Three Controversial issues in Linguistics

Three Controversial issues in Linguistics

When I started my study of linguistics, I discovered three controversial issues. The first issue is if language is innate, or if language is learned. My focus is on spoken language. It is generally accepted that written language is nurture.  Some linguists take the position that speaking is an innate human capability. Linguist Noam Chomsky is a strong proponent of this perspective.

Innate means inborn or natural like drinking, eating and walking. No matter where children were born, they learn to drink, eat, and walk instinctively.  Speaking is a little bit different. Although all children develop speech they speak different languages. The issue, is language innate, has been debated by some psycholinguists for decades.

The dispute would be resolved easily and simply if we look at speaking as two separate parts. They actually produce sound and use sounds to convey meaning. The former is innate while the latter is learned. In other words, the former is nature while the latter is nurture. 

The second issue is whether writing is the written form of speaking. Linguist Ferdinand Saussure said, “A language and its written form constitute two separate systems of signs. The sole reason for the existence of the latter is to represent the former.” However, what he said is wrong, that the latter isn’t.

Original writings were pictographs, iconic pictures, which represented ideas directly and were not meant to be spoken. Hundreds of years ago, people in East Asia spoke Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Chinese, but they all wrote Chinese characters which aren't meant to be spoken. Even today people in China speak Mandarin, Cantonese and other dialects but write the same Chinese characters that are understood by all despite differences in dialects.

Even now words in modern English still represent ideas instead of speaking sounds. For example, the “ed” for past tense and the “s” for plural nouns do not stand for the voiced or voiceless consonants. Furthermore, if writing represents speaking sounds, the homonyms, homophones, and homographs are unreasonable, and the lower case and upper case letters are unnecessary. In addition, how do we explain how one word can have different pronunciation and meaning in American English and British English?

American pronunciation symbols or the IPA (International Phonetic Alphabets) symbols may exist solely for representing speaking while the alphabets in writing do not, although they look alike. In spite of modern writing is closely connected to speaking, it does not represent speaking. Because we speak and write, we believe that writing represents speaking. I guess deaf people may think writing represents sign language. Do you agree?

Sign language, spoken language and written language, all represent human thinking. Now people speak according to writing because contemporary writing with punctuation marks guides us on how to speak. At present writing is becoming to the standard of speaking.  Modern written language is superior to spoken language because the former is much accurate than the latter in expression of human thoughts.

Why did Saussure regard writing as a written form of speaking, and I don’t regard it as such? This will lead to the third controversial issue, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which also is known as linguistic determinism. We speak different languages, and the languages we speak determine the way we think. In English the words “speaking” and “writing” are subordinate to “language”. However in Chinese, my mother language, “speaking” and “writing” are two totally different things which do not have a superordinate concept. When I think “spoken language” and “written language” in English, they are the same thing. When I think “speaking” and “writing” in Chinese, they are two separate things.

Superordinate and subordinate in languages are not biological classifications. They are cultural classifications. They are not all the same in different languages especially in the languages with a large gap. For example, in Chinese watermelon, cantaloupe, honeydew, pumpkin, wax gourd, cucumber, snake gourd, bitter gourd are all subordinate to melon. Is it ridiculous or not? In the same way, in English cooking pot, coffee pot, and flower pot are subordinate to pot. It’s time for Chinese people to ask if this is funny or not.  

The language we speak determines the way we think. Precisely, the words we use determine the way we think. Language is developing. Words are continually evolving as society develops. Generally speaking, with more words, a language is more advanced. I support Sapir-Whorf theory. In addition, I believe language is thought because they can’t be separated. They are two sides of the same coin. Without language we can’t think.

It has been several years since I have studied linguistics. Are these controversies still discussed?