1.1. Approaches to the Study of Language
Language can be studied from at least four different but related angles, namely, biological, psychological, social and linguistic. In the biological approach we identify the biological bases of language, raising questions such as whether there are any biological correlates for our capacity to acquire and use languages. In the social approach to the study of language we identify the role of language in interpersonal communication and find out how societal factors come to control and contribute to language use. In the psychological study of language we identify both the aspects of interpersonal and intrapersonal communication; we study how man as an organism understands and produces sentences. In the linguistic approach to the study of language, the structures of a language-phonological, syntactic and semantic are identified, described and explained. The present study about the use of language in scientific pursuits may be considered as belonging to sociolinguistics, which studies the functions of language - how humans constituting groups for different purposes use language. Language is not only a vehicle for interpersonal and intrapersonal communication, but also a means to acquire knowledge and to organize the world around us. It is also a means to express the knowledge thus gained. Our major concern in this book, however, is to study how a language, when chosen to express the sciences, is actually used, to study the processes that help or hamper the use of languages in the expression of sciences, to study how the concepts of sciences mould and influence the modes of language uses and to identify the mechanisms of language that are constantly resorted to in refining and enriching the language use.
1.2. Languages and the Expression of Sciences
A study of the historical background of using languages for the expression of sciences shows different types of trends in the uses of languages. There are languages that were at least partly used to express sciences simultaneously with the progressive emergence of modern sciences. There are languages that were originally not used for expression of sciences but soon became the vehicle of sciences. There are languages that are used for the expression of sciences, but their use is of a limited range and restricted to only some of the levels of education and scientific activities. There are communities that do not use their own languages at all for the expression of sciences. There are languages that were originally the media of the sciences but now play only the role of supplying terms of sciences, or processes for the coinage of terms of science, rather than being actively used as media for the expression of sciences.
The users of the new languages that are sought to be made fit vehicles for the expression of sciences have established various types of machinery to achieve their goal. This is one type of conscious effort. In another type of conscious effort, even the scholars who use the developed languages as media for the expression of sciences are engaged in constant efforts to clarify the concepts, and to reduce ambiguity for better communication. They also devote a lot of their attention to develop common terms and expressions for effective and faster communication between those who use different languages for the expression of sciences. Thus there is always a ceaseless effort made to improve the language in some sense and to make it a fit vehicle for the communication of sciences.
1.3. Relationship between Language Structure and Language Use
Linguists assert that all languages are equal in their structural complexity and in their potential to express the ideas of their users. The principle of affability, generally accepted by linguists, states that we can express everything we feel and experience through a human language. In spite of this assertion, there are many ways in which languages are classified with reference to their richness of concepts. The richness is considered sometimes in terms of literary works, sometimes in terms of science books and articles and some other times in terms of polite expressions, musicality and so on. Some languages are considered inherently fit for diplomacy, some for art and some others for heroism, wrangling or abuse. Some languages are considered languages of gods.
The above characterizations of languages reveal the advancement (or the lack of it) achieved by the communities, which use those languages. The richness of a language is generally measured in terms of the number and kinds of domains of uses to which such languages are put. The greater and larger the number and kinds of domains of uses, the richer a language is generally considered. Although such richness may generally mean the expansion of vocabulary in a language and may not contribute to large scale additions of new syntactic structures, a reorganization of the old syntactic structures, a changed emphasis on the frequency of occurrence of different syntactic structures and development of novel ways of expressing ideas utilizing old structures, do take place often. For all these things to happen, however, the material, social, and philosophical advancements of a community seem to matter more than anything else. As such advancements are related in a very significant manner to the educational processes, the medium used for such processes is bound to be used in the domains not originally conceived and practised. When Latin and Greek were the media of the educational processes, the European vernaculars had only a limited number and kinds of domains of uses. A progressive induction of vernaculars into newer and dynamic areas led to their emergence as rich languages in comparison to the languages of the present developing and underdeveloped countries. The progressive induction of the vernaculars into newer and dynamic areas accompanied the industrialization of the societies, which used the vernaculars and in fact was helped by the industrialization process itself.
1.4. Language Use in Developing Countries
For historical reasons many developing and underdeveloped countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America have adopted and been using a language usually of European origin in their institutions of education, administration and mass communication Such an adoption of a language of a developed country, in place of a local language, may or may not lead to material, social, and philosophical advancements, since, for such advancements, language is only a vehicle and not the deciding factor. But adoption of a non-native language for purposes of education, administration and mass communication etc., may result in the restriction of domains of uses for the local language. In these countries the people who speak the local languages are exposed to newer concepts and newer disciplines through languages other than their own. They are required to manipulate and put into practice and do research with these concepts through foreign languages. Such situations restrict the domains of uses for their own languages, even as the people are benefited by the newer disciplines and newer concepts given them by the adopted non-local language. Thus if the development of languages is to be measured in terms of the domains of uses, most of the languages of the developed and developing nations are to be placed under a wide spectrum of development particularly in relation to their use in disciplines of science.
The case history of the adoption of English as the medium of instruction in the Indian subcontinent points out how the domains of uses of native languages are restricted. The languages of the Indian subcontinent had been vehicles of supreme literature and also of pre-European sciences. However, the adoption of a schooling system that had a different focus of content and which aimed at a wider spread of education was not followed by choosing native languages as media of instruction. Indeed, had these languages been chosen as the media of instruction, even as the founding of a system with wider spread of education as its goal was in its sprout, the languages of the Indian subcontinent would have by now attained the status of developed languages in the sense detailed above.
The educational history of developing nations abounds in hesitant and at times faulty decisions, taken mainly with the aim of maintaining the colonial power, and the ruling elitist classes after independence. The epoch-making Macaulay's Minute of 1835 was of a mixed blessing to the native languages of the Indian subcontinent - in as much as the domains of the uses of these languages were to be restricted for a long time to come, and, in as much as their lexical and syntactic horizons have been extended by their contacts with English. Macaulay recommended English as the language best worth knowing by the natives of the Indian subcontinent. His policy of restricted educational facilities (which in fact was much broader in scope and extent than the then prevailing system) led him to make an observation that had not been falsified by the course of history: 'We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern - a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population'.
Implicit in Macaulay's observation is a recognition of lack of terms of science in Indian languages fit for the expression of western scientific concepts and an inherent faith in the evolutionary processes for the development of languages through greater exposure. The trust placed on the class of persons, Indian in blood and colour but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and intellect to enrich their vernaculars with terms of sciences from the English language is explicit in this observation. This trust has been realized and accomplished in an unexpected quarter, namely, the study of literature. The impact of English literature on literatures of modern Indian languages is indeed prodigious and has led to the establishment of prose as a great medium of literature. It has led to interesting and durable innovations in forms and functions in all aspects of literature. But the fond hope of Macaulay for the enrichment of native vernaculars with terms of science, etc., has still not been fully realized. During the British rule, there was a gulf between the levels of education in terms of the medium of instruction adopted at each level, with primary education offered through the medium of vernaculars and the post-primary education through English. This gulf was necessitated by the Empire's desire to accommodate the natives' aspiration to retain their identities while insisting upon a knowledge of sciences through the European medium. However, this gulf was slightly bridged when in the early twentieth century the Indian vernaculars became the media of instruction at the secondary level. But even then a gulf was maintained between the secondary and collegiate levels of education, as English continued to be the medium of instruction at the collegiate level. Thus the fortunes of the languages of the Indian subcontinent to become fit vehicles of modern sciences were restricted. Their development in this area, if any, was at all times linked with their use in the levels of education, apart from the endeavours to popularise scientific concepts. Their standard and facilities for the expression of sciences were only of such a stature admitted by the requirements of primary and secondary levels of education. Had the native vernaculars been used to express the concepts of modern science right from the beginning of the introduction of these concepts into the educational system of the Indian subcontinent, the vernaculars might have perhaps attained a status similar to that of several European languages and Japanese.
The political exigencies have forced the developing nations to adopt their national languages as media of education, administration, mass communication, etc., but the tardy implementation of the policy has not in any manner helped to make national languages fit vehicles for the expression of sciences. Most of these nations' problem being illiteracy, they have concentrated more on the spread of literacy than on making the national languages vehicles for scientific knowledge. The transition period, from the use of a colonial language to that of a national language, is also marked by intense and cutthroat competition between the contesting languages of a nation. In a country like India where conflicting concepts of nationhood still persist, it is difficult to go ahead with the doing away of a language that was once colonial, but now considered only a vehicle for furtherance of knowledge. With the passage of time the gains of retaining the so-called colonial language become more apparent, and as a result, the language of the colonial past is maintained.
