspective would concern questions such as the following: What do people do with the institution? What are the aims and purposes for using it? And under what circumstances do they use it or not use it?

Such questions suggest that there are at least two contrasting ways of analyzing such institutions: One may either highlight their internal structure, the principles on which they are based, and the knowledge that people have about these institutions, or one may focus on those who developed and/or use these institutions. The latter perspective is found especially but not only among those following a functionalist orientation. The analogies favored by such scholars are of a different nature: Rather than games, body parts, or products of “architecture” (cf. Jackendoff , Culicover , this volume), they use analogies highlighting the role of the language user or processor, who may be likened to an architect or builder, as reflected in Hagège’s (1993) metaphor of the “language builder,” or a craftsman, as in O’Grady’s emergentist framework (2005, and this volume), where the native speaker is portrayed as a “language carpenter” designing sentences by combining lexical items.

Perhaps the most common metaphorical vehicle drawn on in linguistics is that of a biological phenomenon, namely that of trees: Both in diachronic and synchronic linguistics, the tree has provided a convenient template for describing and understanding taxonomic relationships: Throughout the history of linguistics, tree diagrams have been recruited to represent patterns of genetic relationship among languages, syntactic structures, and other phenomena. One issue that has found some attention in more recent discussions, reflected in the present volume, is whether or not tree branchings should necessarily be binary. But there are also authors doing without tree models; Hudson (this volume), for example, prefers to represent syntactic sentence structure as a network rather than in terms of any kind of a tree structure.

1.6 Domains of Language Structure

Roughly speaking, it would be possible to classify approaches on the basis of which domain or domains of language structure they are most centrally concerned with. But one question here is which domains are to be distinguished in the first place. The ones most commonly appearing in the following chapters are phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, the lexicon, and pragmatics, even if not all of them are recognized by all scholars as being significant domains of grammar.

Neither phonetics nor phonology had found appropriate coverage in the first edition of this handbook ( Heine and Narrog 2010 ), but both are now better represented in the volume. Experimental phonetics is discussed in Beddor’s chapter, which focuses on the relation between cognitive representations and the physical instantiation of speech. Incorporating autosegmental representations, the chapter by Paster then presents an approach to phonology that is based on rules and rule ordering rather than on constraints, the main goal of the chapter being to provide an overview of a derivational model of phonology.

One of the domains that has attracted the interest of linguists in the course of the last fifty years perhaps more than others is syntax. But should syntax be given a privileged status in analyzing language structure, as it is, for example, in the Minimalist Program and other approaches framed in the Chomskian tradition, or should it be seen as functioning “in the grammar not as the fundamental generative mechanism, but rather as an intermediate stage in the mapping between meaning and sound” ( Jackendoff , this volume), or as being derivative of cognition, as is argued for example in some models of cognitive grammar (see e.g. Langacker , this volume), or as being a product of discourse pragmatic forces, as is suggested by some functionalist linguists (cf. Givón 1979 )? And should all syntactically sensitive phenomena of language structure—for example constituency on the one hand and grammatical functions on the other—be treated in one and the same domain, as is done in some of the syntactic approaches discussed in this volume, or should there be, for example, two separate structures (c-structure vs. f-structure), as students of Lexical-Functional Grammar propose ( Asudeh and Toivonen , this volume)?

A number of students of grammar do recognize syntax as a distinct domain but do not attribute any central role to it. Rather than a syntactic machinery, Givón (this volume) sees a well-coded lexicon together with some rudimentary combinatorial rules, as it can be observed in pre-grammatical pidgin and other forms of communication, as more essential for understanding and analyzing language structure. In other directions of linguistics again, syntax is not treated as a distinct domain of grammar at all. In particular, some linguists with a functionalist orientation argue that syntactic and morphological phenomena form an inextricable unit, referred to as “morphosyntax.”

But more than syntax, morphology has been the subject of contrasting perspectives. In some schools of linguistics no distinct component or level of morphology is distinguished. Having at times been dubbed “the Poland of linguistics”, some linguists do not consider morphology to be a relevant subdiscipline at all, treating it rather as a component of some other domain, whether that be syntax, phonology, or the lexicon. There is the view, for example, that morphology is included in the same comprehensive representational system as syntax (e.g. Baker , this volume), even if this view is not shared by many others. Spencer and Zwicky (1988 a : 1), in contrast, view morphology as being at the conceptual center of linguistics. That morphology is a distinct domain and subdiscipline of linguistics is also maintained in other approaches discussed in this volume, such as Word Grammar ( Hudson , this volume), and for others again, morphology “is the grammar of a natural language at the word level”, as Booij (this volume; see also Booij 2007 ) puts it.

And there is also a wide range of different opinions on the place of the lexicon in grammar. Some scholars would consider the lexicon to be only of marginal concern for analyzing grammar, or treat the lexicon and grammar as mutually exclusive phenomena (cf. Croft 2007 b : 339). Others again attribute core syntactic properties to the lexicon. According to adherents of dependency grammar and valency theory, an essential part of grammar is located in the lexicon, “in the potential of lexemes for connexion, junction, transfer, and valency” ( Ágel and Fischer , this volume; see also Hudson , this volume), and Categorial Grammar is, as Morrill (this volume) puts it, “highly lexicalist; in the ideal case, purely lexicalist.” Passivization is widely held to be an operation to be located in syntax; but in Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) or Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) it is treated as a rule that converts active verbs into passive verbs in the lexicon, altering their argument structure (see Jackendoff , this volume, for discussion). That the lexicon is of central importance for understanding and analyzing grammar is also pointed out in some other chapters of this volume, such as those of Givón and O’Grady.

Semantics is recognized as a distinct domain in most approaches, and in some approaches it is viewed as being the domain that is most central to linguistic analysis (see e.g. Goddard ; Caffarel-Cayron , this volume), even if it is looked at from a number of contrasting perspectives. That the meaning of both lexical items and constructions cannot be understood satisfactorily without adopting a frame-based analysis is argued for by Fillmore and Baker (this volume). Another theme concerns the place of semantics vis-à-vis other domains of linguistic analysis. There are different views on where semantics ends and other domains such as pragmatics or cognition begin. Huang (this volume) draws attention to Grice (1989) , who had emphasized “the conceptual relation between natural meaning in the external world and non-natural, linguistic meaning of utterances”; we will return to this issue later in this section. In some approaches there is an assumption to the effect that semantics is primary while pragmatics is secondary, the latter being concerned largely with phenomena that cannot be fitted into a semantic analysis. Jackendoff (this volume), by contrast, concludes that “one cannot do the ‘semantics’ first and paste in ‘pragmatics’ afterward,” and in Role and Reference Grammar, discourse pragmatics plays an important role in the linking between syntax and semantics ( Van Valin , this volume).

The boundary between semantics and pragmatics is in fact an issue that comes up in a number of chapters. Langacker (this volume) observes that the standard doctrine assumes a definite boundary between semantics and pragmatics (or between linguistic and extra-linguistic meaning) while he maintains that there is no specific line of demarcation between the two. A similar conclusion also surfaces in some lines of research in neo-Gricean pragmatics. Levinson (2000) argues that, contrary to Grice (1989) , conversational implicatures can intrude upon truth-conditional content, and that one should reject the “received” view of the pragmatics–semantics interface, according to which the output of semantics provides input to pragmatics, which then maps literal meaning to speaker-meaning (see Huang , this volume).

In a similar fashion, there is the question of what the place of pragmatics should be vis-à-vis syntax. Baker aptly portrays two main contrasting stances on this issue thus:

On one view, pragmatics is the more basic study, and syntax is the crystallization (grammaticization) of pragmatic functions into more or less iconic grammatical forms. On the other view, syntactic principles determine what sentences can be formed, and then pragmatics takes the range of syntactic structures that are possible and assigns to each of them some natural pragmatic use(s) that take advantage of the grammatical forms that are available. The first view is characteristic of functionalist approaches to linguistics; the second is the traditional Chomskian position. ( Baker , this volume)

For a syntactic approach to deal with information structure, see Cinque and Rizzi (this volume); the role of pragmatics in the tradition of Grice (1978) is most pronounced in the chapters on Default Semantics ( Jaszczolt , this volume), relevance theory ( Yus , this volume), and on neo-Gricean pragmatic theory ( Huang , this volume), and these chapters also show that much headway has been made in the research of this domain. Using a Kantian apophthegm of the form “pragmatics without syntax is empty; syntax without pragmatics is blind”, Huang argues that pragmatics plays a crucial role in explaining many of the phenomena that are thought to be at the very heart of syntax.

Pragmatics in a wider sense is also the subject of conversation analysis. Among the approaches that adopt a perspective on language structure and linguistic discourse beyond orthodox linguistic methodology, conversation analysis has occupied an important place since the end of the 1960s. In his chapter on this field, Sidnell observes that students working in this research tradition “typically understand language to be fundamentally social, rather than biological or mental, in nature. Linguistic rules from this perspective are first and foremost social rules which are maintained in and through talk-in-interaction.” Interaction, it is argued, can be approached in terms of a system with its own specific properties that cannot be reduced to convenient linguistic, psychological, cultural, or other categories.

Finally, there is the domain of cognition, which appears to be rapidly gaining importance in linguistic theorizing, and this is also reflected in some of the discussions of this volume. Boeckx (this volume), interprets the Minimalist Program of Chomsky (1995) as an “attempt to situate linguistic theory in the broader cognitive sciences,” opening up fresh perspectives for an overall theory of cognition, and for Feldman et al. (this volume), linguistic analysis is part of a Unified Cognitive Science. These authors argue that the nature of human language and thought is heavily influenced by the neural circuitry that implements it, and integration of linguistic research with knowledge on neural reality is an important goal of their framework.

1.7 Relations Among Domains

If there are contrasting positions on which grammatical domains should be distinguished in linguistic analysis, then this applies even more to the question of how the relationship among these domains should be defined: Are they all independent of one another, and if they are not, how are they interrelated? It is this question where a particularly wide range of different answers is volunteered by the various authors. Jackendoff (this volume) argues that “the internal structure of some components of language, as well as the relation of language to other faculties, is consonant with a parallel architecture for language as a whole.” In Cognitive Grammar, linguistic units are limited to semantic, phonological, and symbolic structures that are either part of occurring expressions or arise from them through abstraction and categorization, but Langacker (this volume) adds that a “major source of conceptual unification is the characterization of lexicon, morphology, and syntax as a continuum consisting solely in assemblies of symbolic structures.”

