FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 18

s.t. bischoff bischoff.st at gmail.com
Mon Oct 25 19:47:04 UTC 2010


Sorry all...I didn't realize attachments can't go through. I've added the
papers on my website at

Pullam 2009
http://users.ipfw.edu/bischofs/ling/Pullum_EACL2009.pdf

Ritter 2005
http://users.ipfw.edu/bischofs/ling/linguisticreview2005.pdf

As a trained Chomskian linguist, I was devastate to learn that basic
principles of mathematics, set theory  for example, where flouted in
inconsistent ways in order that the "theory work". Minimalism of the 1995
flavor was quickly abandoned because of the egregious flouting of basic
mathematical axioms. By 1998 Chomsky was writing about phase theory and
nobody was referring to "last effort" or "greed" any longer.

One of the traps that many, in and out of the field, fall into is believing
that the pseudo-mathematical jargon is "real" in terms of the more
traditional usage in mathematics. In Chomsky 1995 you have various sections
on the "Computational Component" and a use of pseudo-mathematic jargon that
gives the impression of real computational science happening...but there is
no "algorithm" what-so-ever (certainly not in the sense of Knuth). Several
computer scientists I have worked with thought the Chomskian approach was of
interest because of the jargon, but quickly avoided it because they found
the jargon inconsistent with their training in mathematics.

Many of my colleagues to this day have no idea what "trees" actually are nor
what it means in terms of generative grammar to be drawing them...it is just
something they were trained to do...and if it doesn't work...just make up a
parameter. It seems very problematic. It is curious that OT has gone by the
wayside for such reasons but Minimalism is alive and well.

Cheers,
Shannon

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:00 PM, <funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu> wrote:

> Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to
>        funknet at mailman.rice.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: A question for Fritz (Frederick J Newmeyer)
>   2. Re: A question for Fritz (john at research.haifa.ac.il)
>   3. Re: A question for Fritz (Tom Givon)
>   4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Lise Menn)
>   5. Re: A question for Fritz (Andrew Pawley)
>   6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (alex gross)
>   7. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics
>      (john at research.haifa.ac.il)
>   8. Re: A question for Fritz (Daniel Everett)
>   9. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics
>      (Frederick J Newmeyer)
>  10. Re: A question for Fritz (Frederick J Newmeyer)
>  11. Re: A question for Fritz (Martin Haspelmath)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:40:18 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Frederick J Newmeyer <fjn at u.washington.edu>
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz
> To: john at research.haifa.ac.il
> Cc: Funknet <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>
> Message-ID:
>        <alpine.LRH.2.01.1010231040180.14749 at hymn32.u.washington.edu>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
>
> John,
>
> That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a
> target article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys
> 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, and
> cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been true
> since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the
> premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether
> linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to
> the List. And then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey
> article.
>
> --fritz
>
> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with
> generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to linguistics
> enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social sciences,
> and cognitive sciences.
>
>
> Frederick J. Newmeyer
> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington
> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser
> University
> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail]
>
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote:
>
> > Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has generated,
> I'd
> > like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from people in
> > theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article is
> this?
> > Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the
> article or
> > is it your own idea?
> > Best wishes,
> > John
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:51:31 +0200
> From: john at research.haifa.ac.il
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz
> To: Frederick J Newmeyer <fjn at u.washington.edu>
> Cc: Funknet <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>
> Message-ID: <1287859891.4cc32eb33a6fe at webmail.haifa.ac.il>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Fritz,
> Hmm. So you seem to be in a difficult position, that is, that you don't
> agree with the premise but you are perhaps expected to agree? You obviously
> haven't had too much luck getting support for the premise from funknet (the
> only person who gave you anything was Shannon and none of her references
> were about generative grammar)--have you gotten much from other sources?
> Have
> you considered simply going with your immediate reaction, that is,
> contradicting the premise of the article?
>
> I would generally agree with your assessment that linguistics hasn't
> enjoyed
> great prestige in the US for a while, but I think I might put the date a
> little
> later, maybe the mid-to-late-70s. I have the impression that for a while
> there
> was a lot of hope and expectation in other disciplines that the Chomskyan
> paradigm would lead to much more than it has. Another factor is, I think,
> that
> whereas during the days of structural linguistics there was a lot of
> admiration
> for linguistics in the other social sciences in the sense that there was a
> general feeling that social sciences should be more scientific and that
> linguistics was doing a much better job of this than the other social
> sciences
> (with the possible exception of economics), by the early 1980s at the
> latest
> the other social sciences either gave up trying to be scientific or else
> managed to do it in ways not modeled on linguistics. In that sense I think
> that
> even the early prestige of the generative paradigm was in a certain sense a
> continuation of the earlier admiration for structural linguistics.