A distinction between the teaching of language as a subject and using it as a medium of instruction for other subjects in the curriculum is slowly made in these countries. However, a viable and realistic language teaching policy for the use of the so-called colonial language in terms of its role, placement and duration in the educational system is yet to be fully worked out and put into practice. In such a condition the attempts to bridge the gulf between levels of education in terms of medium of instruction do not bear fruit. Consequent upon this failure, the vernaculars continue to be unacceptable as fit vehicles for the expression of sciences.
1.5. Machinery for Language Development
We have dealt with the historical background of languages of certain regions at length in order to show the trends in choice of languages for the expression of scientific concepts, and to show how conflicting situations prevail in the choice of language for expression of sciences in different countries.
Both the developed and developing nations have established a variety of machinery to develop their languages. These machinery include commissions and agencies to develop technical terms through translation, adoption, adaptation or other means; language teaching institutions, material production centres, textbook societies, institutes of languages and so on. Language commissions and education commissions undertake review of existing facilities, their utilization potential and suggest new measures for the amelioration of specific problems and to cater to projected and felt-needs. Within the developed world there is a constant revision of the goals, methods, materials and researches to achieve greater gains within a shorter span.
1.6. Impediments
In addition to the hiatus between the levels of education in terms of the medium of instruction, there are certain other factors vis-à-vis the expression of sciences, which also contribute to the slow developmental processes witnessed in several languages. In India, in particular, for a long time Sanskrit and not the vernaculars, was used and considered to be the fit vehicle for the expression of sciences. This had resulted in the demarcation of domains for Sanskrit and vernaculars. Although the vernaculars now draw from Sanskrit their norms for the expression of sciences, and terms for 'scientific concepts and processes, they were, however, handicapped in not being put into full use for the expression of sciences. Added to this problem was the restrictive practice of admission in the ancient school system. These restrictive practices did not enable the popularisation of knowledge. Yet another factor that hampered the emergence and development of technical language was the deliberate attempt to pass on knowledge to a limited few who were bound by vows of secrecy. The interplay of the above factors in one form or the other can be very easily identified also in the period of western history during which the European vernaculars were slowly replacing the classical languages as media of education, administration, etc.
1.7. Specialist and Ordinary Languages
In every society, whether civilized or primitive, there is a gulf between the language used by laymen and the language used by specialist groups. Specialization is a relative term and it differs from community to community and individual to individual. Whereas modern practitioners of medicine may use among themselves a language not easily understood by other segments of the community, the priests of primitive communities may pride themselves in speaking in some special language with the gods; the tradesmen may use their own jargon to guard their secrets from being known to all and sundry. Thus the language of the specialist is indeed hard to understand by laymen. Furthermore, with the increasing complexity of the subject matter and narrow specialization, we have come to a position in which a scientist belonging to one discipline finds himself in a difficult position to understand the language of another discipline - the reason for this being his non-acquaintance with conventions of the expressions and the concepts of the other discipline.
A student of science is expected not only to learn and manipulate the use of the concepts of his discipline but also to express the same concepts in clear terms. This is because how you phrase a question seems to be at least as important as what questions you do raise. That is, training in sciences includes acquisition of knowledge as well as acquisition of conventions to express that knowledge. Because of this a science class teaches the concepts and equips the students with a language suitable for the expression of sciences. The education system in the West has recognized this fact and makes a conscious effort to impart a knowledge of the terms and processes employed for the expression of sciences through symposia, seminars, conferences, classroom practices in terms of term papers and other assignments, and through a rigorous training in writing dissertation and using style sheets of standard journals. Although such practices are available to a student of science in a routine fashion, dissatisfaction with the quality of attainment in the expression of scientific concepts goads linguists, scientists and educationists into refining and enriching their classroom practices. Unfortunately, such a ceaseless effort is conspicuous by its absence in most of the developing countries.
For various reasons the language of the sciences sounds different from the day-to-day language. These reasons perhaps contribute to the problems faced by the students in the acquisition of the language of sciences. These generally include the specialized meanings of the technical terms which contrast with the meanings for the same terms in common language, use of foreign and contrived words, contrived translations of foreign terms, special uses of syntax of the common language, the difficulty posed by the concept itself as the term is only a label for the concept and the difficulties one is faced with in deriving one word from the other.
1.8. Plan of the Book
A major concern of this book, as already stated, is to identify and study the mechanisms of language that are constantly resorted to in the uses of language for the expression of sciences. We do this in the background of principles of scientific method, standard procedures of scientific investigation, schools of linguistic philosophy, communication models, principles of rhetoric, and register. Tips for improvement of one's own scientific writing are mentioned here and there. But this book is not intended to provide such guidance. Linguistic structures of any one particular language are not presented. However, some of the major trends in a few languages are presented. This book may be considered as a brief introduction to aspects of language use in science and as an introduction to various aspects of studying language use in science.
In chapter 2, we present and clarify the concepts of language, dialect and register, compare common language with specialist language and indicate the general characteristics of language, which help to acquire and manipulate concepts. We discuss the functions of language and define what one means by style. Certain procedures for a study of language of science are also indicated.
In chapter 3, we trace the roots of science to the ontological development of language and concepts in children. We define what philosophy of science is. A brief introduction to the tenets of linguistic philosophy is also given. In particular, the assumptions and analytical procedures of the schools of Ideal Language Philosophy and Ordinary Language Philosophy are discussed and their relevance for a study of language use in science indicated. The characteristics of philosophical grammar are also dealt with. In addition, the philosophies of language advocated by transformational generative grammarians in general and by Katz in particular are discussed, providing a criticism of the schools of Ideal Language Philosophy and Ordinary Language Philosophy. The various principles of scientific method are presented and discussed in relation to kinds of structures or sentences that are demanded by an adoption of these principles. Salient features of reporting are also discussed. And a classification of the types of scientific language is presented.
In chapter 4, we discuss the nature, function and the processes of coinage of technical terms. Words are viewed as labels for categorizations of universe. While making a distinction between spontaneous and scientific concepts, a question as to whether the technical term is only a noun is raised. Language mechanisms for coinage of terms are identified. Furthermore, the processes of change of forms and meanings are also identified. A definition of definition is attempted and the Latin and Greek background of technical terms of sciences is briefly described. Characteristics of technical terms in English, German, Hindi and Tamil are also presented.
In chapter 5, the nature, function and composition of sentence in science are discussed. We offer various definitions of sentence, and list and describe the various components that go into the making of a sentence. While discussing the types of sentences that are available in some well-known languages, we present and discuss the concepts, namely, deep structure, transformation and surface structure, and the relations that exist between these concepts. Types of sentence expansions are also discussed. The chapter does not stop with a discussion on the role sentence plays in science. The relationships that exist between sentences of a discourse, the characteristics of scientific discourse, an approach to the language of science from the point of view of rhetoric and characteristics of style sheets of journals also form part of chapter 5.
Chapter 6 discusses the aspects of teaching science through the medium of mother tongue and the medium of second language. How difficult it is to define the concept of mother tongue is shown. Characteristics of the acquisition of first language, second language and cognitive structures are linked with the acquisition of ordinary and scientific concepts. Arguments in favour of using mother tongue as medium of instruction are presented. Aspects of teaching science through a second language are also highlighted. Chapter 7 discusses the features and problems of translating scientific materials.
*** *** ***
CONTENTS PAGE
2.1. What is Language?
Many are the definitions of language but none seems to capture faithfully and comprehensively the wholesome phenomenon and the most fundamental means of communication that we call language. Language is defined as a system of arbitrary vocal symbols by means of which members of a social group interact with each other. Language is defined as a tool of communication by means of which human experience is analysed differently in each community into units, each of which has semantic content and phonic expression. Language is also defined in relation to dialects and idiolects by saying that a language is a collection of more or less similar idiolects (the speech of the individuals) with the difference that the degree of similarity of the idiolects in a single dialect is presumed to be greater than that of all the idiolects in the language (Hockett, 1958: 322). Some consider only the phonological (study of significant groups of sounds of a language that are in contrast with one another - phonemes and their arrangements), grammatical (a stock of morphemes -minimum meaningful units and their arrangements) and morphophonemic (study of the phonemic variations in morphemes appearing in different grammatical structures) systems as constituting language, leaving the phonetic (study of all the actual sounds used in a language irrespective of their phonemic status) and semantic aspects (study of the meaning expressed in a language through its words, phrases, sentences and their arrangements, etc.). And yet one can get at the phonological, grammatical and morphophonemic aspects of language only by working through the phonetic and semantic aspects. Some consider language as a system of habits, learned through analogy and imitation. Some consider language as an innate and species-specific trait of human beings. Some consider language as consisting of a system of concepts or vocabulary. Anthropologists regard language as a form of cultural behaviour; sociologists consider it as an interaction between members of a social group; students of literature view it as an artistic medium; philosophers as a means of interpreting human experience, and language teachers as a set of skills.