Most authors state explicitly which domains they distinguish in their approach and what kinds of connections they postulate among domains. One way of establishing such connections is via hierarchical organization; Functional Discourse Grammar, for example, assumes a top-down organization of grammar, where pragmatics governs semantics, pragmatics and semantics govern morphosyntax, and pragmatics, semantics, and morphosyntax govern phonology ( Hengeveld and Mackenzie , this volume). A tenet of some schools of linguistics is in fact that there is one domain that has a privileged status vis-à-vis other domains. Such a status can be due to the magnitude of connections that that domain is held to share with other domains. But such a status can also be due to relative degrees of descriptive and/or explanatory power attributed to one specific domain. In other approaches, specific theoretical devices are proposed to connect different domains. For example, students of Lexical-Functional Grammar use Glue Semantics as a theory to take care of the interface between syntax and semantics, and an “m-structure” is proposed to deal with the interface between syntax and morphology ( Asudeh and Toivonen , this volume).

In other approaches again there is some specific domain that relates different domains to one another. Thus, in Systemic Functional Grammar, a tristratal linguistic system of semantics, lexicogrammar, and phonology is proposed, and semantics is the interface between grammar and context ( Caffarel-Cayron , this volume). In Role and Reference Grammar, discourse pragmatics plays an important role in the linking between syntax and semantics; Van Valin proposes a linking algorithm that directly connects the semantic with the syntactic representation, and there is a direct mapping between the two representations. For Spencer and Zwicky (1988 a : 1), by contrast, morphology is at the conceptual center of linguistics since it is the study of word structure, and words are at the interface of phonology, syntax, and semantics (see Section 1.6 ).

Finally, there is also the position represented in the volume according to which there is no need to distinguish domains in the first place. In the natural semantic metalanguage approach, for example, it is argued that meaning is the bridge between language and cognition, and between language and culture, and Goddard (this volume) concludes that compartmentalizing language (or linguistic analysis) into syntax, morphology, semantics, and pragmatics therefore makes little sense.

1.8 The Nature of Structures

One issue discussed in a number of the chapters to be presented concerns the question of whether to set up a distinction between deep, underlying or underived structures on the one hand and surface or derived structures on the other, as is done in particular in approaches designed in the Chomskian tradition or in Optimality Theory (see Gouskova , this volume), or else whether such a distinction can or should be dispensed with, as is argued for in other, most of all but not only functionalist approaches (cf. Hudson ; Culicover , this volume).

A related question is how to deal with “zero,” or empty categories, or null elements in syntactic representations, for example, with null pronouns ( pro , PRO), noun phrase traces, “null subjects” in infinitival complements, or constructional null instantiation ( Fillmore and Baker , this volume)—elements that are posited on the basis of structural considerations but are not phonologically expressed. Such categories have an important status for scholars working in some schools of syntactic analysis but are not recognized by others; Van Valin (this volume) describes the latter position thus: “If there’s nothing there, there’s nothing there” (see also Culicover , this volume).

Language structure shows both “regular” and “irregular” features; as Michaelis (this volume) puts it, many, if not most, of the grammatical facts that people appear to know cannot be resolved into general principles but must instead be stipulated. Linguistic approaches tend to highlight the “regular” structures, proposing generalizations that have a high degree of applicability. But what to do with the other part of grammar that is elusive to the generalizations, such as prefabricated word combinations, or idiomatic and ritualized structures? This is a question that is addressed in some way or other in a number of chapters, and it is one where students of construction grammar and probabilistic linguistics propose answers challenging earlier models of grammar ( Bod , this volume; see also Jackendoff , this volume, and others).

Another issue relates to the nature of grammatical categories. Most of the authors rely on entities of linguistic categorization that are discrete/algebraic, based on necessary and sufficient conditions, widely known as “classical categories.” Others again, mainly but not only authors with a functionalist orientation, believe in the non-discreteness of linguistic categories, drawing on models framed in terms of Roschian prototypes (e.g. Langacker and Goddard , this volume) or of continuum models (see Taylor 1989 for a discussion of the distinguishing properties of these types of categories). Bod (this volume) observes that “[t]here is a growing realization that linguistic phenomena at all levels of representation, from phonological and morphological alternations to syntactic well-formedness judgments, display properties of continua and show markedly gradient behavior,” and that all the evidence available points to a probabilistic language faculty.

All these positions are represented in the following chapters, but there are also authors who allow for both kinds of categories. For example, in the Conceptual Semantics of Jackendoff and Culicover (this volume), conditions other than necessary and sufficient ones are admitted, and this type of semantics is compatible with Wittgensteinian family resemblance categories (“cluster concepts”). Bybee and Bybee and Beckner (this volume) argue that “the boundaries of many categories of grammar are difficult to distinguish, usually because change occurs over time in a gradual way, moving an element along a continuum from one category to another. Accordingly, students of grammaticalization have proposed category structures that take the form of clines or chains but are not necessarily restricted to non-discrete categories ( Heine and Narrog , this volume; see also Hopper and Traugott 2003 ).

Some discussions in the volume also concern two contrasting principles of analyzing syntactic relations, commonly described in terms of the distinction constituency vs. dependency: Should one use a phrase structure model, as quite a number of authors do, or a dependency model, as others prefer, or should one use a combination of both? There is fairly wide agreement that phrasal categories in some form or other constitute an indispensable tool for analyzing grammatical structures. But are they really indispensable in linguistic analysis, or are there alternative kinds of categories in addition, perhaps categories that allow doing away with phrasal structures? Some students of language would answer this question in the affirmative. In dependency grammar and valency theory ( Ágel and Fischer , this volume), but also in the emergentist approach of O’Grady (this volume), for example, it is argument dependencies rather than phrasal categories that are central, and the latter do not have any independent status in computational analysis.

Rather than phrasal categories, corpus-driven research finds other kinds of grammatical units and relations to be central. As Biber (this volume) observes, the strictest form of corpus-driven analysis assumes only the existence of word forms. Lexical bundles are such units; they are defined as the multi-word sequences that recur most frequently and are distributed widely across different texts; in English conversations they include word sequences like I don’t know if or I just wanted to . Note that—unlike formulaic expressions—most lexical bundles cut across phrasal or clausal boundaries, being “structurally incomplete”; they are not idiomatic in meaning, and their occurrence is much more frequent than that of formulaic expressions (cf. also Haspelmath , this volume, who rejects notions such as noun phrase (NP) and verb phrase (VP), positing language-specific categories instead).

1.9 Lexical vs. Functional Categories

Another issue concerns the lexicon–grammar interface. Most approaches of linguistic analysis assume that in addition to lexical categories there is a second kind of forms, referred to as functional categories (or grammatical categories in some frameworks), operators, etc., that is, grammatical taxa serving the expression of functions such as case, number, tense, aspect, negation, etc. The following are a few distinguishing properties that are widely recognized: (a) Lexical categories are open-class items while functional ones are closed-class items (having a severely restricted number of members belonging to the same class), (b) the former have a rich (lexical) meaning while that of functional categories is schematic, (c) lexical categories are independent words or roots while functional categories tend to be dependent elements, typically—though not necessarily—described as clitics or affixes, and (d) functional categories tend to be shorter (frequently monosyllabic).

On many perspectives this distinction is a robust one, but the way it is treated differs from one approach to another. There is in particular the question of whether the boundary between the two kinds of categories is discrete, as is maintained in the majority of approaches presented in this book, or gradual, as argued for explicitly in some of the approaches, or else, whether there is no boundary in the first place. Langacker (this volume), for example, maintains that instead of being dichotomous, lexicon and grammar form a continuum of meaningful structures, the primary difference between “lexical” and “grammatical” units being that the latter are more schematic in their content, their main import residing in construal. 2 possible or feasible A related position is maintained in grammaticalization theory, where it is argued that—at least in a number of cases—it is not possible to trace a discrete boundary between the two (see Heine and Narrog , this volume).

1.10 Recurring Topics

As we observed above, there is a range of structural concepts and technical terms that are shared by most linguists. But at a closer look it turns out that there are also some dramatic differences on whether or how these concepts and terms apply within a given approach. For example, a paradigm concept of linguistic analysis across linguistic schools can be seen in the notion “sentence” (or clause). But there are also alternative notions that are proposed in some of the approaches. In approaches based on dependency theory (e.g. Ágel and Fischer , Hudson , this volume), the word is the basis of grammatical analysis, while Functional Discourse Grammar takes the discourse act rather than the sentence as its basic unit of analysis ( Hengeveld and Mackenzie , this volume), and for a number of linguists, “construction” is taken to be a crucial component of language structure (e.g. Michaelis , this volume). Some authors suggest that, rather than being epi-phenomenal, constructions should be in the center of linguistic analysis. To this end, a model is proposed in usage-based theory where the grammar of a language is interpreted as a collection of constructions, organized into networks by the same criteria that words are ( Bybee and Beckner , this volume). So, what should be the basis of linguistic analysis—words, sentences, constructions, discourse acts, or any combination of these? As we mentioned above, grammatical classes and syntactic structures other than word forms have no a priori status in corpus-driven research ( Biber , this volume).

Another example concerns the case functions subject and object. That “subject” and “object” are useful or even indispensable entities for describing relations of arguments within the clause is widely acknowledged in many frameworks of linguistic analysis, even if various refinements have been proposed, such as that between the subject of a transitive clause (A) and that of an intransitive clause (S). However, the crosslinguistic validity of these entities has not gone unchallenged; suffice it to mention Van Valin’s position (this volume) according to which grammatical relations like subject and direct object are not universal and cannot be taken as the basis for adequate grammatical theories (see Section 1.3 ).

One of the grammatical phenomena that is seen by some to be a testing ground for the viability of a given approach is passivization. Questions that are raised in this volume on the analysis of passives include the following: Does passivization involve some movement of arguments, as is argued for in mainstream generative grammar, or is there no need to assume that there is movement, as maintained in a number of approaches, including Cognitive Grammar, Simpler Syntax, Role and Reference Grammar, etc. (see e.g. Langacker , Culicover , Van Valin , this volume)? And, is passivization really a syntactic phenomenon, as proposed in many approaches, or should it be treated as belonging to a distinct domain of information structure? Other phenomena that are discussed controversially in the following chapters are not hard to come by; one may wish to mention for example anaphora, which is analyzed by many as a syntactic phenomenon (cf. Chomsky 1995 ) but as a pragmatic one by others (see Huang , this volume).

