�ݺ�ߣ

I.E.S Nº 9-011 “Del Atuel”.
English Teaching Training Course.
Linguistics
Prof: McQueen Hector
Student: Herrera Cinthia
Linguistics
First Midterm Exam
Institution: 9-011 IES del Atuel
Career: English Teacher Training Course
Teacher: Hector J. McQueen
Student: Cinthia A. Herrera
Submission deadline: 27th July, 2012

Linguistics
2
Introduction
With the objective of presenting this work as the First Midterm Exam of Linguistics, it
has been carried out by a student attending third year of the English Teaching Training
Course, whose intention is to make this project serve as a tool for integrating theoretical
concepts developed in class with everyday language.
We, students, were assigned to choose any piece of written language so as to make
it the source of analysis out of which conclusions would be drawn. The lyrics of the song
“Blaze of Glory” by Jon Bon Jovi was chosen as the object of analysis, and it served as a
fruitful resource for the exemplification and application of the theory intended to deepen.
The way in which this piece of work has been designed is the following: the paper
has been divided into titles introducing the topic that will be dealt with. A brief theoretical
explanation is given immediately after the title, and the following steps are the examples
taken from the song, each of them serving as a tool for comparison, analogy or mere
exemplification. Whenever the example chosen is not clear enough, more than one model
has been detailed.
As said before, the aim of this work is to make it a tool for integrating theory with an
actual piece of language.

Linguistics
BLAZE OF GLORY
I wake up in the morning
And I raise my weary head
I got an old coat for a pillow
And the earth was last night's bed
I don't know where I'm going
Only God knows where I've been
I'm a devil on the run
A six gun lover
A candle in the wind
When you're brought into this world
They say you're born in sin
Well at least they gave me something
I didn't have to steal or have to win
Well they tell me that I'm wanted
Yeah I'm a wanted man
I'm colt in your stable
I'm what Cain was to Abel
Mister catch me if you can
Chorous
I'm going down in a blaze of glory
Take me now but know the truth
I'm going down in a blaze of glory
Lord I never drew first But I drew first blood
I'm no one's son
Call me young gun
You ask about my consience
And I offer you my soul
You ask If I'll grow to be a wise man
Well I ask if I'll grow old
You ask me if I known love
And what it's like to sing songs in the rain
Well, I've seen love come
And I've seen it shot down
I've seen it die in vain
Shot down in a blaze of glory
'Cause I'm going down in a blaze of glory
Lord I never drew first
But I drew first blood
I'm the devil's son
Call me young gun
Each night I go to bed
I pray the Lord my soul to keep
No I ain't looking for forgiveness
But before I'm six foot deep
Lord, I got to ask a favor
And I'll hope you'll understand
'Cause I've lived life to the fullest
Let the boy die like a man
Staring down the bullet
Let me make my final stand
Shot down in a blaze of glory
'Cause I'm going down in a blaze of glory
Lord I never drew first
But I drew first blood
I'm the devil's son
Call me young gun
Jon Bon Jovi

Linguistics
4
Analysis and Theoretical Development
Linguistics has been defined as the scientific study of language. But what is language? What
is it meant by scientific? Language, roughly defined, is the system of arbitrary signs used by a
community as a code for communicative purposes. The scientific study of language means its
investigation by means of controlled and empirically verifiable observations and with reference to
some general theory of language-structure (Lyons 1968).
In order to analyze any piece of language in use, we need first to have an idea of where the
current word or phrase comes from, what its history is, and how it came to mean what it means
today. Thus, we need to go back in time:
Nature and Convention
Traditional Grammar goes back to Greece of the fifth century B.C., where Greek
philosophers debated whether language was governed by ‘nature’ or ‘convention’. This dispute was
made to turn principally upon the question whether there was any necessary connection between
the meaning of a word and its form.
The term ‘natural’ was to imply that how a thing was called has its origins in eternal and
immutable principles and was therefore inviolable. Naturalists maintained that all words were
naturally appropriate to the things they signified. Whereas ‘convention’ implied that it was merely
result of custom and tradition. Conventionalists affirmed that there was some tacit agreement or
social contract that the members of a community have established.
Although how contradictory and at the same time complementary these thoughts might be,
the dispute went on over the centuries and is still among us. There is no basis by which we can
ensure the type of connection between the meaning of the words “man” or “devil” and their forms. It
is inevitable to picture in our minds an image as soon as we come into contact with these linguistic
signs, but yet we cannot explain whether these words were naturally appropriate to the things they
signify or there was some tacit agreement or social contract among the members of a community.
This question may be applied to any linguistic sign we wish to analyze.