>
> What seems to have happened is that the methodology for scientific
> linguistics
> a la structuralism and generative grammar has turned out to simply not be
> applicable to other disciplines. But generative grammarians seem to be
> either
> not aware of this, or to assume that this is a temporary state of affairs,
> or
> not to care, and thus to radically overestimate the general importance of
> their
> program to academic research in general. This would seem to be the only
> explanation for people like the author of this articles making premises
> which
> aren't consistent with what's really going on.
> Best wishes,
> John
>
>
>
>
> Quoting Frederick J Newmeyer <fjn at u.washington.edu>:
>
> > John,
> >
> > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a
> target
> > article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys
> > 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, and
> > cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been true
> > since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the
> > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether
> linguistics
> > really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to the List.
> And
> > then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey article.
> >
> > --fritz
> >
> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with
> > generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to
> linguistics
> > enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social
> sciences,
> > and cognitive sciences.
> >
> >
> > Frederick J. Newmeyer
> > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington
> > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser
> University
> > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail]
> >
> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote:
> >
> > > Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has
> generated,
> > I'd
> > > like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from people
> in
> > > theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article
> is
> > this?
> > > Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the
> article
> > or
> > > is it your own idea?
> > > Best wishes,
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa
> University
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:52:01 -0600
> From: Tom Givon <tgivon at uoregon.edu>
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz
> To: john at research.haifa.ac.il, Funknet <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>,
>        "Bickerton, Derek" <derbick at hawaii.rr.com>
> Message-ID: <4CC33CE1.8030107 at uoregon.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>
> Dear John,
>
> First, Shannon is a  he, not a she.
>
> Second, I checked the first three refs he gave, nothing there about
> linguistics, tho Murray Gell-Man claims to be doing joint work with
> Mwerritt Ruhlen (I know their work).
>
> Third, I did give Fritz the ref. of Frans de Waal's article in the NY
> Times (and On The Human), in which "some linguists"  (= Chomsky) are
> explicitly criticized for their anti-evolutionary perspective.
>
> One could of course go on, tho I must confess I find the stated purpose
> of Fritz's endeavor somewhat baffling.  In 1992 Walter Kintch, a
> well-known  psycho-linguist, wrote an article with roughly the following
> quote "so now finally we discover that grammar does have a reason for
> being there". This is after reading my work on grammar as an automated
> discourse processor. The clear inference was "until now the Chomskians
> gave us a formal device with no cognitive function whatever". Most
> psycho-linguists know only of Chomsky, and tho they have found him
> totally useless ("makes no behavioral/empirical  predictions"), they are
> reluctant to criticize him in print. What happened to Roger Schank (who
> was neither a psychologist nor a linguist) was a sharp caution. The
> entire Generative propaganda machinery went after him, crunched his
> tail, his poor ego never recovered. The reason they bothered with him
> was that at the time Cog. Sci. was still dominated by computational
> types, and  Roger, a computer guy, was perceived as a real threat. This
> has radically changed now, with neuro-science dominating the agenda. The
> best practitioners there either ignore Generativism (= minimalism)
> altogether, or (as in the case of Angela Friederici, via Yosef
> Grodzionsky) go back to the Aspects (1965) model, the last one that had
> some concrete foundations (constructions, morphology).
>
> All in all, it is a complex picture with lots of convoluted history. And
> it is not ameliorated by self-proclaimed functionalists developing
> "purely linguistic" descriptive models that are "a-theoretical" and
> disclaim interest in explanation (and are really pure formalisms, from
> my humble perspective). All this means is that the allied disciplines
> (cognitive neuro-science, evolutionary anthropology/psychology,
> primatology, developmental psychology), who desperately need some
> substantive/empirical input from linguistics, don't get it from 'our'
> side of the field either.
>
> Best,  TG
>
> =========================
>
> john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote:
> > Fritz,
> > Hmm. So you seem to be in a difficult position, that is, that you don't
> > agree with the premise but you are perhaps expected to agree? You
> obviously
> > haven't had too much luck getting support for the premise from funknet
> (the
> > only person who gave you anything was Shannon and none of her references
> > were about generative grammar)--have you gotten much from other sources?