Finally, the arrangement of linear elements in the clause has received remarkable attention across many schools of linguistics ever since Greenberg (1963 a ) proposed his classification of basic word order types. And once again, we find contrasting positions on what the ontological status of word order should be in a theory of language. There are, on the one hand, those who maintain that linear order must be a primitive of the syntactic theory rather than a derived property ( Culicover , this volume; Barss and Lasnik 1986 ; Jackendoff 1990 b ). On the other hand, there are also those for whom linear order is derivative of other syntactic phenomena ( Larson 1988 ), and for a number of functionalists, word order is not a primitive of any kind but rather an epi-phenomenal product of discourse-pragmatic manipulation.

1.11 Experimental Analysis

Another area where the present volume differs from the first edition of this handbook ( Heine and Narrog 2010 ) concerns experimental work in linguistic analysis. This is a rapidly growing field of linguistics, and the volume contains three chapters devoted to it, relating to phonetics, semantics, and neurolinguistics: The chapter by Beddor is concerned with experimental phonetics, more precisely with the physical instantiation of speech, and with the relation between cognitive representations and the physical instantiation of speech. A central topic in Beddor’s discussion is provided by the classic notion of coarticulation, that is, the overlapping articulatory movements that are necessary for rapid, fluent, comprehensible speech. Surveying a wide range of methods and techniques that have become available to the phonetician, she shows how this notion can be approached from different perspectives.

Experimental semantics is the topic of Matlock and Winter’s chapter. Linguists dispose by now of a wealth of methods and empirical techniques for the study of phonetics, phonology, morphology, and syntax. As the history of the field suggests, however, semantic analysis turns out to be much harder to approach. A considerable part of the study of linguistic meaning was, and still is based on the linguist’s introspection and intuitive reasoning. These authors argue that there are good reasons to conduct comprehensive experiments on semantic content and how meaning is processed, the focus of Matlock and Winter being on issues of cognitive linguistic theory.

More than in other domains of linguistic analysis, experiment-based research is essential to neurolinguistic research. That the relationship between language processing and the brain is complex is well known. Defining notions such as “syntax,” “phonology,” and “semantics” as significant domains of language knowledge and/or language use is a common practice in linguistic analysis across many different linguistic schools. But if one were to expect that these notions each correspond to a distinct brain region then one would be disappointed. As is argued in the chapter by Arbib, there is “a skein of interconnected regions, each containing an intricate network of neurons, such that a specific ‘syntactic task’ may affect the activity of one region more than another without in any way implying that the region is dedicated solely to syntactic processing.” Summarizing results of neurolinguistic research that have been accumulated over the last decades, the main goal of this chapter is to contribute to the development of a new theory of language whose terms are grounded in a better understanding of the brain. Such a theory, the author suggests, can fruitfully be approached within a cooperative computation framework as outlined in the chapter.

1.12 Typology

Language description is constantly concerned with the question of whether generalizations on linguistic phenomena should be discrete/categorial or stochastic/statistical. The authors of this handbook differ from one another on how they answer this question. While most aim at the former, there also some chapters devoted to approaches based on statistical, probabilistic generalizations, most of all in Bod’s chapter. This question is not only relevant for language-internal analysis but applies in much the same way to comparative linguistics in general and crosslinguistic language typology in particular. By using a comparative approach referred to by him as multivariate typology, Bickel (this volume) observes that such an approach is able to generalize on typological diversity among the languages of the world. Suggesting that the distribution of linguistic structures is the product of history, he furthermore argues that this approach is also of help in reconstructing diachronic events.

As was observed above, all approaches discussed in this volume rest at least to some extent on generalizations about different languages. But the role played by typology varies considerably from one approach to another. While accounting for typological diversity is a central concern for many authors (see e.g. Baker , de Swart and Zwarts , Hengeveld and Mackenzie , Haspelmath , Van Valin , this volume), this goal is not given high priority in the work of some other authors. One issue that is treated differentially is how and where typological distinctions should be accounted for in a given approach. For a number of authors, typology forms the basis for all generalizations on language structure. In the Principles and Parameters model of Chomsky, by contrast, Universal Grammar (UG) is conceived as a set of principles regulating the shape of all languages, and these principles can be thought of as laws to which all languages must abide (see Boeckx , this volume); but in addition there is a set of parameters giving rise to the specific forms of individual languages, thereby accounting for typological diversity. Other, related, issues concern the level of abstraction that one should aim at in typological analysis and comparison, or the question of how many languages should be included in one’s sample in order to come up with meaningful generalizations about the world’s languages at large (see Baker , this volume for an insightful discussion of this issue).

In a number of chapters, correlations are proposed between language typology and structural properties of the languages concerned. A case in point is provided by Huang (this volume), who observes that there is a correlation in his binding condition A between English-type, syntactic languages, where it is grammatically constructed, and Chinese-type, pragmatic languages, where it is pragmatically specified (for more observations of this kind, see de Swart and Zwarts , this volume).

The question of how grammatical categories relate to typological diversity and universal features of human languages is also an issue that surfaces in a number of the chapters. The answer given by most authors is that there should be a set of categories that is crosslinguistically the same, that is, one that in some way or other reflects universal properties of human language or languages. For example, in the cartographic approach it is assumed that all languages share the same principles of phrase and clause composition and the same functional make-up of the clause and its phrases ( Cinque and Rizzi , this volume). But there are also those authors who argue against universally uniform categories.

The latter position is associated on the one hand with a research field that has a long tradition in linguistics, namely the study of linguistic relativity. As the discussion by Pederson (this volume) suggests, some progress has been made more recently in our understanding of the interactions between cognitively universal and linguistically specific phenomena. On the other hand, it is also associated with another tradition of descriptive linguistics of the mid-20th century, namely American structural linguistics. Observing that the vast majority of the world’s languages have not, or have not sufficiently been described and that the typologists’ comparative concepts do not necessarily match the descriptive categories of individual languages, Haspelmath (this volume) suggests that language documentation is one of the primary tasks of the linguist and that one should describe each language and its grammatical categories in its own terms. With this view he takes issue not only with generativist approaches but also with those falling under the rubric of Basic Linguistic Theory, in particular with those of Dixon (1997) and Dryer (2006 b ), who use the same concepts for both description and comparison.

There is a stance that is somehow intermediate between these two extreme positions—one that is well represented in this volume—which postulates a crosslinguistically stable set of categories, but neither are all these categories represented in a given language nor are they represented the same way across languages.

A question central to all typological work is what typology can tell us about language universals. Here again there are contrasting positions correlating with the generativist/functionalist divide. For example, reviewing the monumental World Atlas of Language Structures ( Haspelmath et al. 2005 ), Baker (this volume) concludes that “standard typologists have looked hardest for universals in exactly those domains where generativists least expect to find them, and have hardly looked at all in those domains where generativists predict that they exist.”

1.13 Synchrony vs. Diachrony

An issue that goes perhaps somewhat unnoticed in works on linguistic analysis concerns how a given account of language knowledge or language use relates to time: Should a framework used to explain the nature of language structure be restricted to synchronic observations or should it also account for diachrony? That our understanding of linguistic structure may benefit from adding a diachronic perspective is argued for in a number of chapters, most notably in those of Givón and Heine and Narrog, and in some of the approaches a separate component is proposed to deal with the synchrony/diachrony interface; cf. the principle of viability in valency theory ( Ágel and Fischer , this volume).

A distinction commonly made across the different schools of linguistics is one between two contrasting subfields, conveniently referred to, respectively, as synchronic and diachronic linguistics. The former deals with linguistic phenomena as they are observed at some specific point in time, which typically includes the present, while the latter is concerned with how linguistic phenomena behave across time, that is, essentially with how languages change. But at a closer look, this does not really seem to be an exhaustive classification. That the borderline between the two is somewhat problematic has been pointed out independently by many linguists. Langacker (this volume), for example, notes that since entrenchment and conventionality are matters of degree, there is never a sharp distinction between synchrony and diachrony.

Languages constantly change; the English of today is no longer exactly what it used to be a few decades ago: There are now new lexical items and use patterns that were uncommon or non-existent twenty years ago. Strictly speaking therefore, a synchronic analysis should relate to one specific point in time that needs to be defined in the analysis concerned. As a matter of fact, however, this hardly ever happens; grammatical descriptions are as a rule silent on this issue, and they may therefore more appropriately be dubbed achronic rather than synchronic. The fact that languages constantly change has induced some students of language to argue that a rigidly synchronic analysis is not possible or feasible 3 and that linguistic analysis should be panchronic in orientation ( Heine et al. 1991 ; Hagège 1993 ), that is, include the factor of time as part of the analytic framework. To our knowledge, however, there is so far no general theory of language that appropriately accounts for panchrony.

1.14 Sociolinguistic Phenomena

Linguistic analysis in general is based predominantly on language-internal phenomena, and this is reflected in the present volume. Accordingly, findings on the interface between linguistic and extra-linguistic phenomena, such as social or cultural ones, play a relatively minor role in most of the approaches discussed in this volume; Hudson (this volume) therefore aptly concludes that “sociolinguistics has otherwise had virtually no impact on theories of language structure.” But there are some noteworthy exceptions. As the chapters by Biber, Caffarel-Cayron, Hudson, and Pederson in particular show, general linguistics can benefit greatly from incorporating a sociolinguistic, or a socio-cultural dimension, and in the natural semantic metalanguage approach, the notion cultural script is proposed as an important analytic tool to account for culture-dependent crosslinguistic distinctions, in particular on how ethno-pragmatically defined categories can exert an influence on language structure, for example in the form of constructions that—to use the wording of Goddard (this volume)—“are tailor-made to meet the communicative priorities of the culture.”

1.15 On Explanation

Differences surfacing in the volume also relate to how the structure of language or languages should be explained: Are explanations of the deductive-nomological type possible, meaningful, or both in linguistics; should explanations be context-dependent or context-free; should they be based on deduction, induction, abduction, or any combination of these; is it possible to draw a boundary between theory-internal and theory-external explanations, and can they be based on probabilistic generalizations, or is it only exceptionless, law-like generalizations that should be the concern of the linguist? And finally, should explanations be mono-causal or multi-causal, and should they be internal or external?

