Criticizing Linguistics

[Salinas17 at aol.com]

In a message dated 9/21/07 2:03:09 AM, W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de writes:
<< In my eyes, the constant self-criticism with respect to one's own 
scientific approach is part of a sound scientific methodology. For instance, if 
someone starts from the basic (ontological) hypothesis that language has some kind 
of 'nature' or is an objective reality of its own, (s)he will have to 
corroborate this hypothesis by again and again checking it against the reverse 
argument, according to which the 'nature' of language is a secondary qualification of 
something fully different based on cognitive processes to construe the world. 
>>

To all:
I'm not sure I fully understand Alex's comparison of his problems with 
linguistics to someone else's criticism of a diagnostic biological science, but I 
was taken aback a bit by Wolfgang's description of our options when it comes to 
testing "the objective reality" of language.

If I were as interested in criticizing the field of linguistics as Alex 
appears to be, I think I'd start with any view of language that leaves out the idea 
of communication, as Wolfgang's apparently does.

There is certainly an objective reality to language that anyone who listens 
to language must deal with.  I may be interested in the speaker's "cognitive 
processes to construe the world."  But all I have is the physical reality of his 
speaking or writing or signing.  If he is sucessfully misleading me, I most 
assuredly am not aware of his actual cognitive processes.  If I take what he 
says at "face value," my response is not based on what he is thinking, but what 
he is objectively saying.

Every listener or reader is always in this position.  And just like any 
listener, the linguistic researcher is always separated from the subject's 
cognition by an ultimately unbridgeable gap.  (If we could all truly read each other's 
minds, maybe we would have no need for language -- or linguistics?)

Furthermore, in many cases, I may be much less interested in the speaker's 
cognition than what he's referring to.  If he tells me the bridge is out ahead, 
it means I'll have to go back and take another road.  I can do that without 
ever seeing the bridge.  

In comparison, a cat or dog trying to get across a river probably can use 
enough "cognition" to know they will have to find another way across if the 
bridge is out.  But cats and dogs do not seem to be able to warn one another about 
bridges being out ahead of time.  They can't communicate these kinds of 
details.

The failure would seem to be not in their individual cognitive processes, but 
in their communal language abilities.  And that inability would be another 
thing that separates the two processes.

I guess this isn't so much a criticism of linguistics in the sense of Alex's 
criticism.  It's more of a question about what the subject matter of 
linguistics is.  

I'm thinking about the political advisors who carefully test words used in a 
commercial against the voting behavior of subjects exposed to those 
commercials.  Are these people cognitive scientists or behaviorists?  Or are they really 
linguists?

Regards,
Steve Long

















<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> See what's new at 
http://www.aol.com</HTML>