> Have
> > you considered simply going with your immediate reaction, that is,
> > contradicting the premise of the article?
> >
> > I would generally agree with your assessment that linguistics hasn't
> enjoyed
> > great prestige in the US for a while, but I think I might put the date a
> little
> > later, maybe the mid-to-late-70s. I have the impression that for a while
> there
> > was a lot of hope and expectation in other disciplines that the Chomskyan
> > paradigm would lead to much more than it has. Another factor is, I think,
> that
> > whereas during the days of structural linguistics there was a lot of
> admiration
> > for linguistics in the other social sciences in the sense that there was
> a
> > general feeling that social sciences should be more scientific and that
> > linguistics was doing a much better job of this than the other social
> sciences
> > (with the possible exception of economics), by the early 1980s at the
> latest
> > the other social sciences either gave up trying to be scientific or else
> > managed to do it in ways not modeled on linguistics. In that sense I
> think that
> > even the early prestige of the generative paradigm was in a certain sense
> a
> > continuation of the earlier admiration for structural linguistics.
> >
> > What seems to have happened is that the methodology for scientific
> linguistics
> > a la structuralism and generative grammar has turned out to simply not be
> > applicable to other disciplines. But generative grammarians seem to be
> either
> > not aware of this, or to assume that this is a temporary state of
> affairs, or
> > not to care, and thus to radically overestimate the general importance of
> their
> > program to academic research in general. This would seem to be the only
> > explanation for people like the author of this articles making premises
> which
> > aren't consistent with what's really going on.
> > Best wishes,
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Quoting Frederick J Newmeyer <fjn at u.washington.edu>:
> >
> >
> >> John,
> >>
> >> That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a
> target
> >> article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys
> >> 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences,
> and
> >> cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been
> true
> >> since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the
> >> premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether
> linguistics
> >> really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to the List.
> And
> >> then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey article.
> >>
> >> --fritz
> >>
> >> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with
> >> generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to
> linguistics
> >> enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social
> sciences,
> >> and cognitive sciences.
> >>
> >>
> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer
> >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington
> >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser
> University
> >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail]
> >>
> >> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has
> generated,
> >>>
> >> I'd
> >>
> >>> like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from people
> in
> >>> theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article
> is
> >>>
> >> this?
> >>
> >>> Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the
> article
> >>>
> >> or
> >>
> >>> is it your own idea?
> >>> Best wishes,
> >>> John
> >>>
> >>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa
> University
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 22:23:42 -0600
> From: Lise Menn <lise.menn at Colorado.EDU>
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics
> To: Frederick J Newmeyer <fjn at u.washington.edu>
> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
> Message-ID: <41B4B434-203F-4670-8939-6B8AF8778068 at colorado.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> Fritz:
>        The Gene Searchinger  films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The
> Writing Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics
> and linguists.  And 'The Linguists', of course.
>
>        Lise Menn
> >
> >>
> >> Today's Topics:
> >>
> >>  1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock)
> >>  2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev)
> >>  3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics
> >>     (Brian MacWhinney)
> >>  4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line)
> >>  5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E.
> >> Payne)
> >>  6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock)
> >>
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:33:30 +1100
> From: Andrew Pawley <andrew.pawley at anu.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz
> To: Frederick J Newmeyer <fjn at u.washington.edu>
> Cc: Funknet <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>, john at research.haifa.ac.il
> Message-ID: <fbd7e95b3b99b.4cc451ca at anu.edu.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> Dear Fritz
>
> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics?
> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other?
> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among?
> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences.
> -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. ?In the parts of the world whose
> languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island SE Asia, several
> kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and have been
> influential in the thinking of archaeologists, cultural anthropologists,
> population geneticists, and writers of popular science like Jared Diamond,
> among others.? I?m thinking in particular of (i) historical linguistics,
> (ii) grammars and dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics.
> (i) Historical linguistics.? In the 18th century, and especially after the
> three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative linguistic evidence
> dominated theories of the human settlement of the Pacific.? Word lists
> showing close resemblances between Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy
> provided the most powerful evidence then available.? In modern times the
> syntheses of SE Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood,
> Green, Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give great
> weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. Unsurprisingly, members
> of other historical disciplines have little interest in the fine points of
> theories of language change.? What they care about in historical linguistics
> is mainly family trees, patterns of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions
> that throw light on the culture and environment of prehistoric communities.