It is the last question that has attracted the attention of linguists perhaps more than others. In internal explanations, a set of facts falls out as a consequence of the deductive structure of a particular theory of grammar, or else, a given phenomenon is explained with reference to other phenomena belonging to the same general domain. Thus, in approaches framed in the Chomskian tradition, “one feature of a language is explained in terms of its similarity to another, at first different-seeming feature of that language and another language, by saying that both are consequences of the same general principle” ( Baker , this volume); for example, Bresnan and Mchombo (1995) argue that Lexical Integrity provides a principled explanation of the complex syntactic, morphological, and prosodic properties of Bantu noun class markers (see Asudeh and Toivonen , this volume).

In external explanations, by contrast, a set of facts is derived as a consequence of facts or principles outside the domain of grammar. There is a partial correlation between these two types of explanation and the two main orientations of contemporary linguistics: Internal explanations are most likely to be found in works of generativist linguists, while functionalist approaches are likely to be associated with external explanations. As will become apparent in the following chapters, however, the situation is much more complex. Another correlation concerns a distinction that we mentioned above, namely that between synchrony and diachrony: Internal explanations are overwhelmingly, though not necessarily, synchronic in orientation, while external ones are likely to have a diachronic component, or to be generally diachronic in nature. 4

There is no overall way of deciding on which of the two kinds of explanations is to be preferred. As we saw in Section 1.5 in our example of the game of chess, the nature of an explanation depends crucially on the kind of questions one wishes to answer. Thus, whereas question (a) below is most strongly associated with internal explanations and generative theories, (b) is the question that functionalists tend to be concerned with, drawing on external explanations.

How can the knowledge that native speakers have about their language best be understood and described?

Why are languages structured and used the way they are?

Independent of how one wishes to decide on which of these options is to be preferred, there remains the question of whether there are certain domains, or components, of language structure that are particularly rewarding in looking for explanations. Syntax is the domain that has attracted quite some attention but—as we saw in Section 1.3 — there is also the opinion, favored in functionalist traditions, that it is semantics or the pragmatics of communication that provide the best access to linguistic explanation.

1.16 Language Acquisition and Language Evolution

Formerly considered to be fairly marginal topics, evolutionary perspectives of language and its structure are now widely recognized as relevant components in mainstream linguistics. This applies not only to the analysis of language acquisition but also to research work on the genesis of human language or languages. What linguistic analysis means to children acquiring their first language is discussed in detail by Eve Clark in her chapter on linguistic units of first language acquisition. As Clark observes in this chapter, children’s skill in the production of linguistic structure overall lags considerably behind their skill in perception and comprehension.

A few decades ago, topics relating to language origin and language evolution were in fact non-issues in mainstream linguistics. The present volume suggests that this situation may have changed: Language evolution is nowadays a hotly contested subject matter in some schools of linguistics, both in functionalist works ( Givón , this volume) and generativist traditions of modern linguistics ( Hauser et al. 2002 ; Jackendoff 2002 ; Jackendoff and Pinker 2005 ). Givón in particular argues that relating language structure to other human and non-human communication systems and to language evolution is an essential task of understanding grammar ( Givón 1979 , 2005 ). A field of research that is held to be particularly rewarding in the reconstruction of language evolution is that of signed languages (see Wilcox and Wilcox , this volume). While there are contrasting opinions on how language evolution may have proceeded, there is agreement among these authors that it is essentially possible to reconstruct this evolution.

1.17 Conclusions

For obvious reasons, the forty chapters of this handbook are restricted to a specific goal and, hence, to a specific range of subject matters that are immediately relevant to the analysis of a given language, or of languages in general. Accordingly, many other issues that are also of interest to the student of language have to be ignored. Such issues concern on the one hand comparative linguistics; as desirable as it would have been to have a more extensive treatment of relationship among languages, this would have been beyond the scope of the present volume. Other issues that will not receive much attention either are language contact, that is, how speakers of different languages and dialects interact with and influence one another, language internal diversity, such as variation among dialects or socially defined linguistic varieties, and languages that are said to enjoy a special sociolinguistic or linguistic status, such as pidgins and creoles.

One major incentive to work on a second edition of the handbook was to include additional chapters on topics that could not be covered in the first edition. To this end we have added seven new chapters, namely on experimental phonetics ( Beddor ), phonology ( Paster ), experimental semantics ( Matlock and Winter ), typology ( Bickel ), conversational analysis ( Sidnell ), language acquisition ( Clark ), and neurolinguistics ( Arbib ). Still, a number of topics are not discussed in as much detail as would have been desirable. The reasons for this are of two kinds: Either the authors contracted were not able to meet the deadline set, or we were not able to find suitable authors for a specific subject. We ask the readers for their kind understanding for this fact.

Note that names used to refer to approaches do not necessarily reflect the orientation concerned; for example, Lexical-Functional Grammar (see Asudeh and Toivonen , this volume) is not commonly considered to be a functionalist theory.

Thus, Langacker argues that morphologically contrasting items such as nouns and derivational items like nominalizing suffixes can in a given case be assigned to the same category: “A nominalizer (like the ending on complainer or explosion ) is itself a schematic noun and derives a noun from the verb stem it combines with” ( Langacker , this volume).

For example, Hagège (1993 : 232) maintains: “No strictly synchronic study of a human language is conceivable, given the constant reshaping work done by LBs [language builders; BH&HN] even when a language seems to have reached a state of equilibrium”.

A number of functionalists would follow Givón (1979 , 2005 ) in arguing that, like functional explanation in biology, functional explanation in linguistics is necessarily diachronic ( Bybee 1988 c ; Keller 1994 ; Haspelmath 1999 a , 2008 c ; Heine and Kuteva 2007 ; Bybee and Beckner , this volume); in the wording of Dryer (2006 a : 56), “a theory of why languages are the way they are is fundamentally a theory of language change.”

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

LINGUISTIC LEVELS OF ANALYSIS: From Sounds to Analyzing and Interpreting Meaning

2023, Levels of analysis

Levels of language refer to the way language itself is organised and hence analysed by linguists.

RELATED PAPERS

Mouvances Francophones

Servanne Woodward

BMC Public Health

morteza mansourian

Acta Horticulturae

Revista Direitos Sociais e Políticas Públicas (UNIFAFIBE)

Milena Maciel

Anais do 14º Simpósio Brasileiro de Automação Inteligente

Iulle Guerra

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Shiraz Gulraiz

Aline Gomes de Souza

The EMBO Journal

Bulletin- Korean Chemical Society

Chang Won Ahn

Discourse, Contex & Media

Padraic Quinn

Helena Sousa

The Lancet Global Health

Aliou DIOUF

Majalah Kedokteran Bandung

Pusparini Pusparini

Jurnal Psikologi Teori dan Terapan

alif ramadhani rahman

Gelson Silva

Jean-françois Beckers

Indonesian Journal of Guidance and Counseling: Theory and Application

HANUM ISNIA RACHMI

pedro vilar

International journal of cloud applications and computing

Alphonse Pja

International conference KNOWLEDGE-BASED ORGANIZATION

alina Babos

Archives of neurology

David Araujo

Current Biology

Patricia Gensel

SPEKTRUM HUKUM

Ridho Ahmad

British Journal of Plastic Surgery

MARYAM ABUBAKAR

See More Documents Like This

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Professional development
• Knowing the subject

Analysing Language

In a previous article, I emphasised the importance of  checking understanding  in the process of teaching new structures and lexis, particularly through the use of concept questions.

Checking understanding generally follows the isolation of new language which has been presented in context, analysed and fully explained. It is this analysis and explanation stage which is the focus here.

• A framework for analysis
• Form and phonology
• Function and meaning
• Register and appropriacy
• Post analysis

A framework for analysis The teacher may present language inductively through a text, a situation, through a task, or simply asks learners to 'notice' lexis. Alternatively a deductive approach may be used whereby the learners are given the rules and asked to apply them in using the language. In either case the learners need to fully understand the language before they begin to practise it in guided activities, or produce it together with other 'known' language. Teachers also need a framework within which to analyse language for planning purposes. Five aspects of the language need to be considered:

• Form - the arrangement of the language, any rules which govern it, and any special difficulties which it presents.
• Phonology - sounds, word stress, features of connected speech, sentence stress, intonation and rhythm, all of which help learners understand spoken English and make their own speech more natural, comprehensible and meaningful.
• Function - the purpose(s) for which the language is to be used and the contexts in which it is used, by whom and in which situations.
• Meaning - the message that the speaker intends to convey, which may vary according to the context, particularly if a structure can be used to perform more than one function.
• Register and appropriacy - when and with whom it is appropriate to use the language

You can use this form when preparing your lessons to ensure that you thoroughly analyse the language items.

Pre-planning language analysis form 44k

Form and phonology There has been a recent revival in paying attention to form. Research suggests that a lack of focus on form may lead to fossilised errors, while the consideration of lexical items and 'chunks' has led to a consciousness-raising approach to form, involving noticing language presented in context, and not necessarily associated with practice.

Whether presenting language traditionally or using a consciousness-raising approach, and whether the language is being presented for the first time or for revision, the following should be considered:

• Part(s) of speech. Lexis is often made up of more than one component. Multi-word verbs, for example, may comprise a verb, a preposition and a particle (get on with). There may be important collocations.
• Spelling (note differences between UK and US spellings)
• Regularity / irregularity (past tense verbs).
• Word order and structures which follow (transitive verbs, verb plus infinitive or gerund)
• Pronunciation (contractions, question forms, tag questions)
• The written form and the spoken form. It is now recognised that there is a 'written grammar' and a 'spoken grammar', involving significant differences in some language, particularly functional items. Both forms need to be considered, and conventional rules reconsidered. (He said it was his birthday the following day / he says it's his birthday tomorrow).
• The concept. Is the concept clear and concrete, or vague and abstract? Is the concept the same in the mother tongue, and is the language used to express it similar? Sometimes it is necessary to teach the concept before looking at the language (the present perfect).
• Potential problems. There may be complexities of form (I should have had my hair cut), pronunciation (depending on the learners' first language), or confusion of form and meaning between similar structures (didn't need to/needn't have, be used to/get used to). There may also be confusion caused by similarities with items in the mother tongue (false friends).

Function and meaning The fact that there is not a one-to-one match between form and function is the main reason for presenting language in context. On the one hand, a function (such as comparing, inviting, asking for permission) may be expressed by a number of different structures, as in these suggestions:

Why don't we watch a film? Let's watch a film Shall we watch a film? We could watch a film On the other hand, a structure may have a number of different functions:

I can play tennis (ability) Can I open the window? (asking for permission) Can you pass the salt? (request) The form-function relationship is further complicated by meaning, which can only be deduced from context. In isolation, the question 'Do you play cards?' could either mean 'Can you play cards?', or 'Would you like a game of cards?' depending on the situation.