2.2. Functions of Language
Some consider language mainly as a tool of communication and to understand this tool they suggest that we should consider the uses to which language is put - we should consider the functions of language. Language is fundamental for us because it extracts knowledge from our observations. We have already referred to a fact that languages evolve to fulfil the needs of their users and that they change when these needs change. The growth and efficacy of a language depend upon the dimensions, quantum and quality of different uses to which a particular language is put.
We use language to express, persuade, and describe the events and things around us or imagined by us. We use it for imperative, indicative and interrogative purposes. We use language to communicate factually and emotionally. Language can be put to use for emotive and affective purposes, and for symbolic and informative purposes. Emotive language is rarely used in science. It is the informative language that is more frequently used in the expression of sciences. By means of words properly organized we are able to identify, objectify, standardize, categorize and universalise our experience. The uses to which a language is put are not finite in number. Every use has its own characteristics; we use language differently when we give and obey orders, describe an object, report an event, speculate an event, form and test a hypothesis, make up a story, play act, sing, guess riddles, tell jokes, translate, ask, thank, curse, greet or pray.
Roman Jakobson classifies the function of language into six types. These are emotive, conative, referential, phatic, poetic and metalingual. Emotive function is the direct expression of speaker's attitudes. One may call this the expressive function, which is the correlation between the linguistic utterances (linguistic signs) and the speaker. The conative function focuses our attention on the listener, which may be considered as the appeal function - this is the correlation between the sign and the hearer. The referential function denotes the non-linguistic context and the situation. This is the correlation between the sign and the states of facts, and is called also the representative function. By correlation we mean that any variation in the hearer or speaker or states of facts will correspondingly introduce variation in the linguistic sign (linguistic utterances). The phatic function focuses attention on the contact between source and receiver that is established by virtue of the physical existence of a channel of communication between them. The poetic function focuses our attention on the form of message, in the verbal art of contriving a message that is of interest for its own sake. The metalingual function enables us to use language in order to change language, to discuss the code we are using, to teach it to others, to analyse it or propose changes in it. All the above six functions identified by Roman Jakobson may be compared in that order with the contributing and/or controlling components of communication suggested by Shannon: source, receiver, environment, channel, message and code. The metalingual function is sometimes variously called aesthetic function. Every object or action can be studied on two grounds. Firstly, an object or action can be studied from a utilitarian point of view, i.e., studying the object as a tool. In the case of language, it may be viewed as a communicative tool. Secondly, the object or action can be studied for its own sake. It is not studied as a means to some other end. When the object is studied for its own sake and not for the sake of practical function it serves, it is said to have aesthetic function. The linguistic approach to the study of language is based thus on the aesthetic function-of language.
2.3. Competence Vs Performance
It is an accepted principle of modern linguistic approaches to the study of language to distinguish between what an organism knows and what he does. It is also an accepted practice in modern linguistics to study in depth mainly what an organism knows rather than what he actually performs. Thus the founding father of modern linguistics, Ferdinand de Saussure (1853-1913), distinguished between what he called la langue and la parole, which in fact combine to make the real le langage. La parole refers to the individual manifestations of language. It is the sum total of what people say, including individual constructions that are the consequence of a speaker's choice, and acts of articulation that are equally matters of free choice, required to produce these constructions. La langue refers to the rules that underlie la parole and are common to all the individuals but without the idiosyncratic manifestations of la parole. La langage is the sum of la parole and the grammatical rules of language (la langue). Le langage thus includes individual manifestations, which may differ from person to person also. La langue is le langage minus la parole and thus includes only the underlying system. . It is la langue that forms the subject matter of study in the linguistic approaches to the study of language. La langue is an abstraction and it exists in the shape of a sum of impressions deposited in each individual. These impressions are almost identical and shared by the members of a community who speak the same language. La langue is part of an individual and yet it is common to everyone. La langue is a deposit of signs. It is a social product of the faculty of language, embodying the social conventions. These conventions are acquired from the previous speakers of the language. Chomsky (1965), proposing a more dynamic and comprehensive approach to the study of language than the other modern approaches, does not depart in any significant fashion from the position taken by Saussure about the subject matter of study in linguistic science. He distinguishes between competence (an ideal speaker-hearer's intrinsic knowledge about his language) and performance (use of competence in actual conditions, which is governed by linguistic and several non-linguistic factors such as memory limitation, fatigue, etc.). He also proposes that linguistics should aim at studying only the competence and not performance.
We harp on the distinction between la langue and la parole, or, competence and performance, to emphasize here that even when we study how language is used for the expression of sciences our study aims at the underlying system of competence in the expressions used for sciences rather than at the idiosyncratic use of language by individual scientists. In any communicative system the idiosyncrasy of the participating individuals is bound to be felt and manifest. But beyond these idiosyncrasies lies a common system, which contributes to and helps the exchange of ideas between the participants of a communicative act. It is to this underlying system that we address ourselves even when we study the use of languages for the expression of sciences. The use of language for science may be a special manifestation having its own characteristics. But these special characteristics are built upon a general language. Thus what we have here is a sort of a two-tier system: the competence, as exemplified and found in the common language, over which an additional element, perhaps an additional type of competence, is superimposed because of the specialized nature of content. But this superimposed element cannot have its independent existence without the la langue or the underlying common language. We shall talk more about these relationships in another section, when we discuss the characteristics of common language as opposed to those of the specialist language. We shall only assert here that even in the study of specialist uses of language we seek to study the underlying system rather than the idiosyncratic uses of that system.
2.4. Characteristics of Human Language
Language, we said, is a wholesome phenomenon and this phenomenon is difficult to capture in terms of definitions. A profitable approach would be to characterize what language is. To begin with we must state that language consists of linguistic signs. (We have already used the term sign without much explanation. We shall presently explain the same). These linguistic signs are arbitrary and linear in nature. The linguistic sign unites a concept and an acoustic image. The linguistic sign, thus, has two aspects, namely, the concept (signifié) and acoustic image (signifiant). The acoustic image is the psychic impression of sounds. The arbitrariness of the sign is revealed in the fact that the relation between the linguistic sign and the object or event in the universe to which it refers is arbitrary. There is no one to one correspondence between the word and the object it refers to, as the concept of tree can be expressed as tree in English, maram in Tamil, thingphung in Thaadou, vriksha in Sanskrit and so on. The relation between the picture of a tree and the object tree itself is iconic whereas the relation between the object tree and the word tree is arbitrary.
The linearity of the linguistic sign is revealed in the signifiant, which can be segmented into succeeding points. The linearity feature makes language a chain. The elements that constitute this chain may be considered as having both paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations, the paradigmatic relation being the one established on the basis of the relation an item occurring in the chain has with those not found in the chain. The speech is considered as a chain and so the links of which resemble or differ from each other first of all in form, secondly in distribution and thirdly in meaning. This relation is also called in absentia relationship. What we have is the potentiality of a word in a speech chain to recall in our mind words that are not currently present in the chain but are associated with the word in form, distribution or meaning. Thus, the grammatical categories such as noun, verb, adjective and adverb are generally decided on the basis of their paradigmatic behaviour. The syntagmatic relations are those that hold between the successive members of a given chain of utterance. Syntagmatic relations are called relations in presentia since the relations established are among the linguistic signs that are found in the utterance. Linguists assume that the forms of language can be accurately described only when the syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations of the linguistic signs are established.
Patterning and levels characterize a language. Words consist of sounds; phrases consist of words, and sentences consist of phrases. Combination of sounds has its own patterning or structure in a language. Likewise composition of a sentence has its own structure in terms of phrases, words and other sentences embedded in it. In human languages we can refer to things remote in time or space or both, that is, the linguistic utterances can be freely displaced. Likewise linguistic messages can be false, prevaricated and also meaningless. The capacity for prevarication is due to three characteristics of human languages and these are semanticity or meaningfulness, displacement and creativity.
Creativity enables us to generate the statement. Semanticity enables us to test the validity of the statement and displacement helps us to maintain the prevarication. The necessity of an immediate context is eliminated by the displacement characteristic of our language. One of the most important characteristics of human languages is their facility to create new utterances that have never been uttered before. New sentences are coined freely and easily in any human language. These sentences, although new, can be understood. The creative aspect of language use is related to certain processes such as embedding of one sentence within another, analogising and transformation-conversion of one type of sentence into another type, processes of adding structures to a given sentence, processes of transposing phrases in a sentence, etc.
