Linguistics: .\1or;'ear:ess

GreenbergJ 1966 lAnguage Unil:ersals.Mouton,The Hague,TheNetherlands

HattenR 1994 }Iusical .\feaning in Beethoven:Markedness,Correlation, and Interpretation. Indiana UniversityPress,Bloomington,IN

JakobsonR 1968 Child Language, Aphasia and PhonologicalUniversals.Mouton,TheHague,TheNetherlands

JakobsonR 1972Verbalcommunication.Scientific American227:72-80

JakobsonR 1984Thestructureof theRussianverb.In: WaughL, HalleM (eds.)Russianand Slavic GrammarStudies,1931-1981.Mouton,Berlin

Kean M-L 1980 The Theory of Markedness in GenerativeGrammar.IndianaUniversityLinguisticsClub,Bloomington,IN

LiszkaJ 1989The Semiotic of Myth. IndianaUniversityPress,Bloomington,IN

MayerthalerW 1988Morphological Naturalness.Karoma,AnnArbor, MI

McCawleyJ 1985Kuhnianparadigmsassystemsofmarkednessconventions.In: Makkai A, MelbyA (eds.)Linguistics andPhilosophy: Studies in Honor of Rulon s. Wells. John Ben-jamins,Amsterdam

Myers-ScottonC (ed.)1998Codesand Consequences:ChoosingLinguistic Varieties.OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork

Waugh L 1982 Marked and unmarked:A choicebetweenunequalsin semioticstructure.Semiotica38:299-318

WaughL, RudyS(eds.)1991New Vistasin Grammar:Invarianceand Variation. John Benjamins,Amsterdam

E. Battistella

Linguistics:Overview

Linguistics, conventionally defined as the scientificstudy of language, has generated a wide range ofbranches, subdisciplines, schools of thought, andapplications, many of which are given separate treat-ment in the encyclopedia. This article provides aperspectivewithin which these and other aspectscanbe interrelated, insofar as they use the word 'linguis-tics' as part of their identity.

1. Linguisticsas a Science

Linguistics achieved its academic identity during thetwentieth century, shaped in the first few decadesby aseriesof pioneering and influential personal statements(notably Saussure 1916,Sapir 1921,Bloomfield 1933),consolidated in the middle decades as a universitysubject at both undergraduate and graduate levels,and reinterpreted in the later decades by a newgeneration of scholars concerned to give the subjectasound theoretical foundation (notably Chomsky ]957,]965). In Europe, its origins lay chiefly in a reaction tothe philological curiosity about thehistory and originsof language, which had preoccupied the nineteenthcentury; in the USA, theprimary impetuscamefrom a

8948

concern to provide a linguistic dimension to theanthropolo gical investigations of A merican Indiancultures. But the subject also benefited from anincreased general interest in the study of language inrelation to human beliefs and behavior (e.g., inphilosophy, theology, information theory, literarycriticism, communication studies), which manifesteditself at both popular and specialized levels. Thedevelopment of the media, especially broadcasting,further helpedto bring languageissuesto the forefrontof national consciousnesses,as did the demands madeby foreign-language teachers and other 'languageprofessionals' for more sophisticated informationabout their subject.

The multiplicity of interestsin thesubject,each withits own intellectual agenda and methodologies ofinquiry, brought a profound appreciation of the rangeand complexity of linguistic phenomena, and thus ofthe needto develop a researchdiscipline with its ownprinciples and procedures. Early on, linguistics cameto beviewed as a 'science,'and attemptswere made todefineits axioms and make its investigativeproceduresexplicit (e.g., Bloomfield 1926, Hjelmslev 1943).Linguists emphasized their concern to make theirstudies systematicand objective, by contrast with theselectiveimpressionism which had characterizedmuchprevious literary and pedagogical work on language.A great deal of attention was devoted to makinginvestigative procedures clear and well defined. Therewas a significant growth, fostered by progress inacoustic technology, of experimental techniques, es-pecially in phonetics. And therewas an unprecedentedconcern for precise definition, clear and comprehen-sive description, and more powerful explanation. Anemphasis in the first half of the century on theprocedures for describing individual languages,or thefeatures of language families, changed during thesecondhalf into an emphasison theuniversal, definingproperties of language, and on the nature of languageviewed as part of human biolo gy and psychology. Yetthere were significant continuities too. Chomsky'sfocus on thedistinction betweenlinguistic competenceand performance, and on the status of language as an'organ of the mind,' echoed Saussure's notions of thecollective language system (tangue) and its concretemanifestation in utterance (parole), and of the humanlanguage faculty (faculte de langage).