Finally, careful consideration should be given to rules which govern form in relation to use and meaning. There are often exceptions to rules, but rules are also often over-generalised and may be misleading. A balance needs to be achieved between generalisation and complexity, bearing in mind level and context. Register and appropriacy Particularly in the case of functional language, the analysis of target items also involves analysis of the situation and relationship between speakers (appropriacy) which in turn may govern the choice of language according to level of formality (register). This form of analysis involves three main factors:

• Setting (place and time)
• Participants and relationship
• Speaker's intention (function)

Again, it is possible to look at a single item (in this case 'would' expressing different functions):

Would you like another drink? (social situation, offer) I'd get the green one if I were you (shopping, friends, advice) Granny would always tell us bedtime stories (family, past habits/nostalgia) Would you by any chance be available next week? (work, making an appointment)

Alternatively, there may be several structures or variations on a structure used to express the same function, the choice of register being governed by social distance.

Is it OK if I open the window? Can I open the window? Could I open the window, please? Would you mind if I opened the window?

Probably the most useful underlying concept here is that of 'social distance', i.e. the further apart the speakers are socially, the higher the required level of formality. Post analysis Analysing language is the first step for the teacher in the process of presentation. The analysis of the target language will then guide decisions made about other aspects of presentation:

• The approach - inductive or deductive, and how much can be elicited. A test-teach-test approach may be appropriate at higher levels where there may be partial knowledge of a structure, for revision purposes. The teacher may wish to compare and / or contrast structures, or may merely want students to 'notice' new language.
• How much to present - a single structure, a number of structures for one function, a number of functions of one form. Questions and responses in functional / situational dialogues. Level is important here.
• The context - through visuals, mime, realia or brief anecdotes, through a text, through a dialogue, or through a task.
• Checking understanding - concept questions and time lines where appropriate.
• Drilling the target language - what kind of drills to use, and how much is necessary.
• Explanation of form and visual highlighting - what to put on the board.

Further Reading Rosemary Aitken - Teaching Tenses (revised edition), ELB 2002. Gower, Phillips and Walter - Teaching Practice Handbook , Heinemann 1995. Scott Thornbury - How to Teach Grammar , Longman 1999. George Yule - Analysing English Grammar , OUP 1998. Steve Darn, Izmir University of Economics, Turkey

It is very informative

• Log in or register to post comments

Thanks for your positive feedback!

Cath TeachingEnglish team

I really gained much information about language analysis

Thanks for your comment - we're glad you found this article useful!

TeachingEnglish team

Research and insight

Browse fascinating case studies, research papers, publications and books by researchers and ELT experts from around the world.

See our publications, research and insight

What (Exactly) Is Discourse Analysis? A Plain-Language Explanation & Definition (With Examples)

By: Jenna Crosley (PhD). Expert Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2021

Discourse analysis is one of the most popular qualitative analysis techniques we encounter at Grad Coach. If you’ve landed on this post, you’re probably interested in discourse analysis, but you’re not sure whether it’s the right fit for your project, or you don’t know where to start. If so, you’ve come to the right place.

Overview: Discourse Analysis Basics

In this post, we’ll explain in plain, straightforward language :

• What discourse analysis is
• When to use discourse analysis
• The main approaches to discourse analysis
• How to conduct discourse analysis

What is discourse analysis?

Let’s start with the word “discourse”.

In its simplest form, discourse is verbal or written communication between people that goes beyond a single sentence . Importantly, discourse is more than just language. The term “language” can include all forms of linguistic and symbolic units (even things such as road signs), and language studies can focus on the individual meanings of words. Discourse goes beyond this and looks at the overall meanings conveyed by language in context .  “Context” here refers to the social, cultural, political, and historical background of the discourse, and it is important to take this into account to understand underlying meanings expressed through language.

A popular way of viewing discourse is as language used in specific social contexts, and as such language serves as a means of prompting some form of social change or meeting some form of goal.

Now that we’ve defined discourse, let’s look at discourse analysis .

Discourse analysis uses the language presented in a corpus or body of data to draw meaning . This body of data could include a set of interviews or focus group discussion transcripts. While some forms of discourse analysis center in on the specifics of language (such as sounds or grammar), other forms focus on how this language is used to achieve its aims. We’ll dig deeper into these two above-mentioned approaches later.

As Wodak and Krzyżanowski (2008) put it: “discourse analysis provides a general framework to problem-oriented social research”. Basically, discourse analysis is used to conduct research on the use of language in context in a wide variety of social problems (i.e., issues in society that affect individuals negatively).

For example, discourse analysis could be used to assess how language is used to express differing viewpoints on financial inequality and would look at how the topic should or shouldn’t be addressed or resolved, and whether this so-called inequality is perceived as such by participants.

What makes discourse analysis unique is that it posits that social reality is socially constructed , or that our experience of the world is understood from a subjective standpoint. Discourse analysis goes beyond the literal meaning of words and languages

For example, people in countries that make use of a lot of censorship will likely have their knowledge, and thus views, limited by this, and will thus have a different subjective reality to those within countries with more lax laws on censorship.

When should you use discourse analysis?

There are many ways to analyze qualitative data (such as content analysis , narrative analysis , and thematic analysis ), so why should you choose discourse analysis? Well, as with all analysis methods, the nature of your research aims, objectives and research questions (i.e. the purpose of your research) will heavily influence the right choice of analysis method.

The purpose of discourse analysis is to investigate the functions of language (i.e., what language is used for) and how meaning is constructed in different contexts, which, to recap, include the social, cultural, political, and historical backgrounds of the discourse.

For example, if you were to study a politician’s speeches, you would need to situate these speeches in their context, which would involve looking at the politician’s background and views, the reasons for presenting the speech, the history or context of the audience, and the country’s social and political history (just to name a few – there are always multiple contextual factors).

Discourse analysis can also tell you a lot about power and power imbalances , including how this is developed and maintained, how this plays out in real life (for example, inequalities because of this power), and how language can be used to maintain it. For example, you could look at the way that someone with more power (for example, a CEO) speaks to someone with less power (for example, a lower-level employee).

Therefore, you may consider discourse analysis if you are researching:

• Some form of power or inequality (for example, how affluent individuals interact with those who are less wealthy
• How people communicate in a specific context (such as in a social situation with colleagues versus a board meeting)
• Ideology and how ideas (such as values and beliefs) are shared using language (like in political speeches)
• How communication is used to achieve social goals (such as maintaining a friendship or navigating conflict)

As you can see, discourse analysis can be a powerful tool for assessing social issues , as well as power and power imbalances . So, if your research aims and objectives are oriented around these types of issues, discourse analysis could be a good fit for you.

Discourse Analysis: The main approaches

There are two main approaches to discourse analysis. These are the language-in-use (also referred to as socially situated text and talk ) approaches and the socio-political approaches (most commonly Critical Discourse Analysis ). Let’s take a look at each of these.

Approach #1: Language-in-use

Language-in-use approaches focus on the finer details of language used within discourse, such as sentence structures (grammar) and phonology (sounds). This approach is very descriptive and is seldom seen outside of studies focusing on literature and/or linguistics.

Because of its formalist roots, language-in-use pays attention to different rules of communication, such as grammaticality (i.e., when something “sounds okay” to a native speaker of a language). Analyzing discourse through a language-in-use framework involves identifying key technicalities of language used in discourse and investigating how the features are used within a particular social context.

For example, English makes use of affixes (for example, “un” in “unbelievable”) and suffixes (“able” in “unbelievable”) but doesn’t typically make use of infixes (units that can be placed within other words to alter their meaning). However, an English speaker may say something along the lines of, “that’s un-flipping-believable”. From a language-in-use perspective, the infix “flipping” could be investigated by assessing how rare the phenomenon is in English, and then answering questions such as, “What role does the infix play?” or “What is the goal of using such an infix?”

Need a helping hand?

Approach #2: Socio-political

Socio-political approaches to discourse analysis look beyond the technicalities of language and instead focus on the influence that language has in social context , and vice versa. One of the main socio-political approaches is Critical Discourse Analysis , which focuses on power structures (for example, the power dynamic between a teacher and a student) and how discourse is influenced by society and culture. Critical Discourse Analysis is born out of Michel Foucault’s early work on power, which focuses on power structures through the analysis of normalized power .

Normalized power is ingrained and relatively allusive. It’s what makes us exist within society (and within the underlying norms of society, as accepted in a specific social context) and do the things that we need to do. Contrasted to this, a more obvious form of power is repressive power , which is power that is actively asserted.

Sounds a bit fluffy? Let’s look at an example.

Consider a situation where a teacher threatens a student with detention if they don’t stop speaking in class. This would be an example of repressive power (i.e. it was actively asserted).

Normalized power, on the other hand, is what makes us not want to talk in class . It’s the subtle clues we’re given from our environment that tell us how to behave, and this form of power is so normal to us that we don’t even realize that our beliefs, desires, and decisions are being shaped by it.

In the view of Critical Discourse Analysis, language is power and, if we want to understand power dynamics and structures in society, we must look to language for answers. In other words, analyzing the use of language can help us understand the social context, especially the power dynamics.

While the above-mentioned approaches are the two most popular approaches to discourse analysis, other forms of analysis exist. For example, ethnography-based discourse analysis and multimodal analysis. Ethnography-based discourse analysis aims to gain an insider understanding of culture , customs, and habits through participant observation (i.e. directly observing participants, rather than focusing on pre-existing texts).

On the other hand, multimodal analysis focuses on a variety of texts that are both verbal and nonverbal (such as a combination of political speeches and written press releases). So, if you’re considering using discourse analysis, familiarize yourself with the various approaches available so that you can make a well-informed decision.

How to “do” discourse analysis

As every study is different, it’s challenging to outline exactly what steps need to be taken to complete your research. However, the following steps can be used as a guideline if you choose to adopt discourse analysis for your research.

Step 1: Decide on your discourse analysis approach

The first step of the process is to decide on which approach you will take in terms. For example, the language in use approach or a socio-political approach such as critical discourse analysis. To do this, you need to consider your research aims, objectives and research questions . Of course, this means that you need to have these components clearly defined. If you’re still a bit uncertain about these, check out our video post covering topic development here.