Every human language is a system and this system has recursive property. This recursive property enables us to combine messages and to coin new sentences from older ones. In addition to all the above characteristics, in a human language new and old elements are freely assigned new "meanings" by circumstances and/or linguistic contexts. These and other conventions of a language can be passed down from one to another and are learnable. Furthermore, the human languages are intertranslatable. Human language has the characteristic, which enables us to communicate in a language about that language itself. This characteristic of reflexiveness is important, and without this the discipline of linguistics would not have come into existence and our discussion of language use in science would not have been made possible! In fact we can communicate via language about anything we experience, although in every speech community we come across statements that such and such a thing cannot be expressed in words. In the latter case the rule is that it is well said when not said. This characteristic of affability enables the speakers of a language almost always to find appropriate sentences to express their thoughts. The speakers may have difficulty in the right choice of items. But difficulties in arriving at the appropriate sentences should be regarded as a failing on the part of the speaker rather than of the language. All kinds of information can be communicated by the sentences of a language.
2.5 Spoken Vs Written
The modern approaches to the study of language recognize in general the primacy of the spoken form of language. They consider language as primarily an oral phenomenon. There are communities that have no written form of language. But there is no community that has no spoken language. Furthermore, all the native languages are learned orally before reading and writing are begun. The reading and writing in their turn seem to be based on the spoken form of the language rather than vice versa. Because of the above reasons linguists are more concerned with the study and description of the spoken language and they also follow the dictum that correct speech is what people say and not what grammarians decree they should say. In spite of tremendous changes in the theory of language noticed in the last two decades or so, the assertion by two linguists, Bloch and Trager, in 1942 that a linguist should write a grammar of a language telling what the speakers say when they talk, and not what he thinks they ought to say, still seems to hold good, to a large extent governing the practice in linguistics. However, language of science is more or less expressed mainly through the written form of a language. Even when it is expressed through the spoken medium, the spoken form is governed by the nuances of the written medium. The written form is the result of a conscious effort in refining the concepts as well as the expression itself for better communication and clarification. The language of science is more or less a written medium affair; oral language of science is rather heavily controlled and guided by the written form of the language of science.
2.6. Language of Science and Linguistics
We have dealt with the characteristics of general language at length only to begin an argument that language of science is not different from general language in the sense that it also shares all the characteristics of general language. In fact, language use in science offers linguists an excellent opportunity to see for themselves how the characteristics of human languages are revealed and operated in rather ideal and explicit conditions, This specialized use of language thus provides us with a knowledge of the dynamic processes and changes that a language engages and undergoes in actual conditions. In this sense the language use in science may be considered as par excellence. For the linguistic sign as used in science exemplifies the notion of sign very well: coinage of technical terms is closely linked with the concept. Along with the identification and/or clarification of a scientific concept (signifié), an acoustic image (sometimes only a visual image) is tagged on to it, resulting in a real linguistic sign.
This sign has both paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations as defined earlier. All the characteristics of general language, namely, arbitrariness, linearity, patterning and levels, intertranslatability, displacement in time and space, prevarication, creativity, novelty and semanticity are all used in the specialist language used for the expression of sciences. However, the principle of affability as applied to language of science should be seen in relation to expression of philosophical advancements of the sciences. The principle would imply here that all the concepts that have been visualized and identified can be expressed by the language of sciences. In case the existing language of sciences (by language we mean here a tool of wider scope that includes the mathematical, mechanical and linguistic devices as well as the underlying concepts and theoretical framework) is found inadequate, the realization of its inadequacy itself leads to a search for and development of an adequate language that matches the maturity of sciences.
This is what we reported earlier - that languages evolve to fulfil the needs of their users and that they change when these needs change. With every new fact, or a new interpretation of an old fact, new expressions come into existence; a new language of science comes into existence. Furthermore, in science, many of the controversies may be traced 'partly to dissimilarities in terminology and style of presentation and partly to a different distribution of problems chosen'. The controversies, may also be traced to the claims of individual scholars that a particular set of problems is more urgent and important than others, and to the tendency of individual scholars to rule out certain problems and issues irrelevant to a consideration of the set they have decided as very crucial and so on.
In the above paragraph we have emphasized the similarities between the general language and the type of language used to express sciences. Although there are similarities between the underlying processes of the general language and the language used for science, one can all the same distinguish the language of science from other uses of general language. That is, the characteristics of the terms or the expressions in which scientists expound their disciplines do indeed form a distinct whole, which may be characterized as language of science. This distinctness of the language used in science may be easily demonstrated: present a scientist and another individual with the same proposition, and then compare the phrases in which their responses are recorded. The responses of a scientist will be couched in such terms and styles that one will easily come to the conclusion regarding the source of these responses.
In other words, one is able to identify and decide in large number of cases whether a particular use of language in terms of words, phrases, sentences and so on is an instance of the use of language of science. The reasons or the grounds for this somewhat easy recognition of the use of language form the subject matter of study of this book.
In brief, one may say that one feels the strangeness of words and of the uses of words and sentences in the language of science; one accepts, many a time by indoctrination rather than by experience, that the words and phrases of the language of science have fixed meanings, and are not distorted as it happens to the words and phrases of general day-to-day language. The language of science is easily identified for its concentrated form, for its direct and straightforward way of expressing facts, which emanates from the characteristics of science and its methods of research, analysis and presentation. In some languages the special features and structures adopted for the expression of sciences also easily reveal the identity of the language of science. Steady lexical expansion and lexical changes which are a consequence of ever expanding and changing sciences also characterize language of science. This language is primarily referential and cognitive, the conative part playing a rather dormant and suppressed role. One must, however, emphasize that although language of science has a limited range (it is generally believed that the function of language of science is only to define and describe), within this limited range it is used not only to define and describe but also to evoke and suggest.
Failure to recognize and accept this position has led to a serious misunderstanding and wrong characterization of language of science. More often than not the characteristics of language of science have been assumed to be the constancy of meanings for lexical items used, the quality of being emotionally neutral, and of being always to the point and straightforward. Language of science should, it is often argued, avoid the vagueness of common language. Use of language in science is expected to be formal. It is true that the terms of scientific language are precise, quantitative and operationally definable. It is also true that the sentences in science are composed so as to meet the requirements of verifiability criterion of meaning. The reference in sentences should also be clear. Furthermore, as opposed to the scientific language, one may consider ordinary language as vague to some extent and also say that it presents paradoxes. One may also say that ordinary language is used to utter anything, factual or otherwise, the minimum requirement being that such utterances should be in conformity with the grammatical constraints. Poetic language is metaphorical. Accordingly it is claimed that scientific language is the best vehicle of truth. And yet one should not also forget that the characteristics of ordinary language can be identified in scientific language.
As part of efforts to make the language use in science more formal, a lot of mechanical and mathematical data and formulae are derived even where such formula types of expressions are not required for presenting facts. The tendency to be neutral, factual, precise, etc., is dictated thus not wholly by the requirements of various disciplines, but by certain other considerations as well.
One of the reasons for this insistent tendency in the language of science must be found in the 'persistent and obsessive view of natural language as a second rate symbolic system accused of a constitutional bias toward imprecision, vagueness, ambiguity and opacity... The variability of meanings, particularly their manifold and far-reaching figurative shifts, and an incalculable aptitude for multiple paraphrases are just those properties of natural languages which induce their creativity, and endow not only poetic but even scientific activities with a continuously inventive sweep. Here, indefiniteness and creative power appear to be wholly interrelated', (Roman Jakobson, 1973).
Scientists have pointed out 'to the decisive role which language of the ordinary kind plays in the birth of new ideas, their rise above the sea of the unconscious and the subsequent mutation of vague, intuitive processes into connection between precise ideas... The inventive technical discourse cannot do without metaphorical language and such figurative terms as field and flow left their sensible imprint on physical thought. It is just natural language that offers a mighty and indispensable support to the ability to invent problems, capacity for imaginative or creative thinking . . .' (Roman Jakobson, 1973). A formalized language of highest refinement is attained in mathematics and at the same time its deep embeddedness in ordinary language is emphasized repeatedly by mathematicians. Thus, for some mathematicians, calculus necessarily rests upon the postulate of the existence of ordinary language, or, in Waissman's formulation, it has to be supplemented by the disclosure of the dependence that exists between the mathematical symbols and the meanings of words in the colloquial language (Roman Jakobson, 1973).
