Ask the readers: What is a linguist?

---

This discussion post was published in August 2011. It records how I used the words linguist and polyglot at the time; English usage legitimately gives linguist more than one sense.

This is something that had been bothering me for some time, so after giving my thoughts on it, I wanted to hear from readers.

A note from the Fluent in 3 Months team before we get started: You can chat away with a native speaker for at least 15 minutes with the “Fluent in 3 Months” method. All it takes is 90 days. Tap this link to find out more.

What do you understand it as meaning if someone says that they are a “linguist”?

As far as I'm concerned, a linguist is someone who studies linguistics.

Linguistics can be a fascinating field that covers anything from phonetics of dead languages to the origin of languages, how languages evolve with time, deconstructing dialects, how languages affect how we think, computer programming and speech recognition, etymologies, syntax, comparative grammar, neurology, psychology, to much much more.

Languages are a part of humanity and the study of these languages is an important aspect of science itself. Some of the research may be immediately practical and some may be mostly for the purposes of expanding our understanding of the world and our place in it.

I hope this description fits, so correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not a linguist. I have a degree in electronic engineering (and apply engineering mentality to language learning).

For many people, linguist can also mean someone skilled in languages. I prefer polyglot for someone who speaks several languages, because it distinguishes language use from the academic study of language. That is a preference for precision, not proof that the other established sense is wrong.

You'll notice I like to refer to myself as Benny the Irish polyglot, not Benny the Irish linguist, unless I'm joking or wearing one of my joke “cunning linguist” T-shirts.

To me, linguist feels analogous to scientist: someone who studies a field. But English words do not derive their present meanings from one suffix rule, and major dictionaries record both the language-scientist sense and the skilled-language-user sense. Context is what tells us which one a speaker means.

Non-polyglot linguists

Problems arise when either language-learning experience or academic training is treated as expertise in every language-related question.

I have come across the odd linguist making discouraging claims about adult language learning that I thought went beyond the evidence. Individual success stories do not disprove population research, just as a study average does not determine one learner's ceiling. The useful question is whether the claim, evidence and advice match.

A linguist's personal language repertoire does not by itself validate or invalidate their research. For advice about learning, it is still reasonable to ask whether someone understands both the evidence and the practical conditions learners face.

There's nothing wrong with that, but when you start making questionable claims then this is something I really have to stand up against.

A reader once compared a second-language-acquisition linguist and a polyglot to a sports researcher and an athlete. The analogy is useful only up to a point: researchers, teachers and experienced learners answer different questions, and the best practical advice can draw on all three.

Experience matters for relevant advice, but it does not replace careful evidence.

Many linguists do not research second-language acquisition at all. I have enjoyed the company of linguists who taught me a great deal about how languages work, even when it was unrelated to learning one. Beyond my missions, we share an enjoyment of new and interesting knowledge.

Non-linguist polyglots

But I won't delude myself into thinking that I'm on the same level of linguists when it comes to understanding how languages and linguistics work.

Many multilingual people I have met do not use specialist grammatical terminology or trace the history of the words they use. Speaking several languages and analysing language scientifically are different skills.

I know a little of that stuff, but I'm not a linguist. It would be misleading of me to say I'm one. Despite what I've said above about experience, some people really do value a PhD more.

This is why I prefer polyglots to be specific about their expertise. Because linguist is ambiguous, readers may infer academic credentials that were not intended. On this blog, my advice comes from experience and conversations with many language learners, not from conducting large, well-funded studies.

I still think credentials and scope should be clear, just as they should be when someone claims to be an engineer or scientist. But because linguist has two established senses, using it for a skilled language user is not automatically a false credential claim.

You can be both an academic linguist and a polyglot, but neither ability automatically supplies the other.

---

So what do you think? Am I alone in thinking I should correct people when they call me a linguist? Should second language acquisition linguists swallow their pride and ask for advice from people with experience even if they have no diplomas on their wall? Should polyglots stop pretending to be linguists? Should people stop using one word to cover everything to do with languages and be more specific? Or am I making a mountain out of a molehill?