While discourse analysis can be exploratory (as in, used to find out about a topic that hasn’t really been touched on yet), it is still vital to have a set of clearly defined research questions to guide your analysis. Without these, you may find that you lack direction when you get to your analysis. Since discourse analysis places such a focus on context, it is also vital that your research questions are linked to studying language within context.

Based on your research aims, objectives and research questions, you need to assess which discourse analysis would best suit your needs. Importantly, you  need to adopt an approach that aligns with your study’s purpose . So, think carefully about what you are investigating and what you want to achieve, and then consider the various options available within discourse analysis.

It’s vital to determine your discourse analysis approach from the get-go , so that you don’t waste time randomly analyzing your data without any specific plan.

Step 2: Design your collection method and gather your data

Once you’ve got determined your overarching approach, you can start looking at how to collect your data. Data in discourse analysis is drawn from different forms of “talk” and “text” , which means that it can consist of interviews , ethnographies, discussions, case studies, blog posts.  

The type of data you collect will largely depend on your research questions (and broader research aims and objectives). So, when you’re gathering your data, make sure that you keep in mind the “what”, “who” and “why” of your study, so that you don’t end up with a corpus full of irrelevant data. Discourse analysis can be very time-consuming, so you want to ensure that you’re not wasting time on information that doesn’t directly pertain to your research questions.

When considering potential collection methods, you should also consider the practicalities . What type of data can you access in reality? How many participants do you have access to and how much time do you have available to collect data and make sense of it? These are important factors, as you’ll run into problems if your chosen methods are impractical in light of your constraints.

Once you’ve determined your data collection method, you can get to work with the collection.

Step 3: Investigate the context

A key part of discourse analysis is context and understanding meaning in context. For this reason, it is vital that you thoroughly and systematically investigate the context of your discourse. Make sure that you can answer (at least the majority) of the following questions:

• What is the discourse?
• Why does the discourse exist? What is the purpose and what are the aims of the discourse?
• When did the discourse take place?
• Where did it happen?
• Who participated in the discourse? Who created it and who consumed it?
• What does the discourse say about society in general?
• How is meaning being conveyed in the context of the discourse?

Make sure that you include all aspects of the discourse context in your analysis to eliminate any confounding factors. For example, are there any social, political, or historical reasons as to why the discourse would exist as it does? What other factors could contribute to the existence of the discourse? Discourse can be influenced by many factors, so it is vital that you take as many of them into account as possible.

Once you’ve investigated the context of your data, you’ll have a much better idea of what you’re working with, and you’ll be far more familiar with your content. It’s then time to begin your analysis.

Step 4: Analyze your data

When performing a discourse analysis, you’ll need to look for themes and patterns .  To do this, you’ll start by looking at codes , which are specific topics within your data. You can find more information about the qualitative data coding process here.

Next, you’ll take these codes and identify themes. Themes are patterns of language (such as specific words or sentences) that pop up repeatedly in your data, and that can tell you something about the discourse. For example, if you’re wanting to know about women’s perspectives of living in a certain area, potential themes may be “safety” or “convenience”.

In discourse analysis, it is important to reach what is called data saturation . This refers to when you’ve investigated your topic and analyzed your data to the point where no new information can be found. To achieve this, you need to work your way through your data set multiple times, developing greater depth and insight each time. This can be quite time consuming and even a bit boring at times, but it’s essential.

Once you’ve reached the point of saturation, you should have an almost-complete analysis and you’re ready to move onto the next step – final review.

Step 5: Review your work

Hey, you’re nearly there. Good job! Now it’s time to review your work.

This final step requires you to return to your research questions and compile your answers to them, based on the analysis. Make sure that you can answer your research questions thoroughly, and also substantiate your responses with evidence from your data.

Usually, discourse analysis studies make use of appendices, which are referenced within your thesis or dissertation. This makes it easier for reviewers or markers to jump between your analysis (and findings) and your corpus (your evidence) so that it’s easier for them to assess your work.

When answering your research questions, make you should also revisit your research aims and objectives , and assess your answers against these. This process will help you zoom out a little and give you a bigger picture view. With your newfound insights from the analysis, you may find, for example, that it makes sense to expand the research question set a little to achieve a more comprehensive view of the topic.

Let’s recap…

In this article, we’ve covered quite a bit of ground. The key takeaways are:

• Discourse analysis is a qualitative analysis method used to draw meaning from language in context.
• You should consider using discourse analysis when you wish to analyze the functions and underlying meanings of language in context.
• The two overarching approaches to discourse analysis are language-in-use and socio-political approaches .
• The main steps involved in undertaking discourse analysis are deciding on your analysis approach (based on your research questions), choosing a data collection method, collecting your data, investigating the context of your data, analyzing your data, and reviewing your work.

If you have any questions about discourse analysis, feel free to leave a comment below. If you’d like 1-on-1 help with your analysis, book an initial consultation with a friendly Grad Coach to see how we can help.

Psst… there’s more (for free)

This post is part of our dissertation mini-course, which covers everything you need to get started with your dissertation, thesis or research project. 

You Might Also Like:

30 Comments

This was really helpful to me

I would like to know the importance of discourse analysis analysis to academic writing

In academic writing coherence and cohesion are very important. DA will assist us to decide cohesiveness of the continuum of discourse that are used in it. We can judge it well.

Thank you so much for this piece, can you please direct how I can use Discourse Analysis to investigate politics of ethnicity in a particular society

Fantastically helpful! Could you write on how discourse analysis can be done using computer aided technique? Many thanks

I would like to know if I can use discourse analysis to research on electoral integrity deviation and when election are considered free & fair

I also to know the importance of discourse analysis and it’s purpose and characteristics

Thanks, we are doing discourse analysis as a subject this year and this helped a lot!

Please can you help explain and answer this question? With illustrations,Hymes’ Acronym SPEAKING, as a feature of Discourse Analysis.

What are the three objectives of discourse analysis especially on the topic how people communicate between doctor and patient

Very useful Thank you for your work and information

thank you so much , I wanna know more about discourse analysis tools , such as , latent analysis , active powers analysis, proof paths analysis, image analysis, rhetorical analysis, propositions analysis, and so on, I wish I can get references about it , thanks in advance

Its beyond my expectations. It made me clear everything which I was struggling since last 4 months. 👏 👏 👏 👏

Thank you so much … It is clear and helpful

Thanks for sharing this material. My question is related to the online newspaper articles on COVID -19 pandemic the way this new normal is constructed as a social reality. How discourse analysis is an appropriate approach to examine theese articles?

This very helpful and interesting information

This was incredible! And massively helpful.

I’m seeking further assistance if you don’t mind.

Found it worth consuming!

What are the four types of discourse analysis?

very helpful. And I’d like to know more about Ethnography-based discourse analysis as I’m studying arts and humanities, I’d like to know how can I use it in my study.

Amazing info. Very happy to read this helpful piece of documentation. Thank you.

is discourse analysis can take data from medias like TV, Radio…?

I need to know what is general discourse analysis

Direct to the point, simple and deep explanation. this is helpful indeed.

Thank you so much was really helpful

really impressive

Thank you very much, for the clear explanations and examples.

It is really awesome. Anybody within just in 5 minutes understand this critical topic so easily. Thank you so much.

Thank you for enriching my knowledge on Discourse Analysis . Very helpful thanks again

This was extremely helpful. I feel less anxious now. Thank you so much.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Understanding the Use of Language Through Discourse Analysis

Observing how various means of discourse create context

• An Introduction to Punctuation
• Ph.D., Rhetoric and English, University of Georgia
• M.A., Modern English and American Literature, University of Leicester
• B.A., English, State University of New York

Discourse analysis, also called discourse studies, was developed during the 1970s as an academic field. Discourse analysis is a broad term for the study of the ways in which language is used between people, both in written texts and spoken contexts .

Discourse Analysis Defined

Whereas other areas of language study might focus on individual parts of language—such as words and phrases (grammar) or the pieces that make up words (linguistics)—discourse analysis looks at a running conversation involving a speaker and listener (or a writer's text and its reader).

In discourse analysis, the context of a conversation is taken into account as well as what's being said. This context may encompass a social and cultural framework, including the location of a speaker at the time of the discourse, as well as nonverbal cues such as body language, and, in the case of textual communication, it may also include images and symbols. "[It's] the study of real language use, by real speakers in real situations," explains Teun A. van Dijk, a noted author and scholar in the field.

Key Takeaways: Discourse Analysis

• Discourse analysis looks at conversations in their social context.
• Discourse analysis melds linguistics and sociology by taking into account the social and cultural context that language is used.
• It can be used by businesses, academic researchers, or the government—any person or organization that wants to better understand an aspect of communication.

What Discourse Analysis Does

Misunderstanding relayed information can lead to problems—big or small. Being able to distinguish subtle subtext in order to differentiate between factual reporting and fake news, editorials, or propaganda is crucial to interpreting true meaning and intent. This is the reason that having well-developed skills in the critical analysis of discourse—to be able to "read between the lines" of verbal and/or written communication—is of utmost importance.

Since the establishment of the field, discourse analysis has evolved to include a wide range of topics, from the public versus private use of language to official versus colloquial rhetoric, and from oratory to written and multimedia discourses. The field of study has further branched out to be paired with the fields of psychology, anthropology, and philosophy, thus meshing linguistics with sociology.

"We're also 'asking not just about the rhetoric of politics, but also about the rhetoric of history and the rhetoric of popular culture; not just about the rhetoric of the public sphere but about rhetoric on the street, in the hair salon, or online; not just about the rhetoricity of formal  argument  but also about the rhetoricity of personal identity." —from "Discourse Analysis and Rhetorical Studies" by Christopher Eisenhart and Barbara Johnstone

Academic Applications of Discourse Analysis

There are many avenues we can study through the lens of discourse analysis including discourse during a political debate, discourse in advertising, television programming/media, interviewing, and storytelling. By looking at the context of language use, not simply the words, we can understand nuanced layers of meaning that are added by the social or institutional aspects at work, such as gender, power imbalance, conflicts, cultural background, and racism.

As a result, discourse analysis can be used to study inequality in society, such as institutional racism, inherent bias in media, and sexism. We can also use it to examine and interpret discussions regarding religious symbols located in public places.