Becauseof its claims to scientific stature, the subjecthas often been referred to as 'linguistic science,' butsometimesa designation of 'linguistic sciences'will beencountered. The choice hinges on the perceivedstanding of phonetics. In the 'plural' interpretation,phonetics is seenas a separatediscipline, which alongwith linguistics makes up the linguistic sciences.Thereasoning is that the subject-matter of phonetics-which includes acoustics, anatomy, physiology, neur-ology, and auditory perception-is so different fromthe 'rest' of linguistics that it cannot sensibly besubsumed under the same heading. M oreover, its

2. Classificationby Orientation

These changes of emphasis and direction, which are aninevi ta~le part 0f the in tellectu al develo pm ent 0f asubject, have given rise to a range of designations forlinguistics, each of which captures a particular orien-tation or 'universe of interest.' The earliest of these,

introduced by Saussure, was chronological, dis-tinguishing diachronic linguistics from synchroniclinguistics. This terminology reflects his concern tomove away from an exclusively historical approachfor the study of language to one in which a language isseen as existing at a particular moment (or 'state') intime, 'syn-chronically,' regardless of whatever mayhave happened to it previously or would happen to itsubsequently. M ost linguistic research is synchronic,in the sense that linguists are aiming to establish thenature of the system of rules which define a (part of a)language's expressive potential at anyone time. Forexample, the word 'balcony' currently has a stress onits first syllable, and this is what would be noted as partof a synchronic description of modern English stress;the fact that, over a century ago, the stress was on thesecond syllable, would not be considered relevant. On

the other hand, in a diachronic description, the waythe stress has shifted is of central relevance-not least

because the process is continuing in many other words,such as 'dispute' and 'research.' Saussure saw the twochronological orientations as intersecting-an 'axis ofsimultaneities' crossing an 'axis ofsuccessivities'-andthis point of intersection must not be ignored. Un-

Linguistics:Overview

certainties about usage are one example of the way inwhich ongoing language change complicates a syn-chronic analysis. But the point of the distinction iswidely appreciated, and Saussure's refocusing hasbeen so successful that it has long been standard

practice to interpret the word 'linguistics' as meaning'synchronic linguistics,' with references to the other

orientation requiring a more explicit phrase-usually,these days, 'historical linguistics.'

Another type of orientation relates to the generalityof a linguistic inquiry. As already mentioned, acontemporary focus on language is to make statementsof maximal generality: the aim is to determine what it

is that defines the notion of 'human language.' Alllanguages have a great deal in common in the way theyproduce sounds, organize their grammars, and con-

struct systems of meaning in words. Identifying theuniversal principles which govern language, and dem-onstrating how these principles apply in individualcircumstances to produce the languages known to usas French, English, Chinese, Swahili, etc., is theprimary aim of theoretical linguistics. The term 'the-ory' here has its standard scientific application, reflect-ing the need for explanation of a maximally generalkind, and the provision of fruitful models which will

generate testable hypotheses about, in this case,

linguistic structure and use. Theoretical linguists donot study a language because they are interested inthat language per se; they study it because of what it

can tell them about the nature of language in genera!.A particular language may be especially 'interesting'because it makes use ofa type of sound or grammaticalconstruction that other languages do not. The label'general linguistics' is often used to capture thisbreadth of vision. A further consequence of thisapproach is that, once some linguistic data has been

accumulated, a special concern is to find the best wayof analyzing it. There are so many variables inpronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary that it ispossible to envision an indefinitely large number ofways of showing how these domains are organized.Theoretical linguists spend much of their time search-ing for plausible and elegant analyses, and identifyingcriteria for their evaluation.

