Home What linguists think everyone should know about language – on extracting salience from open-ended responses
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

What linguists think everyone should know about language – on extracting salience from open-ended responses

  • Tomas Lehecka ORCID logo EMAIL logo and Jan-Ola Östman ORCID logo
Published/Copyright: July 10, 2025
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Folia Linguistica
From the journal Folia Linguistica

Abstract

The study reports on a global survey asking linguists what they think everyone should know about language. Specifically, we asked linguists to formulate questions that it would be important for the general public to know the answer to. We received 3,349 suggestions for such questions from 538 linguists from 49 different countries. The study undertakes a content analysis of these open-ended responses. We analyze the text data at three levels of abstraction: (i) the overarching themes that the responses represent, (ii) the general questions about language that the individual responses relate to, and (iii) the specific topics that are mentioned in the responses. Results show that Variation and (language as a) System are the most recurrent themes among the responses, that ‘How and why do languages change?’ is the most frequently provided question, and that Language learning, Language structure, and Comparing languages are the most prevalent topics in the data. We contend that these findings reflect what issues are the most salient to linguists when asked about language in general. However, we also show that there is considerable variation in the responses, indicating that not all linguists think of the same issues when asked what everyone should know about language. The study provides a foundation for discussions and further research on the practical value of language-related knowledge for the general public.


Corresponding author: Tomas Lehecka, Faculty of Arts, Psychology, and Theology, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland, E-mail:

Acknowledgments

We are extremely grateful to the anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions of improvement to an earlier version of this paper.

References

Akmajian, Adrian, Ann Kathleen Farmer, Lee Bickmore, Richard A. Demers & Robert M. Harnish (eds.). 2017. Linguistics: An introduction to language and communication, 7th edn. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Aristar-Dry, Helen & Michael Appleby. 2006. OLAC linguistic subject vocabulary. Available at: http://www.language-archives.org/REC/field.html.Search in Google Scholar

Bargh, John A. & Tanya L. Chartrand. 2000. The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. In Harry T. Reis & Charles M. Judd (eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology, 253–285. New York: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie & Peter Trudgill (eds.). 1998. Language myths. London: Penguin Books.Search in Google Scholar

Crystal, David. 2007. How language works: How babies babble, words change meaning and languages live or die. London: Penguin Books.Search in Google Scholar

Dawson, Hope & Michael Phelan (eds.). 2016. Language files: Materials for an introduction to language and linguistics, 12th edn. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.10.26818/9780814252703Search in Google Scholar

Dillman, Don A., Jolene D. Smyth & Leah Melani Christian. 2014. Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. New York: John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9781394260645Search in Google Scholar

Geer, John G. 1988. What do open-ended questions measure? Public Opinion Quarterly 52. 365–367. https://doi.org/10.1086/269113.Search in Google Scholar

Harris, Zellig S. 1954. Distributional structure. Word 10. 146–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1954.11659520.Search in Google Scholar

Higgins, E. Tory. 1996. Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. Tory Higgins & Arie W. Kruglanski (eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles, 133–168. New York: Guilford Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Honda, Maya & Wayne O’Neil. 2017. On thinking linguistically. Revista Linguíʃtica 13. 52–65.Search in Google Scholar

Hudson, Richard. 2004. Why education needs linguistics (and vice versa). Journal of Linguistics 40. 105–130. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226703002342.Search in Google Scholar

Johansson, Victoria, Gerd Carling & Arthur Holmer. 2013. Språket, människan och världen: Människans språk 1–2 [Language, humans and the world. The language of human beings 1–2]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Search in Google Scholar

Larson, Richard, Kristin Denham & Anne Lobeck. 2019. The AP linguistics initiative. Language 95. e381–e393. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2019.0064.Search in Google Scholar

Lehecka, Tomas & Jan-Ola Östman. 2022. What should everyone know about language? On the fluidity of important questions in linguistics. Finnish Journal of Linguistics 35. 51–80.Search in Google Scholar

Lehecka, Tomas & Jan-Ola Östman. 2023. Towards establishing what linguists think the general public should know about language: Salient versus important issues in linguistics. Language and Linguistics Compass 17(2). e12482. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12482.Search in Google Scholar

Lehecka, Tomas & Jan-Ola Östman. 2024. Nordiska språkvetares åsikter om vad allmänheten bör veta om språk. [Nordic linguists’ opinions on what the general public should know about language]. Svenskans beskrivning 38(II). 196–217.Search in Google Scholar

Leiner, Dominik J. 2019. SoSci Survey (Version 3.1. 06). [Computer software]. Available at: https://www.soscisurvey.de.Search in Google Scholar

Lidz, Jeffrey & Yakov Kronrod. 2014. Expanding our reach and theirs: When linguists go to high school. Language and Linguistics Compass 8. 449–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12094.Search in Google Scholar

Mayring, Philipp. 2014. Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Klagenfurt. Available at: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173.Search in Google Scholar

McWhorter, John H. 2002. The power of Babel: A natural history of language. London: Heinemann.Search in Google Scholar

Mikolov, Tomas, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado & Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3781.Search in Google Scholar

Napoli, Donna Jo & Vera Lee-Schoenfeld. 2010. Language matters: A guide to everyday questions about language, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Peterson, Robert A. 2000. Constructing effective questionnaires. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.10.4135/9781483349022Search in Google Scholar

QS. 2020. QS world university rankings for linguistics. Available at: https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2020/linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Reimers, Nils & Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-BERT: Sentence embeddings using siamese BERT-networks. arXiv. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10084.10.18653/v1/D19-1410Search in Google Scholar

Robinson, Sarah. 2019. Fund drive 2019: 29 years of LINGUIST List! Available at: https://linguistlist.org/issues/30/30-1184/.Search in Google Scholar

Schuman, Howard & Stanley Presser. 1979. The open and closed question. American Sociological Review 44. 692–712. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094521.Search in Google Scholar

Schuman, Howard & Stanley Presser. 1996. Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording, and context. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Schwarz, Norbert. 1995. Social cognition: Information accessibility and use in social judgment. In Edward E. Smith & Daniel N. Osherson (eds.), Thinking: An invitation to cognitive science, 345–376. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Schwarz, Norbert. 1999. Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist 54. 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.54.2.93.Search in Google Scholar

Selvi, Ali Fuad. 2019. Qualitative content analysis. In Jim McKinley & Heath Rose (eds.), The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics, 440–452. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780367824471-37Search in Google Scholar

Sutrop, Urmas. 2001. List task and a cognitive salience index. Field Methods 13. 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x0101300303.Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, Eric C. & Zhang Juan. 2006. Comparative cultural salience: Measures using free-list data. Field Methods 18. 398–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x06293128.Search in Google Scholar

Tourangeau, Roger, Lance J. Rips & Kenneth Rasinski. 2000. The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511819322Search in Google Scholar

Wagner, Laura, Sumurye Awani, Nikole D. Patson & Rebekah Stanhope. 2023. To what extent does the general public endorse language myths? Language and Linguistics Compass 17(3). e12486. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12486.Search in Google Scholar

Wong, Fillmore, Lily & Catherine E. Snow. 2002. What teachers need to know about language. In Carolyn Temple Adger, Catherine E. Snow & Donna Christian (eds.), What teachers need to know about language, 7–53. McHenry: Delta Systems.Search in Google Scholar


Supplementary Material

This article contains supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2025-2020).


Received: 2023-09-30
Accepted: 2025-05-14
Published Online: 2025-07-10

© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 18.10.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/flin-2025-2020/html
Scroll to top button