The language of science should be placed and studied in a proper perspective. We have indicated so far certain general characteristics of human languages and also shown how these characteristics are employed by the language use for the expression of sciences. There are a few more concepts the clarification of which in relation to the language of science will help us to appreciate the nature and the special position of language use for the expression of sciences. These are the concepts of dialect, register and style.
A dialect is part of a language - a special type of variation from the general scheme that we call language. This variation is generally looked at either from the social or regional or from both the angles. A speech community is defined as a group of people who interact by means of a particular variety of speech. Within speech communities there are differences in the density of communication. That is, we talk with some people more than we talk with others. Groups of speakers are isolated from each other geographically or socially. They tend to develop modes of speech that are not readily understood by those who communicate with them infrequently. Sometimes communication is not merely absent, it may become impossible. Then we have to do with two languages; when it is infrequent but more or less easy, we have to do with two dialects within at language.
Following Bloomfield (1933), we may identify the main types of speech in this manner:
- The literary standard for formal speech and writing. This dialect is generally accessible to all in a literate community regardless of their locality, through general education.
- The colloquial standard, which is the formal style of the privileged class.
- The provincial standard which will resemble (ii) to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the country in which it is found.
- Substandard - clearly differs from the first three. In some countries this will be a consequence of social position, in others, a consequence of geography.
- The local dialect would be that variety of language which is not comprehensible to other speakers of the community without considerable acquaintance. It is the style often used by the least privileged classes, or it may be the language of the home, which differs from the other standards.
If the language of science is considered a dialect, a dialect caused by the greater density of communication between scientists, it falls under the literary standard used for formal speech and writing. This is more so because the present day language of science is generally accessible to all in a literate community regardless of their locality, in this case through specialist education. It then becomes one of the varieties of the literary standard for formal speech and writing, coloured more by the content for the expression of which this particular dialect is used. But there is one subtle distinction.
The literary standard dialect is generally defined in terms of a single human language, whereas a language of science (expressed, for instance, using English) has vocabulary items, paradigmatic and syntagmatic conventions, certain coinage processes and conventions for the expression of concepts, etc., which are shared by several languages. What we have here is, first of all, individual human languages used for the expression of sciences, which in course of time develop the above listed common processes, conventions and terms, etc. These commonly shared processes, conventions and terms, etc., are now superimposed over individual languages for the expression of sciences and in fact come to control and guide the individual languages when they are engaged for the expression of sciences. In this sense, language of science is independent of individual human languages while it is also part of these individual human languages.
In some languages of the world, we find that in addition to the social and geographical factors, the distinction between spoken and written forms also contributes to the formation of separate dialects. In Tamil, the gulf noticed between the spoken and written forms of the language is so wide that one is tempted to call both the forms separate languages. Existence of such divergent forms of the same language (and their use by a single speech community) is not uncommon. Arabic, Bengali, Modern Greek, Swiss German and several other languages do have such divergent varieties. These varieties are used by speakers under different conditions.
Following Ferguson (1959), these varieties may be classified into High and Low. (No value is attached to the terms). Between the High (H) and Low (L) varieties there is specialization of functions. In one set of situations only H is appropriate and in another only L, with the two sets overlapping only very slightly. H is generally regarded as superior to L. It is believed to be more beautiful, more logical, better able to express important thoughts and the like, even where the believer's command of H is limited. There is generally a sizable body of written literature in H which is held in high esteem by the speech community, and contemporary literature in H is also felt to be part of this otherwise existing literature. L is learned by children in the normal way of learning one's mother tongue. The learning of H is chiefly accomplished by means of formal education. There is an established norm for pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary and alphabet, which allows variation only within limits. If there is tension between H and L it is resolved through repeated borrowing from High to Low. High has grammatical categories not present in L. The grammatical system of L is simpler (in some specified sense not relevant to our discussion at the moment) than that of H. High and Low share the bulk of the vocabulary. There are, however, variations in form, use and meaning. High includes in its total lexicon technical terms and learned expressions, which have no regular Low equivalents. Low also includes in its total lexicon terms and expressions which have no regular High equivalents. There are, however, many paired items from High and Low 'where the range of meaning of the two items is roughly the same and the use of one or the other immediately stamps the utterance or written sequence as High or Low'. As far as the phonology is concerned, the phonology of one variety may be considered as the main system and the phonology of the other as a sub or para system.
In spite of these differences, however, one can establish extensive correspondences between the two forms of the language and researches have shown convincingly that regular conversion rules can be posited to derive one variety from another.
Wherever such divergences exist, it is the High variety that is generally used for the expression of sciences. Thus the language of science in such speech communities is based on the High variety. Furthermore, there is a tendency to use the Low variety in literatures meant for the popularisation of sciences. A blend of High and Low varieties seem to be used in some cases; in some other cases the High variety may be the dominant form with vocabulary and sentential structures generously borrowed from the Low. Appreciation of factors that help or hamper instant communication and appreciation of factors that lead to acceptance of the choice of diction and sentential structure are some of the considerations in the use or non-use of Low and High varieties for popularisation purposes.
In the case of Tamil referred to above, the generally used modern form of Tamil closely resembles what Bloomfield called the literary standard. This written form alone is used for the expression of sciences. There are many variables, which control and guide the nature of language of science once the written form is chosen as the medium. We, however, present these variables when we describe the processes found in individual languages in a subsequent chapter. We may say now that the language of science is rather a language learned in formal conditions. This language is based on the written form of a human language and it also has characteristics shared by all the languages used to express sciences.
Another linguistic concept that characterizes the use of language in science more fully is the concept of register. Variations in the uses of language and its units are found to occur according to the social characteristics of the speaker such as his social class, ethnic group and sex. Variations are found to occur also according to the contexts of speech. A speaker uses different linguistic varieties in different situations and for different purposes. These variations are many and the totality of linguistic varieties used in this way by a speech community may be called that speech community's verbal repertoire.
Many social factors influence and control decisions with regard to which variety from this verbal repertoire is to be actually used on a particular occasion. For example, if a person is talking to people he works with about their work, his language is likely to be rather different from that he will use, say, at home with his family. The occupational situation will produce a distinct linguistic variety. Occupational linguistic varieties of this sort have been termed registers. Registers are usually characterized solely by vocabulary differences: either by the use of particular words, or by the use of words in a particular sense. Registers may be considered a rather special case of particular kind of language being produced by the social situation. The concept of register must be extended to include not only the influence of a specialized social situation but also the influence of the subject matter that is under discussion on the language produced. In this way the concept of register correctly characterizes the use of language in science.
Register is used to denote language viewed from the point of view of its use. It is assumed that the different kinds of language use lead to use of different kinds of linguistic features. Register is the result of the combination of context, sense, medium, tenor and style (we talk more about style in subsequent pages). The situation that produces any language use is referred to as its context. The speaker or writer assumes that what he says or writes has some sense and is related to some area of activity. This sense is expressed through the medium, which can be subdivided into several types. Speech is one of the media and it can be distinguished with reference to formal and informal, public and private, non-conversational and conversational and so on. The differences and similarities in the written medium are rather marked well as the medium demands a more conscious effort.
Tenor is used to indicate 'the way in which the social relationship between the encoder and the decoder of messages influences the language use. The kinds and amount of language use arising out of the context will be affected not only by the sense of the myth which it embodies but also by what the speaker or writer thinks, feels, knows or imagines about his listener or reader in relation to the context, sense and medium', (Darbyshire 1971). Tenor includes differences such as personal and business, technical and nontechnical, and so on. The register includes style, and style helps in identifying, classifying and explaining the processes of register. Compare these components with those controlling components of communication suggested by Shannon referred to earlier: source, receiver, environment, channel, message and code.
Earlier we referred to the concept of dialect and said that the use of language for the expression of science generally falls under the category literary standard. Now with the introduction of the concept of register in our discussion it becomes necessary to clarify the relationship between dialect and language of science, register and language of science and even the relationship between dialect and register. The users of one dialect are different from the speakers of another dialect. That is, by definition, the same set of people does not use two different dialects. The circumstances/contexts in which a dialect is used may be different from those in which another dialect is used.
When we compare a dialect with another we usually have different linguistic situations. A dialect is used by a group of people whereas a speaker uses different registers, adjusting himself to different contexts. One such context for scientists is the use of a specialist language when they speak and write about the concepts of their own discipline. In this sense, the notion of dialect and register may seem to merge when we put together one of the registers (science register) of all the scientists. (Scientists as humans must have different registers to cater to their requirements as individual and social organisms). A language may have different dialects and a dialect may have different registers. A study of registers would be a study of overlapping situations. The study of register is done not with regard to a group of people, but restricted to a single speaker's use of language. This characterization of register takes mainly the role of the speakers into consideration. From the point of view of the content used in the register we also may characterize individual registers. Thus when we say science register what we mean is the specialized use of language for the expression of sciences. Here we are not emphasizing the role of the users, rather, we emphasize the uses to which the language is put.