One of the controversies in the profession relates tothis point. According to some linguists, as a result ofthe above orientation, the subject has become 'toogenera!.' Analyses which try to achieve maximalgenerality inevitably make statements which are highlyabstract, and seem to be far rem oved from the

description of individual languages, and of the waythese are used in everyday speech and writing. Theemphasis on ach ievin g gen era Ii ty, accord in g to th isview, has brought a de-emphasis on individuality-ofwhat it is that makes one language unique, differentfrom all the others. While it is accepted that, in thelong term, all the idiosyncrasies of individuallanguages may be explicable with reference to generalrules, there is seen to be no likelihood of this happening

8949

Linguistics: Orer

in the foreseeable~:::~:=provide descriptio;;simportant now as" e\-=:__special characte: 0:'~ ;.l.'&.r.:':~:;~::lguagewas givenspecial urgency I;; :;:;=1=:::s

and grammar \l-::;i:~ li-':;~c.;;.:::::s. and analyze sen-tence construclio::s :;:;:c ::::r: cO:lSliLUent parts. In asomewhat broader Si';Jst',ct'''eloping tbe initiatives ofSaussure, a 'sIructllralis:- e:bos pre\-ailed, which aimedto establish sys[ems 0: rela:ions between linguisticunits-an approach wbich. under the heading ofstructuralism. came [Q influence thinking throughoutthe arts and social sciences. Within linguistics, it was in

due course applied 10 further areas of linguisticstructure (especially semantics), and extended by somelinguists (such as Pike 1954-60) to other domains ofhuman communicative behavior. The notion of system

continued to play a central role in linguistic theorieswhich emerged during the postwar period, notably inthe work of Firth (1957) and his students, and laterbecame central in the systemic linguistics of Halliday(Halliday and Fawcett 1987). It was the perceivedlimitations of the structuralist orientation, with itsfocus on the classification of structures and units at a

'surface' level of description within a corpus of data(linguistic 'performance'), which prompted its labelingas 'taxonomic' (with a pejorative implication) byChomsky, and which motivated his initial formulationof generative linguistics (Chomsky 1957), with itsconcern to explicate underlying linguistic relations inways that could account for the creative linguisticabilities (or 'competence') of the individual.

3. Classificationby Interaction

The generative orientation constituted a revolution in

linguistic thought; and although other kinds oflinguis-tic theories and models continued to be devised and

developed in the latter part of the century, it was thegenerative approach, in its various formulations,which provided the subject's center of gravity. At thesame time, partly independent of this state of affairsand partly as a consequence of it, several areas ofinteraction with other academic disciplines emerged.These 'hybrid' subjects were the result of asynergybetween two intellectual streams. On the one hand,

linguists sensed that they needed to take their subjectin fresh directions if they wished to account foreverything that influenced the way people spoke andwrote (and also signed, for the analysis of deaf signingwas also emerging as a new research field). On theoth-er hand, scholars in other academic disciplineswere finding that they needed to provide more soph-isticated accounts of language structure and use inorder to maintain their own research agendas. Thepotential for interaction had in some cases been recog-nized for many years. In the case of the interactionbetween linguistics and anthropology, it had been

there from the earliest days of the subject (Boas 1911).

The difference was partly in the way hybrid labelscame to be institutionalized as 'recognized' domainsfor teaching and research (anthropological linguistics,in this case), and partly in the cross-disciplinaryclimate of the times, which gave rise to nearly twodozen such hybrids by the turn of the century.

There is not always a total meeting of minds in theseinterdisciplinary encounters: the orientation given tothe hybrid subject within a linguistics department is byno means identical with the orientation it is given

within the department which constitutes the other halfof the hybrid. For example, one of the areas of inquiryin psycho linguistics is the relationship betweenlanguage and memory. When a linguist investigateshow language is affected by memory and a psy-

chologist investigates how memory is affected bylanguage, it might be thought that the two directionsof inquiry would 'meet in the middle.' In practice,differences in the researchers' intellectual histories,

theoretical aims, and research procedures can producewidely divergent accounts. One need only look at thelist of references at the end of journal articles to seehow authors, ostensibly investigating the same subject,can come from different directions. There may be adifference of la beling, which may reflect a difference oforientation-as in sociolinguistics (a branch oflinguistics) alongside the sociology of language (abranch of sociology), or philosophical linguistics (abranch of linguistics) alongside linguistic philosophy(a particular approach within philosophy). Nonethe-less, the shared subject-matter, and a growing mutualfamiliarization with the intellectual background of thecontributing disciplines, produced in the last quarterof the twentieth century a growing number of research

collaborations, interdisciplinary conferences, jointlyauthored textbooks, and shared teaching courses inmany of these hybrid subjects, resulting in a growingidentity and coherence.