Linguistics
5
Passages from the song:
“I'm the devil's son”
“Let the boy die like a man”
Greek grammar
It is logical to think that language has evolved during the centuries, and that the structures or
lexis that we know today might be different from previous structures, vocabulary uses or word
categories.
For example the common noun “morning”, the proper noun “Cain” or “Abel”, the adjectives
“old” or “young”, the verb “steal”, the article “the” or the conjunction “but” owe their origin to one of
the several ‘schools’ of Greek philosophy. It was the Stoics who gave the most attention to
language. Earlier members of the ‘school’ distinguished four parts of speech: nouns (common,
proper, and inside nouns they classified adjectives; verbs, conjunctions, and articles.
“I wake up in the morning”
“I'm what Cain was to Abel”
“I got an old coat for a pillow”
“Call me young gun”
“Take me now but know the truth”
For the most part they were anomalists, insisting o the lack of correspondence between
words and things, and on the illogicalities of language. (The terms anomalists and analogists will be
explained and exemplified later on).
The Alexandrian scholars carried further work of the Stoic grammarians. The Alexandrian
grammarians were analogists; they searched for regularities of language. In addition to the four
parts of the speech developed by the Stoics, they recognized also the adverbs, the participles, the
pronouns and the prepositions; exemplified in the chosen song by the words “never”, “known”, “you”
and “down” respectively.

Linguistics
6
The Greek influence was supreme, as well as the influence of both the Alexandrian and the
Stoics.
Analogists and Anomalists
This new dispute grew up during the second century B.C. into how far language was
‘regular’. The Greek words for regularity and irregularity are described in terms of ‘analogy’ and
‘anomaly’. Therefore, analogists maintained that language was essentially systematic and regular,
and those who took the contrary view were called anomalists.
From the analogists viewpoint we can identify some examples extracted from the text from
which we can observe some regular patterns of language, such as the plural form “songs”, or the
verb “lived”.
From the anomalists view point we can observe examples like “gave”, or the word “foot”
which requires an irregular inflection in its plural form: “feet”.
“And what it's like to sing songs in the rain”
'Cause I've lived life to the fullest”
“Well at least they gave me something”
“But before I'm six foot deep”
Another example of anomaly was afforded by the existence of homophones, i.e. two or more
words that are pronounced the same but differ in spelling, origin, and sometimes meaning. Such as
“know” or “die”, that sound the same as “no” and “dye” respectively, and can only be differentiated
put in context.
“Take me now but know the truth”
“I've seen it die in vain”
Design features of human language
As regards the design features of human language, any word can be object of analysis but
by means of being more specific some examples from the song have been chosen.

