At this point professor P.D.Strevens with his colleagues in Education may conveniently look at the projects which they envisage for Contemporary English at this university. One essential piece of development is in the field of grammar. Their frequent need to describe this level of the language to undergraduate and postgraduates students is at present frustrated by the paucity of grammatical descriptions in acceptable terms.
They are interested, too, in phonological problems, especially in the interpenetration of phonology and grammar. Everyone knows from his own experience that changes of intonation (to take a simple instance) can carry changes of a grammatical kind, as in the difference between He's coming on Friday? and He's coming on Friday. There are a great many other relations between these two levels, which few people have studied in detail.
Another basic project which is already under way concerns the relations between language and context. Some of the choices between possible alternative forms of English are determined by features of the context. Mr S.P. Gorder is investigating this question and has begun by a preliminary study of the language used in highly restricted situations. One situation he chose was a tobacconist's shop, where throughout most of a working day he sat and observed the forms of language used there. It became quite clear (as indeed we should anticipate, if we gave thought to it) that the precise language used was not the same for all speakers, but was divided into a small number of types, selected according to the relations between the customer and the shopkeeper. The analysis of total situations and of the language used in them is a difficult problem but one which they shall attempt to reduce for the light it throws upon language behaviour as a whole, and upon the complex, interlocking patterns of varieties of English.
In the field of lexis professor P.D.Strevens with his colleagues in Education is driven to make statements about the patterns of occurrence and co-occurrence of words and other lexical items in very large samples of text. This is a statistical operation for which certain computer techniques are very well suited.
To sum up, their programme in Contemporary English must include research and investigation in all areas of the language. They have made a start and will extend as staff and finance permit. This is not simply a pious statement of intent: on the contrary, their teaching programme lacks some of the basic data, so that they is driven by the pressure of the day-to-day teaching to investigate as widely and yet as deeply as they can the nature of the present-day language.
Thus, the academic content of Contemporary English stands in its own right as a respectable and rapidly expanding branch of university studies. It exists independently of any practical applications and would continue even if there were no demand for applied or vocational programmes.
But the subject of study, can be summarized as 'the present-day English language, in both written and spoken forms'.
3. The varieties of English and ways of studying them
The language called 'English' is not one single, unified language. Large numbers of different sub-languages of English co-exist.
Contemporary English accepts every manifestation of the present-day language as' being a fit subject for study; but it follows from this acceptance that a prior task presents itself, the task of studying the kinds of variation that exist within the language. We need to study varieties of English before we can study any single variety. Let me name some examples of different varieties of English: the written English of the Admiralty Manual of Seamanship is different from the English of motorcar insurance policies, or from a knitting pattern, or from a соokеrу book, or from a textbook on electronics. The spoken English of a commentary on a boxing match is different from that of a sermon. And both these sets of examples, spoken and written, would be different yet again if they originated in the United States of America rather than in Great Britain. Of course, everyone is aware from his own experience that differences exist between dialects, or accents, or styles, or fields of discourse: what is not universally realized is, first,
that: all these varieties are equally lit subjects for study - in other words, that we are not seeking some notional ideal of 'good English' which is to be described while all other kinds of English are to be ignored - and second, that we now have an effective framework of categories for analysing and describing the kinds of difference that occur.
There are, several ways of approaching the study of varieties of English: in particular, one may either follow the lead of J.C. Catford and concentrate upon the performer (that is, the speaker or writer), in which case one relates the variety of English to his personal identity, where he comes from, his social status, his role in the situation, his relation to those he is addressing, and so on; or one may follow MA.K. Halliday and concentrate upon the language itself, in which case one deals with the dialect, with the subject of the discourse, with speech as a different kind of event from writing, with different 'modes' within each (journalism, the formal lecture, diary-writing, and so on), and with the 'styles of discourse' that depend upon the relations between the participants in any piece of language.
This is a branch of Contemporary English that borders on sociology and anthropology, since the constraints upon the language of an individual are part of his learned behaviour and part of his total cultural patterns. This may seem a long way from the traditional tasks of describing the phonemes or the grammar or the lexis of a particular variety of English, but it is necessary just the same that a framework for describing varieties of English should be found in order that the particular variety being described should first be precisely identified.
