Language and Linguistics: Frolicking with Some Definitions

Abstract

Bamisaye (1997) has opined that the question, “what is language does not lend itself to a simple answer”. The initiative of this research is also of a similar mindset. Consequently it is with such mindset that we approach the phenomenon language as a rather kaleidoscopic entity in human communicative existence. The very imposing aspect of the term of reference of this study, as can be implied in its title, attempts to reflect on some of the extant definitions of language and linguistics to provide further understanding of the concepts which would possibly make the contents of the chapter veritable investigatory material for budding researchers in the field of language study. Language is such a pervasive human tool that every user of the phenomenon may think he knows what it is in its nitty-gritty. It is however insightful to say that this lame duck, or myopic, claim about language is a product of the misjudgment of the consanguineous relationship between language and man. It is therefore not fortuitous that both Crystal (1974) and Bamisaye and Afolayan (2006) are of the opinion that the amorous rapport between man and language is enough to make anybody fall into the trap of assuming “we know all about it” merely because we speak it.