Hybrid subjects can be placed in clusters, on thebasis of an overlap in their subject-matter. The earliestclusters to be given clear definition all relate to a

concern to see language in its cultural and socialcontext. Anthropological linguistics (or linguisticanthropology) focuses on language variation and usein relation to human cultural patterns and beliefs (in

its early years, especially on the Amerindian peoples ofNorth America). Overlapping with this is ethno-linguistics, studying language in relation to ethnictypes and behavior, and widely practiced throughapproaches (variously called the ethnography of com-munication or ethnography of speaking) whichanalyze the entire range of variables, extralinguistic aswell as linguistic, involved in social interaction. Socio-linguistics, studying all aspects of the relationshipbetween language and society, is the most well es-tablished of this cluster of subjects, and is sometimes

used as a covering label for all domains of inquiry inwhich there is a preoccupation with the social func-

8951

tions of language. Hosometimes differentia:ed ::o~ !:"land Europe, reftectiJg a co:;rnfi co see language as anintegral part of sociological :Ci'o:y. So too is inter-actional sociolinguis:ics. :e:erring to the study ofspeech in face-ta-face corn mur.ica lion.

Several other facets 0: the sociolinguistic clusterhave maintained their individual nomenclature. One

example is dialectology (sometimes called dialectgeography), which focuses on the properties of re-gional (and more recently social) dialects. Another isareallinguistics, which studies the linguistic properties(languages as well as dialects) of large geographicalregions~such as Western Europe or the British Isles.Closely related is geolinguistics (also geographicallinguistics), which studies the geographical distri-bution of languages throughout the world with ref-erence to their political, economic, and cultural status.Pragm alinguistics studies language use from the view-point of a language's structural resources; it contrastswith those pragmatic studies which examine theconditions on language use deriving from the socialsituation (sometimes referred to as sociopragmatics).Finally, there is the study of (linguistic) style,stylistics~a study which, though chiefly concernedwith the nature of the personal linguistic identity ofindividuals (especially in a literary context), has oftenbeen extended to include the distinctive linguistic fea-tures of group-identifying functions of language, suchas are found in advertising, science, and the media.W hen the focus is specifically on the distinctivelanguage used in social institutions, such as law,

medicine, and religion, some linguists use the labelinstitutional linguistics.

Another cluster of hybrid subjects looks at languagein relation to human biology. In its broadest character-ization, the subject is referred to as biologicallinguis-tics (or biolinguisics), focusing on the preconditionsfor language development and use from the viewpointsof both the history of language in the human race andthe development of language in the individual (thelatter topic usually being distinguished by the namedevelopmental linguistics or child language acqui-sition). Its topics include the genetic transmission oflanguage, neurophysiological models of language pro-duction, and the anatomical comparison of humansand other species. It also subsumes the study ofpathological forms of language behavior (as inaphasia, dyslexia, and language delay), though thecomplexity of these conditions, and the interdisci-plinary nature of their diagnosis and treatment, hasprompted the development of separate specialisms.Chief among these is neurolinguistics (sometimes

referred to as neurological linguistics), which focuseson the neurological basis of language developmentand use, in particular aiming to understand theway the brain controls the processes of speaking,listening, reading, writing, and signing. Although itsfocus is on clinically normal states, much of its evi-

8952

dence comes from the investigation of abnormal lan-

guage development and language breakdown. It thusoverlaps with clinical linguistics, which is exclusivelydevoted to the diagnosis, assessment, and treatmentof all forms of language disability in children andadults.

Any of these domains can of course be studied from

the point of view of ,mind' as distinct from 'body,' andpsycho linguistics (sometimes called psychologicallinguistics) has emerged as a major subject, investigat-ing the interaction between language and such topicsas memory, perception, attention, and personality, innormal and abnormal states. Depending on thedomain of inquiry involved, compound names will be

encountered, such as clinical psycho linguistics anddevelopmental psycholinguistics. Psychology shareswith education an interest in learning, and there hasbeen special concern to understand how language isdealt with in schools and other educational insti-

tutions. Educational linguistics (sometimes pedagogi-callinguistics) focuses on the way government policiesand planning, teacher training, curricula, syllabuses,and pedagogical materials handle the teaching of themother tongue and foreign languages. The laterdecades of the twentieth century also saw a growing

metalinguistic concern, with researchers investigatingthe ways in which children become increasingly awareof language and its elements, in a domain which by the1990s had been labeled language awareness. Withinthe teaching profession, a corresponding fresh interestin the study of language, largely motivated in the UKby the arrival of the National Curriculum, introduced