Once we have selected a particular variety of present-day English for study, what do we include within our description of it?
Within the kind of description professor P.D.Strevens proposes four main sections, which he called phonology, grammar, lexis, and context. To explain fairly simply what is meant. First, phonology. This is not quite the 'phonetics of English' of the traditional kind - that associated, for example, with the name of Professor Daniel Jones. Phonology starts with the same data but takes it to a further degree of abstraction. The phonology of a variety of English includes not simply the inventory of the speech-sounds used in it, but this inventory further analysed to show systematic groupings and to show all the functional units of sound, right up to the largest unit of all, the tone-group (that is, the intonation unit). And then in addition, a phonological statement includes the relations between these units. Thus, the phonology of that variety of English which he uses (roughly Standard English as to grammar, R.P. as to accent) would describe a system of five ton с groups; each tone-group consists of one or more feet, one of which will be the 'tonic' foot; each foot consists of one or more syllables, which are each either stressed or weak; each syllable consists of one or more phonemes, which can occur only in certain permitted arrangements.
In addition to the phonology of the variety of English being studied, the description must include a statement of the grammar. (Under the heading of grammar professor P.D.Strevens includes all those phenomena which have traditionally been separated into morphology and syntax.) This level of language, too, is to be described in terms of the units of grammar found to occur (for example, sentence, clause, phrase or group, word, morpheme), the classes and sub-classes of each and the patterns of arrangement which they take up in structure, and the relations between the members of the hierarchy.
A statement must also be made of the lexis (that is, roughly, the vocabulary) of the variety of English being studied. Here he is interested not only in the items that occur (the words, groups of words, expressions) but in the company that each one keeps, in the co-occurrence of some words and the mutual exclusiveness of others. To take a trivial example, in the register of astronomy items like star, planet, constellation will almost certainly occur with considerable frequency; but the item horoscope will almost certainly not occur at all. In astrology, on the other hand, a different grouping will occur, in which horoscope and the names of the signs of the Zodiac do collocate with the other terms which we expect to find in astronomy. Of course, this is perfectly obvious, and the reason for producing an example is not to suggest that we can now talk about word-groupings where previously we could not; the reason is rather to suggest that our techniques for doing this now have greater precision, accuracy and delicacy than they previously displayed.
The task of description is nearly complete, once we have covered phonology, grammar, and lexis, but we still have to include a statement of the contextual features of the variety of English we are dealing with. We must state the circumstances under which this variety occurs, and any limiting or defining features, such as restriction to a particular subject (as with the word horoscope, for example), or occupation, or social class; or even a more restricted set of contexts such as those which define the language of detergent advertising, or newspaper headlines, or the instructions on the labels of fireworks.
These, then, are the components of a complete description of any variety of contemporary English: phonology, grammar, lexis, context. And all varieties of English in use today are fit subjects for study. One of our problems is that once our eyes are opened to the great range of varieties that exist, and once our prejudices are broken down to allow us to study any variety, not simply the conventional notion of what constitutes 'good. English', we then also discover what an immense task of description lies before us.
The language of literature is one particular variety of English to which we must pay special attention. The appreciation of literature and the evaluation of literary merit are activities with their own procedures and techniques which do not in general impinge on Contemporary English. But one aspect of the total study of literary texts is the detailed analysis of the language used in them, and of those linguistic devices which produce particular literary effects. This requires techniques of language analysis such as those employed by Contemporary English in other branches of its study. Here, then, is a real possibility of bridge-building, provided that we are clear from the outset that it is a joint effort, with the building proceeding simultaneously from both ends, and aimed at the same point in the middle. In other words, the specialist in contemporary language must work with and towards the specialist in literature, and the specialist in literature must work with and towards the language specialist.
It is worth stressing that those who attempt this task must be specialists. The field of Contemporary English has suffered from more than its fair share of well-meaning but ill-informed amateurs. Simply because one speaks the language there is no reason to suppose that one can produce, without further training, an insightful analysis of the complex interplay of patterns that make up our language.