Because of the above distinction we have made between the concepts of dialect and register, the language of science may be appropriately considered not as a dialect but as a register. This we suggest because of the too comprehensive denotation and connotation of the term dialect. At the same time we recognize the fact that the language of science falls appropriately under the literary standard formal dialect category, even as registers can and do fall under a more inclusive category dialect. However, the language of science, even while having the characteristics of register, transcends the concept of register and becomes a valid subject matter of study for stylistics. It is not merely a register, though the bulk of it is characterized by the use of special terms and vocabulary. It uses the linguistic levels above the level of lexicon to develop and present its own special features through a selection of appropriate syntactic structures, rules, specialized uses and break of selectional restrictions, etc. (See chapter 5 for an illustration of the concepts of subcategorization and selectional restrictions).
This takes us to the realm of style, a concept which we will deal with presently. But before that, we have to answer the question as to whether there is any single language of science - any single science register - or do we have several science registers, such as physics science register, and chemistry science register.
Although the technical terms of individual disciplines may differ from each other, there seems to be a general process underlying the use of language for the expression of all the sciences. As we have already indicated, certain special features, such as the choice of syntactic structures, specialized subcategorization rules, specialized use and break of selectional restrictions, conventions that are adopted and practised on the basis of underlying principles of scientific method, conventions that govern the style sheets of the journals which codify and give shape to commonly accepted expression patterns for sciences, and the relatively more similar correspondences between the registers of different sciences in comparison to the general language and others that will be detailed in subsequent chapters lead us to conclude that there is an underlying system of expression in all the expressions of sciences. This underlying system is considered here as the language in science. It is to the study of this underlying system we address ourselves in this work. That is, we take the position that amidst the different disciplines of science and the resultant different registers there is an underlying system. In other words, we consider that there is a single science register; a common register for all the sciences with sub-registers representing the different disciplines of sciences. The tenor already referred to and the cohesion that we notice between different registers of sciences, along with the directions or trends in relation to linguistic variables already pointed out, we believe, make the sub-registers a coherent whole, a single science register.
2.7. Procedure for the Study of Language of Science
The study of language use in sciences will follow the regular linguistic procedures for the study of general language. But more often than not studies of language use in sciences restrict themselves to a single component, namely, the component of lexicon. They study mostly the coinage problems and processes. In some extensive studies frequency counts as well as paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations are also taken into account. But even then the situation is not satisfying, as most often the maximal unit of analysis happens to be sentence. The inter-sentential relationships as well as the features of a discourse (that are often missed when only sentence is taken as the maximal unit of analysis) do not get a place worthy of their role in the description, explanation and analysis of organization and function of the science register. It seems to us that in addition to studying the science register from an analytic view that will use the regular linguistic measures such as phonemes, morphemes, form classes, patterns, etc., we should adopt measures that are used for the study of styles. We shall further clarify this position.
A profitable beginning would be to contrast the language of science with uses of language for other matters. This contrast gives the general features of language of science in all levels qualitatively and quantitatively and also establishes outlines of its own domains and features. That is, uses of language for science will be separated from other uses of language and a special study is made of uses in the lines suggested above. Separation should not, however, exclude studying influences of general language over the development and operation of language of science. We should study the language of science of a particular language not only in contrast with other functional languages of the same language but also in relation to languages of science of other languages.
Such investigations and insights are highly useful in "developing" one's mother tongue. It is highly useful in planning strategies for the "development" of languages by public agencies. We should study the differences and similarities between the uses of language in various branches of science. Uses of language in various branches of science can differ on the basis of the historical background of these branches and their current internal trends. Depending upon the audience for whom a science material is written and depending upon the background and needs of persons who use the language of science, the tone or quality of language of science may differ. Further in instructional materials, some sort of progressive use of the complexity of language of science may have been adopted. Variables that compel this progressive use, the structures that are involved in this progressive use, the reasons for preferring some structures over others and other relevant processes in lexical choice, coinage and use may all be studied.
In our investigation we should never lose sight of the fact that devices used in a language, whatever they be, form a system - a purposeful system. No linguistic phenomenon should be considered as taking place in isolation but always in relation to other parts of the system of language. Our effort should be to establish and distinguish purposes for all linguistic means of expression and make assessments about the devices used for particular purposes. That is, we must make an analytical comparison of functional and structural relations in addition to contrasting language of science with uses of language for other matters.
2.8. Style
Suzette Elgin (1973) succinctly presents a picture of the current scene: There have been as many styles of literary criticism as there have been styles in the work they criticize. Some of it approaches metaphysics, as in the 'she writes and one hears the roar of the open sea and is sucked into the vortex, of a powerful imagery that carries all before it' school. Some of the stylistic studies have been mainly statistical: the 'does Tennyson use more than Browning' approach. Some list the rhetorical devices, count the metrical patterns and even apply musical notation.
There are also scholars who doubt even the existence and utility of style as a concept. For them stylistics is nothing more than tautology, and it has no existence of its own. They find that every user of the concept of style defines it only in terms of the concepts of other disciplines. In one of the approaches to the study of style, the relationship between the writer and the text forms the basis. This amounts to the characterization of style through a study of the writer's personality and the circumstances in which the text was written.
In another approach, the focus is on the relationship between the reader and the book, in which case the responses of the reader become the basis of stylistic analysis. In a different approach we may not worry about the writer and the reader but concentrate only on the work. In one approach, style is considered as the result of a choice one makes from among many possibilities.
There is still another concept - group style, which is used to characterize different categories of language use. It is prose produced by one individual, but lacks individualistic features. The examples would include officialese (bureaucratic writing), scientific prose and other prose in which the writer takes pain to remove all traces of individualism in his linguistic expression. Group style is thus a style opposed to individuating styles. Self-effacement is an important feature - self-effacement to adjust the speaker's language to his interlocutors.
Even within linguistic approaches to style, we have three types, namely, the norm and the deviation, the addition, and the connotation approaches. In the norm and the deviation approach, we look at the units of language and identify the variations one makes in the use of language. The variations are measured on the basis of the normal use of the language, that is, the norm of the language. We define the norm before we proceed to study the variations or the deviations one makes in the use of language.
Addition of stylistic features is assumed to be performed on some natural expression. The environments in which the linguistic features acquire stylistic values form the subject matter of the connotation approach. Stylistic analysis has been closely associated with literary studies. These studies aim at establishing links between the aesthetic responses in the reader and the features of the work. The New Criticism movement had the text as its basis of criticism and refused to use either the life of the author or his times. Others continued to aim at the identification of underlying ideas behind the work and considered this pursuit as stylistic analysis. There are several other approaches including the formalistic approach of the Soviet school. The latter approach emphasizes the importance of the devices one makes use of.
Generally speaking, a study of style must flow from an understanding of the characteristics of language and language use. Users of a language differ from each other with regard to their ability to manipulate the structures of their language. Every individual through the competence inherent in him is capable of understanding and interpreting the sentences uttered in his language. This competence gives him all the possible grammatical structures of his language. But the use of the structures depends on factors not dependent on his inherent competence. The performance or manifestation of one's language capacity depends on many factors, some of which may be related to one's motivation, attitude, educational background and need. Moreover there is no fixed position in anybody's capacity to use language. A person with average capacity may reach all on a sudden a high level and at other times touch the bottom.
In linguistic approaches to the study of style, all the characteristics of language listed in section 2.4, including arbitrariness, linearity, patterning and levels, prevarication, variation in time and space, affability, etc., are all considered. The distinction between performance and competence is maintained. The grammar with all its aspects - syntactic structures, subcategorization rules, selectional restrictions, transformations, lexical choice, etc:, forms the basis of any measurement and/or judgement of styles used. Distinction between violation of the regular form of the language and variations from the accepted norm is made. The variations form a basis for the study of styles whereas violation does not. Judgement of a style is related to the manipulation of structures, be they phonological, syntactic or semantic. In all these a proper understanding and identification of sources of variation is a must. As Darbyshire (1971) suggests, an investigator of style, following a linguistic approach to style, would need three sets of apparatus: a grammar which provides him with a simple and yet adequate description of the language whose styles he proposes to investigate, a contextual apparatus which relates the language use to different registers of the language and a critical apparatus that provides the framework for drawing from the grammar and the contextual apparatus any conclusions about the language use in question to arrive at judgements about the piece under consideration.
