Don’t get me wrong, i think linguistics is a lot of fun and i get that it’s an interesting field. I just don’t understand what practical applications it has beyond understanding languages better. What do we do with that understanding of languages? Is it purely about seeking knowledge?
It ties into a lot of other subjects like anthropology, archaeology, developmental neuroscience, psychology, speech therapy, education, sociology, political science, computer science, etc. As well as making languages easier to learn. I’m something of a cunning linguist, myself.
Language is easily one of the most important and impactful inventions in human history. I’d probably rank it #2:
- Fire
- Language
- Domestication of plants/animals
- The wheel
- Vaccines
- Pump Up The Jam by Technotronic (1989)
Maybe you want to re-read the question? They’re asking about the practical use of linguistics, and this answer combined with your other one is basically “language is very practical so duh, we should study it”.
But what do you do with the results of those studies? That’s what the question is about.
Language existed without linguistics though.
Physics existed before we studied physics
Someone, let the historians know that they aren’t creating history by studying it, too. History is already still going to have existed anyway, so its a total waste of time.
Same for economists… and chemists… and biologists… and geologists… Well, all sciences, really. Good news for engineers, though.
I didn’t say studying things was a waste of time. I agree that language itself is one of the most important and impactful inventions in human history. Linguistics though… not nearly as important, as language will continue to exist and evolve without it being explicitly studied. Your post didn’t answer the OP at all. Why is linguistics important other than for seeking knowledge?
Side note: Lemmy is a small community. You can try not immediately responding with a personal attack, it might encourage more discussion.
I think you and @rigatti@lemmy.world got caught in the words.
“History” can refer to the past events or their study. “Economy”, to the system of production and consumption or its study. “Chemistry”, to a set of properties of the matter or their study. And so goes on.
The same does not apply to “language”. The word refers to a bunch* of phenomena, but not their study. Their study gets a different name, Linguistics. So when OP is asking “what is linguistics for”, they’re clearly referring to the study; they are not asking “what are the phenomena called «language» good for?”
*at least three: a human faculty, a communication system relying on that faculty, and concrete instances of the usage of that system.
Side note, Linguistics is great to catch this sort of hidden polysemy.
Yes, this exactly. And thank you for being polite about it.
As someone interested in the subject but not a professional, my interpretation is that language is the base of understanding and communication, and so understanding its inner workings helps preserving it. Besides, even dead languages can prove useful, as history and even the logic behind “messy” languages from nowadays can be found better through them.
As a computer scientist, unsurprisingly the most interesting application to me is how it ties into programming language design. I think it’s a neat example of disciplinary cross-over that one of the elementary concepts used by compilers (and many other kinds of parsers) is named after Noam Chomsky, whose work hasn’t directly had anything to do with computer science.
Computational and mathematical linguistics are out of my wheelhouse, but they’re also fascinating because they show that language can be thought of as a universal abstract concept, much like mathematics (in a way it is math, and math is language), rather than just something humans use to communicate.
It is useful to understand how society works. How we name and talk about things has an effect on how we perceive them. Just some recent examples that come to mind:
What effect does the social media censorship have on our discourse? Does it change how we perceive certain topics when censored words like grape for rape or unalive for suicide sneak into our vocabulary?
It’s also interesting to clear up debates that have been going on for a while. For example there are studies that show that in a dialogue between a man and a woman, the man will talk more and interupt the woman more but afterwards feel like the woman talked more and interupted more often.
The practical application is not direct but more in the form of awareness for problems and guidance on what rules are helpful for us as a society.
It’s a foundational science for language learning, much like biology is to medicine.
Discourse analysis makes you understand better what other people say. That has implications everywhere: legal matters, political speech, literary criticism. It helps even when you’re dealing with that typical miscommunication between neurodivergent vs. neurotypical people.
It helps you to register and promote minority varieties. That isn’t just a theoretical matter, as language plays a huge role on the sense of belonging of the speaker.
Semiotics is directly tied to linguistics. And it has applications everywhere you need to communicate through design.
Just some examples, mind you.
I use linguistics to make me a better writer. It’s good to understand how language is used and has evolved. It helps you to understand how you can mix up your style without burdening your readers with cognitive puzzles. It’s also great for knowing how to create in-world neologisms that feel authentic and grounded in human linguistic patterns. I especially enjoy researching the etymology of words, finding cognates and homonyms and interesting coincidences and quirks of language, filling fantasy worlds with archaic terms that both convey meaning and support the mood I’m trying to create with the prose.
Outside of my personal interests, it’s useful for analyzing how language is abused. Some people use language not to communicate, but to obfuscate and control. The more I’ve studied linguistics, the easier it has become for me to recognize weasel wording, non-denials, complex phrasing that intentionally omits details, false implications, gaslighting, and logical fallacies.
Þose sentences aren’t going to diagram þemselves!