Linguistics
7
One of these characteristics of language is that of duality. Elements of human language have
no meaning in isolation, by themselves. Only these elements in combination with others form
meaningful units. For example the letters “v” – “a“ – “i” – “n” have no meaning in isolation but are
able to form a meaningful unit in combination with each other: “vain”. The same happens with
phonemes: /b/ /l/ /eɪ/ /z/ which are meaningless by themselves but become meaningful when they
enter into combination: /bleɪz/.
“I've seen it die in vain”
“I'm going down in a blaze of glory”
Another design feature of language is arbitrariness, to which I have already made reference
previously when dealing with the terms nature and convention. All the same, it is worthy to clarify
some concepts as regards this topic. The term arbitrariness implies that the forms of linguistic signs
bear no resemblance to their meaning, and that the link between ‘form’ and ‘meaning’ is a matter of
convention. Thus, the linguistic sign “gun” might automatically represent something in our head, an
image, a meaning that is connected to the form “gun”. The same occurs with any linguistic sign we
wish to analyze, although some might be a bit more difficult to represent with an image, such as
“truth” or “soul”. So, there is a tendency to say that linguistic signs are arbitrary due to the fact that
the relationship between the meaning of something and its form is arbitrary.
“Call me young gun”
“And I offer you my soul”
Genetic Endowment and Generic Accomplishment
Human language has developed the ability to go from actual occurrences to beyond the
immediate context. There is an inclination to abstraction and an ability to categorize reality and
control it. Human language, different from animal communication, is proactive as well as reactive,
i.e. humans can create new meaning and shape their own reality as well as produce repertoires
based on automatic responses.

Linguistics
8
There are different theories about the acquisition of language of which here I will develop
two:
In the text analyzed, words like “soul” “conscience” and “blood” are mentioned, making
reference to the human body, and here is the connection I am trying to make: Genetic Endowment
is based on the principles of Noam Chomsky, who maintained that human beings are genetically
programmed with a Language Acquisition Device (LAD) that provides a set of principles of
grammatical organization for language production and for communication. These principles define a
number of general parameters of language, and they are species-specific, i.e. unique of humans.
This principle is absolutely related to a biological point of view.
“Lord I never drew first But I drew first blood”
“You ask about my conscience”
“And I offer you my soul”
On the other hand, words like “world” have been used in the song and may be
representative of the opposite theory of Michael Halliday: Generic Accomplishment. This maintained
a social view of language and the relation to both cognition and communication of all human beings
of the world, in every different community. He sustained that the language acquisition process was
possible only by the use of language, and its accomplishment of the ideational, interpersonal, and
textual functions.
“When you're brought into this world”
Immutability and Mutability
When we speak about linguistic signs, we speak about both immutability and mutability. First,
they will be explained separately for a more accurate comprehension, and then their relationship
and interdependence will be mentioned.
The signifier is fixed with respect to the linguistic community that uses it and the signifier
chosen by a language cannot be replaced by other. An existent language cannot be modified from
one moment to the next. This is roughly when we speak about immutability of the linguistic sign.

Linguistics
9
On the other hand, mutability bares the notion of language changes throughout time, in spite
of the inability of speakers to change it individually. This principle of change is based on the principle
of continuity, and that is why we speak of both mutability and immutability of the linguistic sign. It is
important to make clear what is implied by ‘change’. Change means a shift in the relationship
between the signified and the signifier; change to which language is powerless to defend itself
against it. As a product of the social force of the community using it and time, language use and
linguistic signs will be dependent on the community of speakers and the time in which it is
immersed. Therefore, the phrase “a candle in the wind” might have implied in the past the idea of
just a candle being blown up by the wind, and nowadays, an specifically in the song, represent a boy
who is just trying to live and become somebody in life, but who feels totally weak and sensitive in the
world, just like the candle in the wind, by analogy.
I'm a devil on the run
A six gun lover
“A candle in the wind”
In case the previous example is not clear enough, before changing topic from mutability to
something else, I will like to make reference to language evolution. The evolution of language is
inevitable. Individuals, as I have said before, cannot control the linguistic sign, and the control of
language would be only possible if it is not in circulation. Where language is a property of everyone
that uses it every day, control is lost. Time changes all things and there is no reason why language
should escape this universal law. Some clear examples of language evolution have been taken from
the text to clarify this concept, such as “Yeah”, “I ain't” and “I got” are current representations of
“Yes”, “I am not” and “I have to” respectively. These examples clearly show how language changes
not only because of time, but also because of the community of language speakers.
“Yeah I'm a wanted man”
“No I ain't looking for forgiveness”
“Lord, I got to ask a favor”