a new acronym, KAL (knowledge about language).A further cluster of hybrids relates to the numerical

sciences. M athematicallinguistics studies the formal

properties of language, usually employing concepts ofan algebraic or statistical kind. Its main applicationhas been in the formalization of linguistic theory, asdeveloped in relation to generative linguistics, butseveral other areas of language study have receivedmathematical investigation. In particular, statistical(or quantitative) linguistics studies the frequency anddistribution of linguistic units in texts, with the aim ofestablishing general laws concerning the statistical

properties of language (such as the relationship be-tween word types and tokens), and identifying thedistinctive characteristics of authors (stylostatistics).In the later part of the twentieth century, compu-tational techniques and concepts came to be increas-ingly applied to the elucidation of linguistic problems,under the heading of computational linguistics. Sev-eral research areas have been developed, including

natural language processing, automatic speech syn-thesis and recognition, machine translation, the mak-ing of concordances, and the many areas wherestatistical counts and analyses are required. The

provision of large machine-readable texts (computercorpora) was a special development of the 1990s, andgave rise to the domain of corpus linguistics. Linguistic

in volveme:.; I:'t;.~o~~::-:;;ectio n- in rela tion to suchs cc:;:::=,::~;:::ilgramming, information re-

ion, indexing, referencescience. z:.;: toIb:.Fmanagement-has been lim-ited to iso:2c~d i=:c:=:::s.and has not yet resulted in ahybrid ~:;:':,I,::.:.",::~::;one imagines that, given thegrowth I::: :;:;E :!ore:!_:::e emergence of Internet linguis-tics can o;;ly::c-:! ;::atIer of time.

!ot a:: G:"::1': :ecms can be neatly clustered. Some,by their ;J:!:~,e, s:.a::d outside of classification, becausetheir rok is !o e,"zluate aspects of the field as a whole,The stud:; 0:- [he history of ideas in linguistics islinguistic hislOrtography. Philosophical linguisticsstudies the ,ole of language in relation to the under-

standing and elucidation of philosophical concepts, aswell as the philosophical status of linguistic theories,methods. and observations. Critical linguistics emerg-ed in the 1990s with the aim of revealing hidden powerrelations and ideological processes at work in spokenor written texts. Critical linguists criticize mainstreamlinguistics for its formalist preoccupations, its lack ofadequate social explanations, and its obscuring of

ideological and political issues. This 'critical' per-spective may be applied to individual branches of thesubject. In particular, critical discourse analysis studiesthe relationship between discourse events and socio-

political and cultural factors, especially the waydiscourse is ideologically influenced by, and can itselfinfluence, power relations in society.

4. ApplicationsandExtensions

The list of possible hybrid subjects involving linguisticsis by no means exhausted by the above itemization,

and new ones will doubtless emerge. A similar po-tential for expansion is also found in the variousdomains of applied linguistics. In its broadest defi-nition, this is the application of linguistic theories,methods, and findings to the elucidation of languageproblems which have arisen in other areas of ex-

perience, The most established and well-developed

branch is the teaching and learning of foreignlanguages, and sometimes the term is used as if thiswere the only domain involved. But several otherdomains of application have emerged since the middleof the twentieth century, including speech pathologyand therapy, the teaching of the deaf, mother-tongueeducation, the writing of dictionaries (lexicography),the analysis of literary texts (literary stylistics), andtranslation studies. Quite restricted and specializeddomains may be encountered. For example, theo-

linguistics has as its focus the study of the waylanguage is used in theological, biblical, and otherbranches of religious studies. Forensic linguistics is theuse of linguistic techniques to investigate crimes inwhich language data forms part of the evidence, suchas in the use of grammatical or lexical criteria to

authenticate police statements. The field of forensic

phonetics is often distinguished as a separate domain,dealing with such matters as speaker identification,voice line-ups, speaker profiling, tape enhancement,tape authentication, and the decoding of disputedutterances.

There is an uncertain boundary between appliedlinguistics and the various interdisciplinary subjectsreviewed in Sect. 3, especially as several of those

concerns involve practical outcomes (e,g., planning anational language policy within sociolinguistics). Onthe other hand, as these hybrid subjects develop theirown theoretical foundations, the distinction between

'pure' and 'applied' is becoming more evident, andterminological distinctions such as that between

(theoretical) psycholinguistics and applied psycho-linguistics are now more regularly encountered.