In the Prague school of linguistics, the study of style and the study of grammar are differentiated. This school states that there are two kinds of structures for a sentence. One structure is given by the grammatical pattern of the sentence and the other by the information-bearing structure of the utterances. The information-bearing structure of the utterance is not identical with the grammatical pattern of the sentence. The information-bearing structure is taken to be in opposition to its formal structure. The study of the formal structure is concerned with the way in which a sentence is composed of grammatical elements whereas the study of the information-bearing structure is concerned with the manner in which an utterance is integrated with the factual situation. The elements that constitute the formal or grammatical structure are the subject and predicate of the sentence. The foundation of the utterance and the core of the utterance constitute the information-bearing structure of the utterance. The foundation is the information already known and the core is the information newly conveyed. The study of style is concerned with the foundation and core of the utterance. Two other concepts are also used for an explication of styles. These are automatisation and foregrounding. Automatisation is used to refer to the stimulus that is normally expected in a social situation. But foregrounding refers to the stimulus which is not culturally expected in a social situation and which provokes special attention. Foregrounding is described as the aesthetically intentional distortion of the linguistic components in regard to language. The notion of distortion is to be understood as distortion of pattern so far as it is within the bounds of social norm and a system of signs. The distorted or foreground units stem from the same system as their automatized counterparts.
From the point of view of the Prague School of Linguistics, style is functional and this functional stylistics is the study of the linguistic features of utterances that correlate with the nonverbal context of the speech activity. Context includes not only physical setting (e.g., a business office), but also the social relationship between the interlocutors (e.g., employer-employee). Scientific style is further divided into practical working style, (e.g., official style or commercial style) and theoretical commercial style. We will see further classification in chapter 3.
One may also approach style making a distinction between information and meaning. Information is provided by the encoders of messages in order to give the messages meaning. Meaning is taken as the totality of the experiences responding to a given amount of information. One can distinguish four kinds of information.
- Lexical information - a stock of linguistic items a speaker has and the knowledge of what these items do and how these items should be used, shared by the speaker with other speakers. The encoder of messages is governed by the stock of items available to him.
- Referential function - every linguistic utterance can be said to have some kind of content - to refer to some areas of human experience, imaginary or real.
- Functional information - units, which do not make any direct reference to things, ideas, etc., but are required in the manipulation of reference-making linguistic units.
- Contextual information.
This approach recognizes the reality that, although humans have the potential to be infinitely creative and novel, such creative urges for novelty cannot transcend, or, to put it correctly, transgress the constraints imposed by language code. If at all there is transgression it is always kept to the level required for comprehension. The rules of language condition the language habits of all speakers and writers and impose 'restraints upon such excessive originality as, in most cases, utterly meaningless utterances'.
We should recognize that 'certain linguistic forms have, a tendency to combine and cohere with one another, whereas others do not have this tendency'. This approach suggests five areas of such coherence and combination: paradigmatic, syntagmatic, collocation-colligation, set, and imagery. Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations have been already explained.
One may view language as events, which are repetitive and interconnected. There are two kinds of relations into which the language items enter: (1) internal or formal and (2) situational. That is, when we analyse any linguistic utterance or text, we must take into account the interior relations of the utterance or text itself and the interior relations within the corresponding context of situation. The interior relations within the text will include the syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations. The habitual or characteristic association of words in a text is expressed at the level of formal relation in which an order of mutual expectancy between lexical items is stated. This can be explained taking into consideration examples such as cow, milk and tigress. Cow collocates with milk and not with tigress. This is part of the formal meaning of cow and tigress. A register may be said to be characterized by the existence of collocation of items used in that register. Thus, 'the valency of certain words brings them together into associations which acquire a life and a lexical information of their own in particular registers'. With the help of his sense of collocation a decoder is able to perceive approximately the area of reference of the combination of words, and the register it belongs to.
Lexical items can be grouped on the basis of their grammatical behaviour into nouns, verbs, etc. Colligation refers to the relations that obtain between lexical items as grammatical categories. A set consists of words gathered around a word of nuclear information. These words present allied but slightly different information - lexically, referentially and/or contextually. As regards imagery, an image is taken to be 'a use of language which provides instantaneous definition of the contextual information of the main lexical items drawing freely on the redundancy of the language code'. The notions of collocation-colligation, set and imagery can be considered as variables characterizing a register - for our purpose, language of science. The paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations describe the linguistic units and their relationships of language use in science. The four types of information are the background in which the meanings of the structures of language use in science may be described.
All the above must be connected in some manner to the concept of discourse. We do not speak in isolated sentences, but sentences connected with one another to a coherent whole, namely, discourse. The sentences have their eye only as members of a discourse. As members of a discourse sentences may have features of cohesion, which can connect them to the other immediate, or some other sentences in the same discourse. They become the structural parts, using which a discourse is built. Thus their individual identity and information become subordinate to those of the discourse.
The discourse itself has its conception in the mind of the encoder. This conception is expressed following the norm of a language, 'deviating no further than limits permit'. Each human activity draws from this norm and makes its own deviations; each human activity thus makes its own style; in the present case we are concerned with language use in science. What we see is a diversification of the code into sub codes, of the common language into specialized or institutionalised language uses, corresponding to a division of labour in areas of human activity. Each area imposes its own limits for making the deviations from the accepted common norm. Deviations of one area of activity cannot be compared fully with the deviations adopted by another area of activity because of the differences in functions. And yet as all deviations spring from the same fountainhead or accept a common norm such comparisons need not be inherently invidious. One also suspects that in some areas of human activity deviations from the norm may be minimal while in others they may be very wide and deep indeed. In all the cases, however, 'the limitations of the activities themselves discourage any further deviation from the norm than sense and structure allow'. The trouble starts only when we attempt to delineate the limits allowed by sense and structure of a particular field of specialization. Arguments for and against established conventions of expression must be viewed in this background.
Earlier we presented brief notices of different approaches to style and generally speaking we took the position of the norm and the deviation approach. But no adequate description of style can be couched in exclusively grammatical terms. Both grammatical and literary terms are needed, although linguists reject the conception of style as language use outside the scope of grammatical rules. Stylistic studies generally assume that style is variation in manner, not matter. They assume that manner can be separated from matter and subjected to independent analysis. In the same way, we have also taken a position to divorce the content of sciences from the expressions employed to convey the content.
We said that we do not speak in isolated sentences, but in sentences connected with one another to a coherent whole - a discourse. The sentences have their life only as members of a discourse. Further, as members of a discourse, sentences may have features of cohesion, which can connect them to the other immediate or some other sentences in the same discourse. They become the structural parts, using which a discourse is built. Their individual identity and information become subordinate to those of discourse. However, in many of the present stylistic studies, the focus is on the elements within a sentence. That the elements within a sentence have a dual role to play, namely, contribution to the internal cohesion and grammaticality of the sentence of which they form part and contribution to the integration of the sentence into the discourse, is generally recognized but not made an important part of the study. In accomplishing the latter function, elements of a sentence may be dependent on elements of another sentence. This dependence may also mean conveyance of partial information by the dependent sentence. In linguistics sentence is the unit of analysis, whereas discourse analysis is concerned with those features of sentences that require reference beyond a sentence.
While studying how the lexical elements fall in a sentence to make it a cohesive whole, how sentences fall into a text to make the latter a cohesive whole and how, in general, connectivity in sentences is achieved in a text, the concept of anaphora comes very handy. Anaphora suggests that the antecedent has occurred earlier in the discourse. It is an element that is not self-sufficient; one requires, or, one is cautioned that one is in requirement of, some other element for its completion. Anaphora is not simply back reference to something said earlier. An anaphoric element is less specific than its antecedent. The three tendencies that regulate the use of anaphora are: (i) unambiguity (ii) economy of the means of expression, and (iii) diversity of the means of expression.
Crystal and Davy (1968), in a discussion of the language of legal documents claim that draftsmen never use anaphoric links between sentences, and are prepared to put up with the repetitiveness that results. Legal English is in fact notable for the extreme scarcity, even within sentence structure, of the pronoun reference and anaphora.
There is yet another device resorted to for stylistic purpose, namely, ellipsis (See chapter 5). It is a matter of a syntactically incomplete utterance; it can be, however, contextually complete as the missing elements can be found elsewhere in the context.
2.9. Style and Anti-Style
We have so far indicated how the concepts from linguistics can be of use in describing the language of sciences. In this pursuit we have distinguished between langue and parole or competence and performance, listed certain other concepts such as syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations, described what a register is and demonstrated the usefulness of the procedures of stylistic analysis for the study of language in science. Often language use in science is considered a stereotype amounting to anti-style - group style.