Linguistics
10
Linguistic Value
The characteristic role of language with respect to thought is to serve as a link between
thought and sound, i.e. thought-sound implies division, and that language works out its units while
taking shape between the two shapeless masses.
Values remain entirely relative, and that is why the bond between the sound and the idea is
radically arbitrary. The arbitrary nature of the sign explains why the social fact alone can create a
linguistic system, thus, the community of speakers is necessary for values that owe their existence
to usage and general acceptance. Taking into account this, we may accept the idea that the
linguistic value given to a sing in a specific community might not be the same in other. The value of
just any term is accordingly determined by its environment. Consequently, the value of “sin” in
English is not the same as “sin” in Spanish. For the former language “sin” means an immoral act
considered being a transgression to a divine law, and for the latter it means “without”. In this way,
depending on the community of speakers is the value that will be given to the linguistic sign, without
living aside the signification itself of the word.
If we wish to speak about words, we say that its content is really established only by the
occurrence of everything that exists outside it. Being part of a system, it is endowed not only with a
signification but also and especially with a value. In this manner, in English the word “earth” appears
to have a slight difference with “ground” or “floor”, whereas only one word is used in Spanish for
the three of them: “piso”. In this way, “earth”, “ground” or “floor” might have the same signification
as Spanish “piso” but NOT the same value.
“They say you're born in sin”
“And the earth was last night's bed”
Modern linguistics – Ferdinand de Saussure – Langue and Parole
Saussure made the distinction between the French terms ‘langue’ and ‘parole’ (in English
terms ‘language’ and ‘speaking’ respectively), intended to eliminate an ambiguity of the use of the
word ‘language’. When we say of someone that ‘speaks English’, we do not imply that he is actually
‘speaking English’. The same happens the other way around. Let’s take the song “Blaze of Glory”
as example: if we hear somebody, of any nationality, singing the song, we can say that he or she is

Linguistics
11
‘speaking English’ (parole) but it does not necessarily imply that this person ‘speaks English’
(langue) or is speaker of the English language. Let’s say that all those who ‘speak English’ share a
particular ‘langue’ and the set of utterances which they produce when they are ‘speaking English’
constitute what is called ‘parole’.
The relationship between langue and parole is very complex and somewhat controversial.
Thus we need to establish their difference in concept as clearly as possible:
Language (langue) is social and essential. It is a product that is passively assimilated by the
individual. It is the sum of impressions deposited in the brain of each member of the community. It
exists in every individual and it is common to all, forming a collective pattern.
Speaking (parole) is individual and accessory. It is the combination by which the speaker
uses the language code for expressing his own thoughts. It is the psychological mechanism that
allows the speaker to produce utterances. It is not a collective instrument, thus its manifestations are
individual and momentary.
All in all, we may say that the singer and author of this song ‘speaks English’ although it does
not mean that he is actually ‘speaking English’ in this moment. And at the same time, a person who
is singing the song can be considered as ‘speaking English’ but it does not necessarily means that
he or she ‘speaks English’; he or she is just producing utterances in that language.

Linguistics
12
Bibliography
 LYONS 1968 (1995): Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Chapter 1
 WIDDOWSON 1996: Linguistics. Chapter 1
 SAUSSURE de (1959): Course in General Linguistics. New York: The
Philosophical Library, Inc.
- Introduction:
- Chapter III: The Object of Linguistics.
- Chapter IV: Linguistics of Language and Linguistics of Speaking.
- Part 1: General Principles
- Chapter I: Nature of the Linguistic Sign.
- Chapter II: Immutability and Mutability of the Linguistic Sign.
- Chapter IV: Linguistic Value.

�ݺ�ߣ

Linguistics Midterm 2012

More Related Content

Linguistics Midterm 2012