The term 'linguistics' will also be encountered in awide range of other contexts, where it is often no more

than a loosely used synonym for 'school of thought' or'approach,' or even a stylistic replacement for theword language or grammar. Very general states ofmind on the part of the investigator can be given a

linguistics designation. For example, mentalist(ic)linguistics is contrasted with behaviorist linguistics.M acrolinguistics, representing a relatively broadframe of reference for linguistic inquiry, is opposed tomicrolinguistics. In relation to schools, we find suchusages as Cartesian linguistics (showing the influenceof Descartes), Chomskyan linguistics (from N.Chomsky), Whorfian linguistics (from B. L. Whorf),Saussurean linguistics (from F. de Saussure), Firthian

linguistics (from 1. R. Firth), and neo-Firthian linguis-tics (scholars whose teaching derived from Firth'sinfluence, notably M. A. K. Halliday (whose name

has, in turn, been given to Hallidayan linguistics).A t this level, there is an appreciable overlap with the

relevant aspect of language which is the focus of an

approach-for example, the terms Chomskyanlinguistics and Chomskyan grammar are often usedsynonymously, as are Whorfian linguistics and

Whorfian semantics. The same point applies to suchgeneral approaches as functional(ist) linguistics, whichtreats the notion of function as central, especially in

grammar, and thus allows a terminological overlapwith functional(ist) grammar. Systemic and poly-systemic linguistics (which treat the notion of systemas central) may also be found alongside systemic andpolysystemic grammar. Virtually any variety or use oflanguage can be focused in this way, as in creolelinguistics (= the linguistic study of creole languages)and paralinguistics (= the linguistic study of para-language-tones of voice, facial expressions, etc). Buteventually, as increasingly restricted areas of inquiryare encountered, the use of the general term ceases tohave a point, and linguists replace it by specific termssuch as morphology, phonology, lexicology, seman-tics, onomastics, and other structural labels best

explicated under the heading of 'language.'

8953

Linguistics: Orer

Bibliography

Bloomfield L 1926A selofposrulates for thescienceoflanguage.Language2: 153-64

Bloomfield L 1933Language. Holt Rinehart & Winston, NewYork

Boas F (ed.) 1911 Handbook of American Indian Languages.Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC

Bright W (ed.) 1992International Encyclopedia of Linguistics.Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

Chomsky A N 1957Syntactic Structures.Mouton, The Hague,The Netherlands

Ch omsky A N 1965Aspectsof theTheory of Syntax. MIT Press,Cambridge, MA

Crystal D 1985Linguistics, 2nd edn. Penguin, Harmondsworth,UK

Crystal D 1996A Dictionary 0/ Linguistics and Phonetics, 4thedn. Blackwell, Oxford, UK

Crystal D 1997The CambridgeEncyclopedia0/ Language,2ndedn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Crystal D 2000 LanguageDeath. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK

Firth J R 1957 A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930--55.In:Philological Society (Great Britain), Special Volume, Studiesin Linguistic Analysis. Blackwell, Oxford, UK, pp. 1-32

Fries CC 1952The Structure of English. Harcourt Brace, NewYork

Halliday M A K, Fawcett R P (eds.)1987New DevelopmentsinSystemicLinguistics. Pinter, London

Henderson E J A (ed.) 1971 The IndispensableFoundation: ASelection/rom theWritings0/Henry Sweet.Oxford UniversityPress, London

Hjelmslev L 1943Omkring SprogteoriensGrundllEggelse.Lunos,Copenhagen.[Trans.asProlegomenatoa Theoryo/Language,1961].University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI

Jones D 1956An Outline of English Phonetics,8th edn. Heifer,Cambridge, UK

Lyons J 1981 Language and Linguistics: An Introduction.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Pike K L 1954-60Languagein Relationtoa Unified Theoryo/theStructureo/Human Behavior.SummerInstitute of Linguistics,Glendale, CA

Quirk R, GreenbaumS, Leech G N, Svartvik J 1972A Grammarof ContemporaryEnglish. Longman, London

Robins RH 1979General Linguistics: An Introductory Survey,3rd edn. Longman, London

Sapir E 192] Language.Harcourt Brace, New YorkSaussureF de ]916Cours deLinguistiqueGenerale.Payot, Paris.

[Trans. as Course in General Linguistics, 1959.PhilosophicalLibrary, New York]

D. Crystal

8954

Lin~

Pro te

egonreasonameof ca tis in

objecother

categth e 1