post from Dianne Patterson, U.Arizona

Mark P. Line mark at
Sun Oct 24 21:33:01 UTC 2010

I'm in violent agreement with Aya here.

A. Katz wrote:
> If the rest of the world wants to know about relative clauses or verb
> paradigms, they consult a grammarian, hopefully one fluent in the language
> in question.

And if the world wants to know about language typology, they'll want to
consult a linguist, who may or may not be fluent in any L2 at all. It
turns out that you don't have to be fluent in lots of languages in order
to study similarities and differences among languages. If you're studying
hundreds or thousands of languages, then fluency in your subject languages
is not even practical.

> While many of our colleagues who are established in the academic world do
> good and useful work of an applied nature, many more are in exile from the
> field, because their contributions were not accepted.

*raises hand*

> Philologists and grammarians are the ones whose work had the biggest
> impact on the field in the past. We claim them as our intellectual
> ancestors, but they did not call themselves linguists.
> There is a real problem in this field, and rather than simply congratulate
> ourselves on how great the past fifty years have been, we should ask
> ourselves if any of us have contributed anything with as much lasting
> value as Grimm's Law.

There are plenty of academic linguists who have been able to walk that
fine line between bucking Chomskyan orthodoxy and staying on a tenure
track. That was easier to do outside the States, but some of us failed
even there.

-- Mark

Mark P. Line
Bartlesville, OK

> Best,
>     --Aya
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, Richard Hudson wrote:
>> Dear Fritz and everyone else,
>> All this is rather negative and depressing for linguists, isn't it?
>> Which is
>> a shame, because we've actually come a long way in the last 50 years,
>> partly
>> thanks to Chomsky's insights. (OK, you can all throw your bricks at me
>> if you
>> want, but I'm not a Chomskyan; I just think it would be extraordinary if
>> his
>> work had been ALL wrong.) But maybe the question to ask isn't how good
>> other
>> disciplines think linguistics is, but whether anyone else is doing 'our
>> job'
>> better than us. Maybe our job is a particularly hard one? And maybe the
>> extreme divisions we find in linguistics make it hard for outsiders to
>> define
>> a helpful concept 'linguist' on which they can pass judgements? E.g. we
>> have
>> plenty of colleagues who do corpus linguistics, text-based
>> sociolinguistics
>> or field linguistics, with a great deal of hard data and quantitative
>> analysis, but psychologists and neuroscientists probably don't know
>> about
>> them.
>> If the rest of the world wants to know about verb paradigms and relative
>> clauses, they need a linguist. (Non-linguists sometimes think they can
>> do
>> better, but the examples that I've seen don't convince me.) The rest of
>> the
>> world may get frustrated by our attempts to analyse such things, and may
>> wonder why we're taking such a long time to reach agreement; but we've
>> been
>> at it for (probably) four thousand years, and we really are trying hard.
>> Maybe all that work has actually given us a depth of insight into our
>> subject
>> matter that younger disciplines haven't yet achieved? And none of them,
>> incidentally, has to cope with 7,000 completely different complex
>> systems,
>> all of which somehow have to be reconciled with theories developed more
>> or
>> less independently in a bunch of neighbouring disciplines ranging from
>> philosophy to neuroscience.
>> I still think that linguistics is a fantastic area to work in, and I
>> love it.
>> I know its weaknesses as well as anyone does, but it has enormous
>> strengths
>> as well.
>> Best wishes, Dick
>> Richard Hudson
>> On 22/10/2010 22:33, Tom Givon wrote:
>>> Dianne Patterson has asked me to post this for her:
>>> ====================
>>> Dear All,
>>> I'm afraid I can't quote anything of interest in the literature, but I
>>> second Tom Givon's private experiences.  I have a BA in Philosophy, a
>>> Masters in Linguistics, and a PhD in Psychology.
>>> I've worked on language acquisition, animal-language issues, done
>>> fieldwork
>>> in a remote region of Mexico, and spent the last 10 years doing
>>> neuroimaging work.
>>> I have found that academics in Psychology, Speech Sciences, Biology and
>>> Anthropology think many linguists associated with the old School
>>> Chomskian
>>> perspectives are out of touch with real data and out of touch with how
>>> research is conducted.
>>> This cultural divide is too bad, since I honestly believe linguists
>>> might
>>> be able to contribute to these fields if they were a little more
>>> willing to
>>> appreciate the perspectives, methods and hard work of people in these
>>> fields.  Instead, linguists often leave behind them a trail of offended
>>> scientists by making a variety of poor choices in their approach:
>>> -Asserting time and again the sort of quasi-religious dogma that humans
>>> are
>>> "qualitatively different" than other creatures (this is NOT a
>>> scientific
>>> hypothesis, it is not clear what it means, nor is it obvious)
>>> -Assuming that only linguists have any insights into language...and
>>> never
>>> bothering to learn what other disciplines might have to offer (e.g.,
>>> well
>>> vetted tests in Speech Sciences).
>>> -Suggesting time and again that real data from real people is of no
>>> interest.
>>> And, if linguists are interested in data:
>>> -Assuming researchers who have worked long and hard and at great
>>> expense to
>>> acquire data should just turn it over to the linguist who has
>>> contributed
>>> nothing and/or offers VERY little (asking for a free ride is not a good
>>> way
>>> to ingratiate yourself)
>>> -Thinking of language disordered populations as resources to confirm
>>> Chomsky's latests theories with (sorry, these are real people, not lab
>>> rats. If you aren't interested in helping, then rethink your goals.)
>>> I hope that training in linguistics and the attitudes that go with that
>>> training can change, because otherwise other academics will just avoid
>>> linguists, and that's too bad, because linguists have some unique
>>> problem
>>> solving skills...and I the "True Believer" linguists give the more
>>> reasonable linguists a bad reputation.
>>> -Dianne

-- Mark

Mark P. Line
Bartlesville, OK

More information about the Funknet mailing list