Let's play a fun game! I'll give you a type of scientist, and you'll answer with what they do. Well, there's only me here right now, so I'll have to play on my own, but whatever. Game start!
Geologists? they study rocks and pebbles. Astronomers? they use big telescopes to look at stars and space things. Mathematicians? they study numbers! Or geometric figures. Or stuff like that. Biologists? they study life and living things in general, and how they live. Sociologists? They study society. Linguists? They study language, and that's very cool.
"Okay, that game is easy!" or so you say. Well, I'm sure your answers must have irked some colleagues to be fair, but yeah, you got the gist pretty quickly. There's generally "one big thing", one core topic of research in a scientific field, and you can always hearken back to that starting idea. But it's not entirely accurate.
Going back to biologists: they do study life, but the angle adopted in biology is rather specific. Sure, they study life and living things, but they adopt a mechanistic view of life: how life functions, so to speak. They do not discuss what is the meaning of life; instead they describe the chemistry needed for a microbe to propagate in your body, or how much force can the muscles in a kangaroo's leg exert. If want to study the meaning of life, then you should probably study philosophy or theology or something of the sort.
Now let's go back to linguists. Earlier, you said that linguists study language (and also that it was very cool, and it was very kind of you; thanks, that does wonders to my self-esteem to hear that kind of stuff). We linguists do study language, but there are many ways you can study language. You can have a look at how Shakespeare's verses are written, and how they differ from the style of Blake—that's language. You can do like the Académie des Immortels Peut-être Trop Poussiéreux, and ponder deeply about the proper gender of the word "covid" and wonder whether every single French speaker got it wrong all this time—that looks extremely silly to me, but again, technically, you're dealing with language.
Linguistics is really about describing idioms and dialects, like how biologists describe living things. We can expect all languages to share some features, as they all are manifestations of the human capacity to communicate with sounds or gestures—just like you can expect living things to be made of proteins, genes and cells.
Linguists are mostly focused on describing human language—unlike the French Académie that is interested in prescribing the "correct usage" (whatever that means). To a linguist, the question of correction is only relevant in that it can influence the view that speakers have of their own speech. Linguists are also not necessarily focused on the style and literary value of specific pieces of text; although they can be, insofar as literary significance is a useful concept when describing language.
In short, linguists can contrast and compare Globish to how Queen Elizabeth speaks, but they won't decry the former and revere the latter. Linguists can consider that rhyme schemes and fixed meters are formal markers of French classical poetry just like Verlan denotes modern popular French speech.
So I'm a linguist. More precisely, I'm a computational linguist or a NLP scientist, depending on whom you talk to. Computational linguistics (CL) is the sub-field of linguistics that further takes a computational approach to language. NLP stands for Natural Language Processing, and the field it covers is very much adjacent to CL, but I'll leave that can of worm for the next installment. The sort of questions I'm working on generally boil down to "can you set up a mathematical model of some aspect of language? And what can you learn from that model?"
This is probably very abstract. Let's take an example. Let's suppose you're trying to learn German, but, sadly, you can't for the life of you remember the grammatical gender of German nouns. Now, you could wallow in grief, or you could look into whether these genders are truly completely random. There are two things we can expect to play a role. The first one is word meaning: if you have masculine and feminine genders, a naive assumption you can make is that woman be a feminine word, and man be a masculine one; likewise if you have animate and inanimate genders, then human should be animate, whereas pebble is probably not.
The other thing you can expect to play a role is word frequency; i.e., how often a given word is used on average. That's because frequency always plays a role, or to be precise, it always messes with our experiments in computational linguistics.
Back to our original question: is grammatical gender in German completely random? Or do meaning and frequency play a significant role? Well, a computational linguist would measure, correlate and plot these two factors, and study what they get from all their measurements.
And in fact, you can find some sort of patterns. For instance, things with similar meanings will tend to have the same grammatical gender (e.g., Tee, Saft, Kaffee are all masculine in German), except for the most common item in the group (and Wasser is indeed neuter). The pattern is not systematic, yet it does suggest that genders are not random but highly informative. They help speakers of German to distinguish between situations on the basis of how mundane or exceptional they appear to be: drinking water is perhaps less noteworthy than drinking coffee.
A computational linguist will attempt to be systematic in their study (like any other scientist). To do so, they would devise or adapt existings metrics to quantify this degree of informativity, and check whether it generalizes at a larger scale than our select collection of beverages.
This mathematical approach to language also means that it will be easier to couple linguistics with computers and technology in general. For a computer, the mathematical models of language we build will be easier to handle than the raw noisy mess of our daily exchanges. I promise I'll speak more about this aspect next week.
So there you have it! I'm a computational linguist, and I try to study language through computations. One question you may have is why: why am I interested in this rather obscure sub-domain of linguistics. I'll try to go a bit deeper into the weeds in future installments of this series, but for now, I'll just mention two reasons.
The first is that computational models of language are global descriptions of languages. I generally have to deal with all the data available at once, instead of selecting observations that corresponds to the problem I study. I find that angle of study more appropriate to my understanding of language, but I'll save the full explanation for an upcoming rant.
The second, and perhaps the most important reason, is that I want to build talking robots, damn it!