Real-World Applications of Discourse Analysis

Apart from scholarly applications, discourse analysis has some very pragmatic uses as well. Specialists in the field are tasked with helping world leaders understand the true meaning behind communications from their peers. In the field of medicine, it's used to help physicians find ways to ensure they're better understood by people with limited language skills, as well as guiding them in dealings when giving patients a challenging diagnosis.

For example, in one study, transcripts of conversations between doctors and patients were analyzed to determine where misunderstandings had occurred.   In another, women were interviewed about their feelings regarding a diagnosis of breast cancer.   How did it affect their relationships? What was the role of their social support network? How did "positive thinking" come into play?

How Discourse Analysis Differs from Grammar Analysis

Unlike grammar analysis, which focuses on the structure of sentences, discourse analysis focuses on the broad and general use of language within and between particular groups of people. Another important distinction is that while grammarians typically construct the examples they analyze, the analysis of discourse relies on actual writings and speech of the group being studied to determine popular usage.

In terms of textual analysis, grammarians may examine texts in isolation for elements such as the art of persuasion or word choice (diction), but only discourse analysis takes into account the social and cultural context of a given text.

In terms of verbal expression, discourse analysis takes in the colloquial, cultural, and living use of language—including each and every "um," "er," and "you know," as well as slips of the tongue, and awkward pauses. Grammar analysis, on the other hand, relies entirely on sentence structure, word usage, and stylistic choices. This does, of course, often include a cultural ingredient but it's missing the human element of spoken discourse.

Additional References

• Van Dijk, Teun A. "Handbook of Discourse Analysis Vol. 4: Discourse Analysis in Society." Academic Press. December 1997.
• Eisenhart, Christopher; Johnstone, Barbara. " Discourse Analysis and Rhetorical Studies ." Rhetoric in Detail: Discourse Analyses of Rhetorical Talk and Text , pp. 3—21. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. 2008

Sherlock, Rebecca, et al. “‘ What Would You Recommend Doctor?’—Discourse Analysis of a Moment of Dissonance When Sharing Decisions in Clinical Consultations. ”  Health Expectations , vol. 22, no. 3, 2019, pp. 547–554., doi:10.1111/hex.12881

Gibson, Alexandra Farren, et al. “ Reading Between the Lines: Applying Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis to Online Constructions of Breast Cancer. ”  Qualitative Research in Psychology , vol. 12, no. 3, 2015, pp. 272–286., doi:10.1080/14780887.2015.1008905

• Definition and Examples of Discourse
• An Introduction to Semantics
• What Is Parsing? Definition and Examples in English Grammar
• Pragmatics Gives Context to Language
• Indeterminacy (Language)
• What Is Lexicogrammar?
• Rhetorical Analysis Definition and Examples
• Rhetoric: Definitions and Observations
• Renaissance Rhetoric
• Linguistic Variation
• Speech in Linguistics
• Definitions and Discussions of Medieval Rhetoric
• The Definition of Sociolinguistics
• Standard English (SE)
• The Power of Indirectness in Speaking and Writing
• classical rhetoric

Analyzing meaning: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics

Paul Kroeger, Dallas, Texas

Copyright Year: 2018

ISBN 13: 9783961100347

Publisher: Language Science Press

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Elisa Maroney, Professor, Open Oregon Educational Resources on 4/19/19

This is a comprehensive textbook on semantics and pragmatics. The approximately 500 pages cover a wide range of topics from the meanings of words to the meanings of grammatical morphemes. read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

This is a comprehensive textbook on semantics and pragmatics. The approximately 500 pages cover a wide range of topics from the meanings of words to the meanings of grammatical morphemes.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

This text is a survey of topics in semantics and pragmatics, both of which are broad disciplines in and of themselves. As such, the overview of how meanings are made in human languages seems accurate, thorough, and unbiased.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

The references provided in this introductory text range from as early as 1892 to 2017. The text is written in a way that seems relatively easy to update.

Clarity rating: 5

This text seems to be written in a manner that is accessible to a broad readership, upper level undergraduate to graduate level readers. Not only is this text readable by those who are interested in languages and linguistics, but it also seems understandable and accessible to readers in a wide range of subject areas.

Consistency rating: 5

As an introductory text, this book provides a broad range of topics and includes an extensive range of terminology. This breadth makes sense for an introductory textbook.

Modularity rating: 4

The text is written in such a way that references are made to previous chapters. This may be difficult for some instructors who choose to assign chapters out of sequence.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

Topics are organized in logical ways. References to other parts of the text are easy to follow.

Interface rating: 5

This book is easy to navigate.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

As a reader, I am extremely sensitive to small grammatical and stylistic errors. I found this text to be mechanically and stylistically easy to read.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

This text uses a broad range of linguistic and world language examples.

At the end of most chapters, there is a list of further readings and discussion or homework exercises. These are time-saving and expeditious for the busy instructor, as well as will be helpful to them in regard to built-in opportunities to assess student comprehension, opportunities for reflection and critical thinking, and to assess teaching effectiveness. These activities are helpful to students by reinforcing and verifying understanding. Students can also use these as study-guides before reading the chapters.

Table of Contents

I. Foundational concepts

• Chapter 1: The meaning of meaning
• Chapter 2: Referring, denoting, and expressing
• Chapter 3: Truth and inference
• Chapter 4: The logic of truth

II. Word meanings

• Chapter 5: Word senses
• Chapter 6: Lexical sense relations
• Chapter 7: Components of lexical meaning

III. Implicature

• Chapter 8: Grice's theory of Implicature
• Chapter 9: Pragmatic inference after Grice
• Chapter 10: Indirect Speech Acts
• Chapter 11: Conventional implicature and use-conditional meaning

IV. Compositional semantics

• Chapter 12: How meanings are composed
• Chapter 13: Modeling compositionality
• Chapter 14: Quantifiers
• Chapter 15: Intensional contexts

V. Modals, conditionals, and causation

• Chapter 16: Modality
• Chapter 17: Evidentiality
• Chapter 18: Because
• Chapter 19: Conditionals

VI. Tense & aspect

• Chapter 20: Aspect and Aktionsart
• Chapter 21: Tense
• Cahpter 22: Varieties of the Perfect

Ancillary Material

About the book.

This book provides an introduction to the study of meaning in human language, from a linguistic perspective. It covers a fairly broad range of topics, including lexical semantics, compositional semantics, and pragmatics. The chapters are organized into six units: (1) Foundational concepts; (2) Word meanings; (3) Implicature (including indirect speech acts); (4) Compositional semantics; (5) Modals, conditionals, and causation; (6) Tense & aspect. Most of the chapters include exercises which can be used for class discussion and/or homework assignments, and each chapter contains references for additional reading on the topics covered. As the title indicates, this book is truly an INTRODUCTION: it provides a solid foundation which will prepare students to take more advanced and specialized courses in semantics and/or pragmatics. It is also intended as a reference for fieldworkers doing primary research on under-documented languages, to help them write grammatical descriptions that deal carefully and clearly with semantic issues. The approach adopted here is largely descriptive and non-formal (or, in some places, semi-formal), although some basic logical notation is introduced. The book is written at level which should be appropriate for advanced undergraduate or beginning graduate students. It presupposes some previous coursework in linguistics, but does not presuppose any background in formal logic or set theory.

About the Contributors

Paul Kroeger is a Professor of Applied Linguistics at the Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics in Dallas, Texas, and a Senior Linguistic Consultant for SIL International. He is the author of Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog (1993, CSLI); Analyzing syntax: a lexical-functional approach (2004, Cambridge University Press); and Analyzing grammar: an introduction (2005, Cambridge University Press). He holds a Ph.D. in Linguistics from Stanford University. His research has focused primarily on the syntax and semantics of Western Malayo-Polynesian languages, with a particular interest in languages of Borneo.

Contribute to this Page

• Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Meaning of analysis in English

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

• Sophisticated statistical analysis was employed to obtain these results .
• I read two interesting historical analyses of the period .
• This book is designed to be provocative rather than a watertight piece of economic analysis.
• The documentary's analysis of the issues was very superficial .
• A pattern is beginning to emerge from our analysis of the accident data .
• They took blood and urine specimens for analysis.
• conclusionary
• construction
• impact statement
• interpretation
• job evaluation
• lucubration
• re-evaluation
• review bomb

You can also find related words, phrases, and synonyms in the topics:

Related word

Analysis | american dictionary, analysis | business english, examples of analysis, translations of analysis.

Get a quick, free translation!

Word of the Day

null and void

having no legal force

Sitting on the fence (Newspaper idioms)

Learn more with +Plus

• Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
• Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
• Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
• Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
• English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
• English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
• English–Dutch Dutch–English
• English–French French–English
• English–German German–English
• English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
• English–Italian Italian–English
• English–Japanese Japanese–English
• English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
• English–Polish Polish–English
• English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
• English–Spanish Spanish–English
• English–Swedish Swedish–English
• Dictionary +Plus Word Lists
• English    Noun
• American    Noun
• in the last/final analysis
• Translations
• All translations

Add analysis to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

The Ultimate Guide to CELTA

A Guide to Lesson Planning: Language Analysis

In order to teach a specific item of language, for example a tense or a lexical set, it is essential that you, as the teacher, “know” this item thoroughly which is why on a CELTA course you are asked to include a language analysis on the lesson plan. What does this include and what do you need to consider? Here, in this third post in the series on lesson planning, we have the answers to these and other questions all about language analysis.

Believe me, there is nothing worse than to be teaching something and not be prepared for questions your students throw at you about that specific piece of language, especially when you are being assessed! Being throughly prepared gives you extra confidence in the classroom,  which in turn gives you an aura of knowing what you are doing! This is where the language analysis comes in- it prepares you to teach a specific area of language; even if you think you know what a word means, have you thought about the difficulties your learners might have with it?

All centres have a slightly different lesson planning form that you are asked to fill in when planning a lesson on your CELTA course but most include the same components:

• Meaning/ Use
• Anticipated problems for meaning/ use, form & phonology
• Solutions to any anticipated problems
• Concept Checking Questions

So if we were going to look at a concrete example, let’s assume we need to analyse the language item “wardrobe” the language analysis section of the lesson plan might look something like this:

Item: There is a wardrobe in the corner of the room.

Meaning: A piece of furniture, usually made of wood, for keeping clothes. Usually in the bedroom.

Form: Countable noun, regular plural

Phonology:  /ˈwɔːdrəʊb/

Anticipated Problems for Meaning: Students may confuse a wardrobe with a cupboard.