For most people, it is only by experience, by training the sensibility, by learning the art of delicate discrimination, that insight into literature can become habitual. One kind of discrimination involved is the discrimination of the patterns of language; but this requires some detailed knowledge of what the patterns of language actually consist of, at all levels, and of how they interweave. Just as grammarians and specialists in linguistics are not automatically capable of making sensitive and illuminating statements about literary effect and artistic merit, so, too, the literary specialist if he expects his remarks about language to be of weight and worth must find a basis of linguistic understanding.
The essential point is that there is an important area of overlap between language and literature. It is possible to carry out studies in literature without touching the linguistic aspects of creative writing; it is equally possible to carry out studies in Contemporary English without touching the language of literature. But for either discipline to be full and complete it must take notice of the other.
Descriptions of English until recently have been largely prescriptive, they have been related to the written language, and they have used categories of description borrowed from Latin, not based on a general theory. This made it difficult to describe any other kind of English than the particular prescriptive model of written prose that was the subject of conventional grammatical description, since no adequate descriptive categories existed for other kinds of written English, or for any kind of speech. Yet it is precisely in literature that the linguistic patterns are at their most subtle and sophisticated, where the levels of sound, grammar, and lexis interpenetrate in the most complex and original ways. Our newer descriptions of English will at least remove this serious methodological impediment, since we believe them to be capable of embracing any and all of the possible patterns and variations of the language. There remains a whole set of relations between the literary text and the linguistic statement - relations of genre, argument, intent, and other devices - for which no adequate framework of description yet exists.
One further area of study deserves to be mentioned, and that is the extension of English studies into the realm of the mass media of communication. This is a terrain vague, in the sense that it is new, undefined, and not obviously the responsibility of any single discipline. It is related to education, to sociology, to literature, and drama, to journalism, and to language. Contemporary English obviously has an interest here, although not an exclusive interest.
5. A triple bond between disciplines
In the first place there is a bond between science and humanity. There are three ways in which the study of language is in contact with science: two of them are rather trivial, but one is fundamental. The trivial contacts include, first, the use of scientific equipment and therefore of scientific modes of observation and measurement in the study of language; and second, the converse of this, the use by established scientific disciplines of linguistic concepts and techniques. As examples of the first I can cite instrumental and acoustic phonetics, the use of computer techniques for grammatical and lexical analysis, research into the physiology and psychology of language, and similar work. As examples of the second I should mention communications engineering, machine translation and
speech pathology.
The non-trivial link, which lies in the nature of the linguistic theory which professor P.D.Strevens has mentioned as the unifying feature of Contemporary English. He is not one who tries to equate linguistics with the physical sciences, but it remains a fact that the theory and description which inform British linguistics are in the normal line of general scientific method. Consequently our attitudes towards techniques of observation, towards our data, towards theory, description, models, measurement, experiment, are scientific at base, even though the subject of our study, language, is inherently capable of being original, creative, artistic, beautiful, miraculous. There is no antagonism between the two outlooks upon language, and professor P.D.Strevens has always found his appreciation of the humane aspect of language heightened and extended by the contact. This is the first bond between the disciplines.
The second bond is a bond between language and literature. It is possible to study Contemporary English without studying the language of literature, and it is possible to study literature without studying the language used in literary works. But to carry out either task thoroughly means accepting the overlap and exploiting it. Here is an area where two disciplines interconnect, and where each can hope to contribute to the other. This is the second bond.
Finally, there is the obvious contact between the academic and the vocational spheres; between the programme of analysis and description of English on the one hand, and the programme in teaching English as a foreign language on the other. And this is the third bond.
Aids to study the text:
I. Answer the following questions and give your arguments:
1. What is meant by “Contemporary English”? Define its notion, its contents, aspects of study.
2. What does the Chair of Contemporary English at Leeds deal with? What are their main kinds of work?
3. Describe the academic side of studies of Contemporary English. Why is it so important? What are the main parts? What do you understand by the “subject of study” and methods used?