> I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of other
> regions (though in few places do the stories told by archaeologists and
> historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning the dispersal of
> Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across Island SE Asia and the
> Pacific).? Work on the history of Indo-European languages surely holds a
> place of some eminence in Western intellectual history.? Darwin was among
> the first to comment on close parallels between the family models of
> historical linguistics and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists
> today typically do their sampling in terms of language families and
> subgroups and try (often without much success) to correlate particular
> genetic clades with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza
> and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale.
> (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the most
> enduring legacies of linguistic research.??Of course, scholars in other
> disciplines, and the general public, value these as works of reference and
> are little concerned with advances in theory that underpin (and sometimes
> stem from) improvements in grammar writing. But some are interested in
> cross-linguistic generalisations, which brings me to
> (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences,?
> especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen interest in
> lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of cross-disciplinary
> interaction between linguists and anthropologists in this domain. The vast
> literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s ideas about colour term universals
> is an example, as is the work on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and
> fauna by Berlin and his associates.? In social anthropology key concepts
> such as mana and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages
> and societies.?
> And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural
> linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and Roger
> Keesing, among other anthropologists.??
> Regards
> Andy Pawley
> _______
> > John,
> >
> > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary
> > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of
> > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the
> > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My
> > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the
> > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the
> > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around
> > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'.
> > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my
> > commentary to a separate survey article.
> >
> > --fritz
> >
> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics
> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other
> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among
> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences.
> >
> >
> > Frederick J. Newmeyer
> > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington
> > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon
> > Fraser University
> > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail]
> >
> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote:
> >
> > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has
> > generated, I'd
> > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from
> > people in
> > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey
> > article is this?
> > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write
> > the article or
> > >is it your own idea?
> > >Best wishes,
> > >John
> > >
> > >----------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------
> > >This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa
> > University>
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 02:06:47 -0400
> From: "alex gross" <language at sprynet.com>
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics
> To: "Lise Menn" <lise.menn at Colorado.EDU>,       "Frederick J Newmeyer"
>        <fjn at u.washington.edu>
> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
> Message-ID: <33295EBD4D8844379F2732D614A995EB at aa82807a474cf4>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>        reply-type=response
>
> > The Gene Searchinger  films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing
> > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and
> > linguists.
>
> Thanks, Lise!  And best wishes to you, Fritz!
>
> It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language"
> presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and linguists."
> This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative
> theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields
> into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work was
> being done.  You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first
> came out fifteen years ago at:
>
> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm
>
> where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book "The
> Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time.
>
> My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, can
> be found at:
>
> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm
>
> While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's producers
> and
> gained the
> impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative movement.
>
> Very best to everyone!
>
> alex
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lise Menn" <lise.menn at Colorado.EDU>
> To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" <fjn at u.washington.edu>
> Cc: <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics
>
>
> > Fritz:
> > The Gene Searchinger  films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The  Writing
> > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics  and
> > linguists.  And 'The Linguists', of course.
> >
> > Lise Menn
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Today's Topics:
> >>>
> >>>  1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock)
> >>>  2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev)
> >>>  3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics
> >>>     (Brian MacWhinney)
> >>>  4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line)
> >>>  5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E.  Payne)
> >>>  6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:44:46 +0200
> From: john at research.haifa.ac.il
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics
> To: alex gross <language at sprynet.com>
> Cc: Lise Menn <lise.menn at Colorado.EDU>, funknet at mailman.rice.edu,
>        Frederick J Newmeyer <fjn at u.washington.edu>
> Message-ID: <1287906286.4cc3e3eed1cea at webmail.haifa.ac.il>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255
>
> My question to Fritz had in the background the feeling that maybe something
> like this might be going on in the case of the article that he was asked to
> comment on--that is, that it is some sort of ad campaign for generative
> linguistics and Fritz was recruited as someone who might provide legitimacy
> to
> it (presumably without the inviter being aware that Fritz didn't
> necessarily
> see things the same way). This would explain why (1) the article simply
> assumed
> the great contribution of linguistics rather than demonstrating anything,
> (2)
> linguistics was equated with generative linguistics, and (3) applied
> disciplines were ruled out as irrelevant.
