4.3 Article

What does the public think about language science?

Journal

LANGUAGE
Volume 98, Issue 4, Pages E224-E249

Publisher

LINGUISTIC SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1353/lan.2022.0029

Keywords

informal science; language science; public perception

Funding

  1. NSF [1823381]
  2. Division Of Behavioral and Cognitive Sci
  3. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie [1823381] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite the scientific tradition in studying language, there is a widespread belief among language scientists that the public does not see language as a classic object of scientific study. This study aimed to investigate this notion and found that high-impact demonstrations of core linguistic phenomena could help people recognize that language can be studied scientifically.
Despite the long tradition of using the scientific method to study language, there is a widespread, if largely anecdotally based, feeling among language scientists that the general public does not perceive language to be a classic object of scientific study. The goal of the current study was to investigate this notion. We report the results of three experiments conducted in informal science learning environments that: (i) confirm the public thinks of science and language as fundamentally different objects, and (ii) show there are some areas of language science that are more readily accepted as science than others. Our results also suggest that high-impact demonstrations of core linguistic phenomena may be used to encourage people to recognize that language can be, and often is, an object of scientific study. Although the public has an incomplete understanding of the study of language, we argue that the strong humanistic approach with which the public associates the study of language can be seen as an opportunity to broaden participation in science.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available