Such an idea persists because the language in science is put under a number of serious restrictions to achieve smooth communication and to enable scientists to concentrate on the concepts and their elucidation, and not to be distracted by linguistic usage. But, in spite of such restrictions, we believe that the use of language in science is not all that anti-style, as adequate provision is available for making variations from the norms - for making variations to bring in an aura of a good style. We should bear in mind that great scientists like Huxley, Haldane, Oppenheimer, Einstein and a host of others are known for their characteristic style.
In every activity, including that of literature, what we have is a long ranging spectrum with the most hopeless at one end, the routine way of expression and form in the middle, and at the other end the imagination par excellence. This is also not untrue of the use of language in sciences. The lowest may be of the ordinary, the average may be with some brilliant spots, but the best always appeals to the sense. In addition to this appeal, simple and yet greatly elegant, we have an inherent system in sciences, which in theory construction leads the scientist to model-building, drawing heavily on the use of metaphors. Perhaps nowhere is there greater emphasis on clarity, beauty and variations than in the expression of sciences.
Scientists are very consciously aiming at making themselves understood and in this process are adding a lot of beautiful devices to those already available for the expression of sciences. There is a charge that science writing is generally unintelligible to an average reader and dull in its form, content and expression. We have partly answered this question above by pointing out the varieties available in all the fields including those of sciences. The unintelligibility is mostly related to the readers' unfamiliarity with the concepts discussed in an article and procedures followed in a scientific experiment. These two are found even in the highly sophisticated exposition of literature and exposition only, in the creative literature itself leading the readers to make the same complaint about certain forms expressions and content of creative literature. Hence we would be inclined to dismiss the charge of dullness and unintelligibility saying that these are due more to the reasons of unpreparedness than to the characteristic use of language for the expression of sciences. Like all the other fields of human activity, science also has its own technical terms and characteristic expressions. Acquisition and training in the manipulation of concepts go hand in hand with the acquisition and use of the terms and characteristic expressions. A reader and the user of language for the expression of sciences must have some training at least to appreciate the processes.
2.10. Meaning
More often than not language in science is considered only as the use of technical terms. It is dealt with as individual and isolated phenomenon - as if the elements were spread out in some whimsical fashion influenced by the dictates of sciences. We do not subscribe to this position and that is why we have resorted to the use of different linguistic concepts that embrace all the forms of language, viz., morphemes, words, phrases, sentences and even intersentential relationships. In this section, we would like to focus our attention on how meanings are expressed in language as a prelude to our discussion in subsequent chapters on the form and use of technical terms and sentences.
If language is considered as consisting of an expression system (sounds) connected with the content system (meanings), such a connection is done through grammar. The elements of grammar are categories and their relationships. Such categories manifest themselves in lexical terms. Grammar and lexicon offer the general classification of linguistic elements. The technical terms are lexical items and the ways they are put into use reflect the grammar of the language of sciences. Earlier we have referred to the triad relationship between the linguistic sign, signifié and signifiant. The technical terms are linguistic signs. They refer to concepts and only indirectly to the referent (object) itself. In the discussion of meanings we use many terms such as synonyms, homonym, homophone, homograph, antonym, polysemy, etc.
Classification of technical terms used for the expression of sciences on the above basis may be useful to some extent. But is there any synonym at all? Even in the general common language many scholars question the existence of a pure synonym. The ideal language, for that matter, the ideal technical language, would be one in which each form had only one meaning and each meaning was associated with only one form. But this 'ideal' is probably not realized by any natural language. Two or three forms may be associated with the same meaning leading to the category of homonyms. If the language is one for which the orthography is at variance with, or unrelated to, the phonology, then one may of course distinguish further between homography (e.g., lead, in (i) a dog's lead and (ii) made of lead) and homophone (e.g., meat, meet; sow, sew).
Again let us pose the question that we raised a few lines above. Is there any synonymy in the language of science? By definition or common agreement, the language of science aims at precision, impersonal report, disambiguation, clarity and matter of fact style. Thus by its very aim the language of science should not give any place or concession for synonymy. Yet this is never the case even in a tight language of science. First of all, the source from which the language of science sprang is largely the common language. Because of this background the language of science has not completely shed the synonymic nature of several of the technical terms on the one hand and on the other it continues to avoid the common language terms by forming its own terms, as in the case of chemistry where a gulf between the trade names and the technical terms is strengthened.
The related meanings are dealt with under the category of polysemy. The polysemous words are related to each other through some form of extension of the original meaning to other words, as in the expressions mouth of the body and mouth of the river. There is a further category of relatedness of meaning, viz., antonymy, oppositeness of meaning.
We deal with the categories of technical terms in chapter 3. We present there how the meaning of a term is explained, understood and/or taught. We like to emphasize here, however, that meaning is not only expressed by the technical/lexical terms, but also by the ways in which these terms are put in a sentence. That is, each sentence has a structural meaning as well as a composition of lexical meanings. Both these meanings should be considered in analysing a text. The language of science is likely to differ from the languages of other pursuits not only in terms of the choice and frequent use of certain categories of lexical meanings but also in terms of choice and frequent use of structural meanings. And in this respect, the procedure adopted for stylistic analysis will be found useful also for the study of language use in the expression of sciences.
2.11. General Language Vs Specialist Language
In the discussions above we have very often referred to common language and in some cases compared this common language with the so-called specialist language. We have not defined what common language is. Perhaps it is now time to define the common language and another related concept, the neutral language, and compare these two with the specialist language in general. As we referred to in the beginning of this chapter, the word language is perhaps one of the words that have been often used with extended meanings.
More often than not, we take the concept of language and its extended use for granted. Consider the following and think for a while how one would go about defining the concepts underlying the following: language, dialect, idiolect, mother tongue, first language, second language, third language, foreign language, classical language, official language, associate language, link language, lingua franca, administrative language, medium of instruction, tribal language, minority language, majority language, child language, culture language, library language, technical language, formal language, informal language, spoken language, dead language, commercial language, code language, secret language, body language, animal language, love language and so on.
The variety of phrases one comes across in the newspapers, in textbooks and in reports of several commissions indicate how we characterize the tool of communication on the basis of the uses of the tool. The common language then must be described in terms of its uses. But there does not seem to be anything specifically common, if we consider the language use on the basis of time allotted in one's life span.
Everybody is engaged in some activity or profession and in this activity everybody uses one language or the other. This activity perhaps takes a major share of our life span. The common language then should be defined negatively as a conglomeration of language uses excluding the uses of language in one's own employment. The common language may then be both informal and formal, though its formal uses will be different from the specialist language, as the formal nature of the common language is not derived from the use of language in a field of employment/job. The specialist language always aims at the reduction of the inherent redundancy found in the communicative tool. This reduction in redundancy is sought to be achieved through devices such as elimination of synonymy, of repetition of items and introduction of certain formalized stylistic procedures generally found in the style sheets of journals. Precision, brevity, argumentation, impersonal report, etc., have already been referred to. The common language used in a special field gives rise to the specialist language. The specialist language springing from the field in which it is used comes to control and shape the deliberations of communicative activities of the field itself in course of time.
The concept neutral language is indispensable for characterizing the various uses of language in depth. Neutral language is an abstraction and is considered to be the underlying mechanism for language uses. It is considered to be neutral as between all the possible functions of the language. Really speaking, nobody uses only the neutral language. The functional uses of language are forever superimposed on the neutral language. In a sense the neutral language is the abstract description given to us by linguists. The concept of neutral language and the description of the abstract neutral language are indeed necessary and useful because the functional uses of language have to be measured and compared with the neutral language in order to arrive at a proper understanding of the functional uses.
The specialist language differs from the common language in another aspect also. The specialist language is a language of formality with no corresponding informal language, although scientists are given to use expressions such as "informally speaking". For even in such informal talking all the aspects of formal presentation except the conclusive evidence of an argument are found. But again formality is difficult to define as many factors come to characterize it. These factors include degrees of familiarity, kinship relations, politeness, seriousness, exclusive use of written form of language in case of languages like Tamil, pronunciation of the complete shape of the forms, lack of certain phonological features, generally longer sentences, choice of special lexical items, use of passive voice and some special forms of syntactic constructions and sentence types, optional absence or presence of an audience that interacts instantly with the speaker-writer, etc.
To conclude, in the present chapter we have given a brief view of some of the concepts of linguistic science that may be of use in studying the language of science. Other concepts and a brief linguistic description of the characteristic features of the language of science are presented in subsequent chapters.
*** *** ***
CONTENTS PAGE