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Quoting alex gross <language at sprynet.com>:
>
> > > The Gene Searchinger  films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing
> > > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and
> > > linguists.
> >
> > Thanks, Lise!  And best wishes to you, Fritz!
> >
> > It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language"
> > presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and
> linguists."
> > This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative
> > theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields
> > into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work
> was
> > being done.  You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first
> > came out fifteen years ago at:
> >
> > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm
> >
> > where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book "The
> > Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time.
> >
> > My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film,
> can
> > be found at:
> >
> > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm
> >
> > While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's producers
> and
> > gained the
> > impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative
> movement.
> >
> > Very best to everyone!
> >
> > alex
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Lise Menn" <lise.menn at Colorado.EDU>
> > To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" <fjn at u.washington.edu>
> > Cc: <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>
> > Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM
> > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics
> >
> >
> > > Fritz:
> > > The Gene Searchinger  films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The  Writing
> > > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics  and
> > > linguists.  And 'The Linguists', of course.
> > >
> > > Lise Menn
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Today's Topics:
> > >>>
> > >>>  1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock)
> > >>>  2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev)
> > >>>  3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics
> > >>>     (Brian MacWhinney)
> > >>>  4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line)
> > >>>  5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E.
>  Payne)
> > >>>  6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock)
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:52:40 -0400
> From: Daniel Everett <dan at daneverett.org>
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz
> To: Andrew Pawley <andrew.pawley at anu.edu.au>
> Cc: Funknet <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>, john at research.haifa.ac.il,
>        Frederick J Newmeyer <fjn at u.washington.edu>
> Message-ID: <073E27B4-B0A4-4F3B-A018-55668EA8540F at daneverett.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> Andy,
>
> This seems right on from my perspective. I think that there is still a
> myth, taking a long time to die, that generative grammar somehow advanced
> our knowledge of the mind. That is an exciting idea, so its popularity, from
> my experience, is strongest among those who believe that myth, propagated in
> numerous popular books, leading to  the 'plethora of instincts' phenomenon
> (music instinct, language instinct, art instinct, faith instinct, and so
> on).
>
> But among people from anthropology, sociology, and other fields, the kinds
> of contributions you mention are most respected, again in my experience.
> There are no more enduring works than grammars, dictionaries, and enduring
> archives of sounds, visual culture, and so on. These plus the best of
> historical research are always going to be at the top of linguistics'
> contributions to world knowledge.  It is possible that interactions between
> linguists and computer scientists are of similar importance. But here the
> contributions are perhaps more variable.
>
> Structural linguistics, especially as seen in the work of Levi-Strauss
> (though see my obituary of L-S here:
> http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1881) was less impressive to me
> than the descriptive linguistics of Sapir (descriptive linguistics being the
> in-depth accounting, using structural linguistics perhaps, of the 'genius'
> of each language).
>
> I did receive, a very pleasant surprise, a longish letter from Ward
> Goodenough, to whose work you alluded, a few months ago that indirectly
> reminded me of his valuable contributions.
>
> -- Dan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 24 Oct 2010, at 00:33, Andrew Pawley wrote:
>
> > Dear Fritz
> >
> >> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics
> >> with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other
> >> approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among
> >> those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences.
> > -- Here I think you're being too gloomy.  In the parts of the world whose
> languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island SE Asia, several
> kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and have been
> influential in the thinking of archaeologists, cultural anthropologists,
> population geneticists, and writers of popular science like Jared Diamond,
> among others.  I?m thinking in particular of (i) historical linguistics,
> (ii) grammars and dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics.
> > (i) Historical linguistics.  In the 18th century, and especially after
> the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative linguistic
> evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the Pacific.  Word
> lists showing close resemblances between Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and
> Malagasy provided the most powerful evidence then available.  In modern
> times the syntheses of SE Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like
> Bellwood, Green, Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all
> give great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics.
> Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little interest
> in the fine points of theories of language change.  What they care about in
> historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns of diffusion, and
> lexical reconstructions that throw light on the culture and environment of
> prehistoric communities.
> > I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of other
> regions (though in few places do the stories told by archaeologists and
> historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning the dispersal of
> Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across Island SE Asia and the Pacific).
>  Work on the history of Indo-European languages surely holds a place of some
> eminence in Western intellectual history.  Darwin was among the first to
> comment on close parallels between the family models of historical
> linguistics and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically
> do their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and try (often
> without much success) to correlate particular genetic clades with particular
> language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza and his associates trying to do
> this on a grand scale.