Solution: Use ccqs to check understanding of the difference. Use visuals to clarify what is in a wardrobe vs what might be in a cupboard

Anticipated Problems for Form: None

Anticipated Problems for Pronunciation: German students may pronounce the /w/ sound as /v/.

Students may pronounce the /ɔː/ sound as /ɑː/.

Italian/ Spanish students may pronounce the silent /e/ at the end.

Students may use the wrong stress /wɔː’drəʊb/

Solutions: Model and drill the pronunciation. Mark the stress on the board.

Concept checking questions :

• Do I keep a shirt or pair of trousers in a wardrobe? Yes.
• Is my wardrobe in the kitchen? No.
• Does a wardrobe have a door to open? Yes, normally.
• (using visuals) Which of these pictures is a wardrobe? The one on the right.

This is the kind of language analysis that would be expected for a lexical item. Now let’s look at one for a grammatical structure:

Item: If I lived in England, I’d be a teacher.

Meaning: An unlikely event. There is only a small chance that I will move to England.

Form: If + past simple, would (contracted form I’d) + bare infinitive

Pronunciation:  /ɪf aɪ ‘lɪv dɪn ‘ɪŋlənd aɪd ‘biːjə ‘tiːʧə/

Anticipated Problems for Meaning: Students think because the past simple is used the meaning is in the past.

Solution: Clarify/check through ccqs that the meaning is in the present/ future

Anticipated Problems for Form: Students don’t use contracted form of I would.

Students muddle structure and use “If” and “would” in the same part of the sentence.

Students use present simple rather than past simple.

Solutions: Using fingers, indicate that “I” and “would” are joined together, thus eliciting “I’d” from the student

Elicit the word order/ form of verb from the students by fousing their attention to the structure written on the board.

Anticipated Problems for Pronunciation:  Sts don’t link “lived” and “in” or “be” and “a” so sound unnatural.

Students don’t get the rhythm of the sentence.

Solutions: Using fingers, indicate that these words are linked together, model and drill the linked words.

Model and drill (possibly with clapping) the rhythm of the sentence. Use back-chaining if necessary (building up a sentence from the end eg a teacher- be a teacher- I’d be a teacher- in England I’d be a teacher- If I lived in England, I’d be a teacher.

Concept Checking Questions: 

• Do I live in England? No.
• Am I a teacher? We don’t know.
• Are we talking about the present/ future or the past? Present/ future.
• Is there a chance I will move to England? Yes.
• A big chance or a small chance? Small.

Now that you’ve seen some examples of a language analysis here are some helpful hints:

• Put the language you are analysing into context (eg in a sentence). This will make it easier to write your ccqs.
• Write the definition (meaning/ use) at the students’ level so this can be used in class as well.
• If you come up with a problem students may have, always come up with a solution to the problem.
• When thinking about phonology, focus on sounds, stress, linking, weak forms as well as intonation.
• Use a dictionary when focusing on meaning as well as phonology but remember that the phonetic script in the dictionary is the strong form of the item said alone.

Which tips would you add to the list?

While you’re here….

….we need coffee!

As you can imagine, we put our hearts and souls into helping novice teachers become great teachers. Unfortunately, we are not machines, and even we need a little caffeine boost occasionally to get the creative juices flowing. Any recognition of the work we put in will be gratefully received. Choose an amount

Or enter a custom amount

Your support is much appreciated!

Teilen mit:

Author: Amanda Momeni

A CELTA tutor, English language tutor and co-author of The Ultimate Guide to CELTA View all posts by Amanda Momeni

6 thoughts on “A Guide to Lesson Planning: Language Analysis”

Nice BLOG!!!

Like Liked by 1 person

This is a great help! especially your recommendations for the CCQs. Thanks!

Like Liked by 2 people

• Pingback: How to prepare for your CELTA Course – The Ultimate Guide to CELTA
• Pingback: How to Achieve a Pass A on your CELTA Course – The Ultimate Guide to CELTA
• Pingback: Lesson Plans: Troubleshooting – The Ultimate Guide to CELTA

Leave a comment Cancel reply

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Explained in Simple Terms

You can't open the news without reading about AI, but what's the easiest, most simple way to explain it?

Quick Links

The simplest explanation of ai, ai in more detail, how is ai being used today, the future of ai, key takeaways.

• AI is like teaching computers to learn like humans by looking at data and making decisions, but it lacks common sense and emotions.
• Machine learning allows algorithms to learn from data, while natural language processing involves computers understanding and speaking human language.
• AI is used in chatbots, data analysis, product design, and art creation, but the future poses concerns about potential misuse and regulation.

Artificial intelligence is all the rage, with its huge potential causing a stir in almost every industry. But fully understanding AI can be tricky, especially if you're not well-versed in tech topics.

So, let's break down artificial intelligence into its most simple terms. How does AI work, and how is it being used?

Artificial intelligence is like teaching computers to learn just like humans, therefore simulating how humans think. AI does this by looking at lots of data or examples and then using that to make decisions or predictions.

Imagine you are learning to ride a bike. After falling a few times, you start understanding how to balance and pedal simultaneously. That's how machine learning, a part of AI, works. It looks at a lot of data and then learns patterns from it. Another part of AI, natural language processing, is similar to teaching computers to understand and speak human language.

But even with all this, computers still can't fully think or understand like humans. Modern AI systems don't have common sense, emotions, or consciousness.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a branch of computer science aiming to build machines capable of mimicking human intelligence. It involves creating algorithms that allow computers to learn from and make decisions or predictions based on data rather than following only explicitly programmed instructions.

Machine Learning (ML)

Machine learning (ML), a subset of AI, involves systems that can "learn" from data. These algorithms improve their performance as the number of datasets they learn from increases.

Deep learning, a further subset of machine learning, uses artificial neural networks to make decisions and predictions. It is designed to mimic how a human brain learns and makes decisions.

Natural Language Processing (NLP)

Natural language processing (NLP) is another important aspect of AI, dealing with the interaction between computers and humans using natural language.

This often involves an AI system taking in a natural language request, analyzing it, deriving context, and then producing a natural language response.

For example...

• Human: "Could you find me a few examples of toxic plants in South America?"
• AI chatbot: "Sure! Here are some examples of toxic plants in South America..." [and so on]

Neural networks are used in NLP and come in many different forms, including:

• Pretrained transformer neural networks
• Recurrent neural networks
• Deep belief networks
• Convolutional neural networks
• Self-organizing maps

The ability of machines to understand and respond to human language is crucial for many AI applications, like virtual assistants and AI chatbots (which we'll discuss in a moment).

Artificial intelligence can be classified into two main types: narrow AI, which is designed to perform a narrow task (such as facial recognition or internet searches), and artificial general intelligence (AGI), which is an AI system with generalized human cognitive abilities so that it can outperform humans at most economically valuable work. AGI is sometimes referred to as strong AI .

However, despite many advancements, AI still does not possess the full spectrum of human cognitive abilities, and we are still far from achieving true artificial general intelligence . The current AI technologies are task-specific and cannot understand context outside their specific programming.

AI has potential and applications that stretch far beyond the tech realm alone.

1. Chatbots

Even if you're not big into tech, you've probably heard the name "ChatGPT." ChatGPT (short for Chat Generative Pre-transformer) is a generative AI chatbot. But this isn't like the chatbots you may have used in the past. ChatGPT uses artificial intelligence to process natural human language, find data, and provide responses.

ChatGPT's capabilities form a long list, including fact-checking, checking spelling and grammar, creating schedules, writing resumes, and even translating languages.

HuggingChat, Claude, and Gemini (formerly Bard) are other examples of AI chatbots. These services all differ in certain ways. Some are free, some are paid, some specialize in certain areas, while others are better with general tasks.

2. Data Analysis

Data analysis is a key part of our world, whether in research, healthcare, business, or otherwise. Computers have been analyzing data for many years, but using artificial intelligence can take things to the next level.

AI systems can more effectively detect trends, patterns, and inconsistencies than a typical computer (or human, for that matter). For example, an AI system could more distinctly highlight less obvious user habits or preferences for social media platforms, allowing it to show more personalized advertisements.

3. Production and Design

When designing products, many elements must be considered. The cost of materials, how they're sourced, and how efficiently the product will perform are just a few factors that companies need to keep in mind, and this is where AI can help.

Because AI can learn and discover new things based on the information it is given, it can be used to carve out more cost-effective and sustainable materials and production practices for businesses. For instance, an AI system could list more eco-friendly materials that could be used in a product's battery given a comprehensive data set to work from.

4. Art Creation

AI-generated art took the world by storm in 2022, with products like DALL-E, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney becoming extremely popular. These AI text-to-image tools take a text-based prompt and generate an art piece based on the request.

For example, if you type "purple sunset on the moon" into DALL-E, you'll get more than one result. Some art generators also let you pick a style for your generated image, such as vintage, hyperrealistic, or anime. DALL-E has evolved a lot since its initial release and is now on its third version, DALL-E 3. You can use DALL-E on ChatGPT Plus to generate AI images in your chats.

Some artists have rejected AI art generators , as they are trained on pre-existing online art to learn how to create their prompted pieces. Artists claim this is a breach of copyright and contributes to the theft of original art, an issue that already spans the web.

AI is already being used to develop new medicines, highlight more sustainable business practices, and even make our day-to-day lives easier by performing mundane tasks like cooking or cleaning.

However, many think that the future of AI is dark and dystopian. It's no surprise that this is a common assumption, given how sci-fi books and films have created some scary stereotypes around AI and its possible consequences.

AI can indeed be abused or mishandled, but this is true for any technology. We've seen cybercriminals exploit Wi-Fi, VPNs, email, and even flash drives to spread malware and push scams. However, the worry is concentrated on artificial intelligence because of its capabilities.

In January 2023, an individual posted to a hacking forum claiming they had successfully created malware using ChatGPT . It wasn't highly complex malware, but the ability to create malicious code via an AI chatbot got people talking. If less advanced AI is being abused now, what will happen if super-intelligent computers are exploited in the future?

At the moment, there are no AI systems that can think on the same level as a human. Many have predicted what such a machine would look like, but it's all hypothetical. While some think we'll create machines with human-level cognitive abilities in the next decade, others think it will take much longer.

If AI is regulated correctly, its development and use could be controlled to prevent bad actors from getting their hands on highly advanced technology.

Licenses, laws, and general rules of thumb all play a role in keeping AI out of the wrong hands. However, this will need to be done without restricting the development of and access to AI technology too tightly, as this could quickly become counterproductive.