> > (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the most
> enduring legacies of linguistic research.  Of course, scholars in other
> disciplines, and the general public, value these as works of reference and
> are little concerned with advances in theory that underpin (and sometimes
> stem from) improvements in grammar writing. But some are interested in
> cross-linguistic generalisations, which brings me to
> > (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences,
>  especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen interest in
> lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of cross-disciplinary
> interaction between linguists and anthropologists in this domain. The vast
> literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s ideas about colour term universals
> is an example, as is the work on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and
> fauna by Berlin and his associates.  In social anthropology key concepts
> such as mana and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages
> and societies.
> > And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural
> linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and Roger
> Keesing, among other anthropologists.
> > Regards
> > Andy Pawley
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Frederick J Newmeyer <fjn at u.washington.edu>
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics
> To: john at research.haifa.ac.il
> Cc: Funknet <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>
> Message-ID:
>        <alpine.LRH.2.01.1010240906070.24436 at hymn14.u.washington.edu>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
>
> John,
>
> You are reading much too much diabolical intent into all of this. I am one
> of a dozen or so commentators on a target article that will appear in a
> generative-oriented journal. The authors set out to try to explain why,
> given that (generative) linguistics is so abstract and 'asocial', it enjoys
> so much prestige in related academic disciplines. That's all. I shouldn't
> say more, since the article has not been published yet.
>
> --fritz
>
>
> Frederick J. Newmeyer
> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington
> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser
> University
> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail]
>
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote:
>
> > My question to Fritz had in the background the feeling that maybe
> something
> > like this might be going on in the case of the article that he was asked
> to
> > comment on--that is, that it is some sort of ad campaign for generative
> > linguistics and Fritz was recruited as someone who might provide
> legitimacy to
> > it (presumably without the inviter being aware that Fritz didn't
> necessarily
> > see things the same way). This would explain why (1) the article simply
> assumed
> > the great contribution of linguistics rather than demonstrating anything,
> (2)
> > linguistics was equated with generative linguistics, and (3) applied
> > disciplines were ruled out as irrelevant.
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Quoting alex gross <language at sprynet.com>:
> >
> >>> The Gene Searchinger  films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing
> >>> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and
> >>> linguists.
> >>
> >> Thanks, Lise!  And best wishes to you, Fritz!
> >>
> >> It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language"
> >> presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and
> linguists."
> >> This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative
> >> theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields
> >> into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work
> was
> >> being done.  You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first
> >> came out fifteen years ago at:
> >>
> >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm
> >>
> >> where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book
> "The
> >> Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time.
> >>
> >> My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film,
> can
> >> be found at:
> >>
> >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm
> >>
> >> While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's producers
> and
> >> gained the
> >> impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative
> movement.
> >>
> >> Very best to everyone!
> >>
> >> alex
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Lise Menn" <lise.menn at Colorado.EDU>
> >> To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" <fjn at u.washington.edu>
> >> Cc: <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>
> >> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics
> >>
> >>
> >>> Fritz:
> >>> The Gene Searchinger  films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The  Writing
> >>> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics  and
> >>> linguists.  And 'The Linguists', of course.
> >>>
> >>> Lise Menn
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Today's Topics:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock)
> >>>>>  2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev)
> >>>>>  3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics
> >>>>>     (Brian MacWhinney)
> >>>>>  4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line)
> >>>>>  5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E.
>  Payne)
> >>>>>  6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Frederick J Newmeyer <fjn at u.washington.edu>
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz
> To: Andrew Pawley <andrew.pawley at anu.edu.au>
> Cc: Funknet <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>
> Message-ID:
>        <alpine.LRH.2.01.1010240914260.24436 at hymn14.u.washington.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7"; Format="flowed"
>
> Hi, Andrew,
>
> We haven't seen each other since around 25 years ago when you shouted 'Long
> Live Noam Chomsky' in the Auckland airport baggage claim area (in order to
> find me).
>
> I think that you are mostly right, but there is one way that historical
> linguistics is roundly condemned by scholars in other fields. Everyody else
> wants long-range comparisons of the Greenberg/Ruhlen type to be correct and
> they condemn mainstream historical linguists for being territorial,
> conservative, Eurocentric, etc. etc. Just look at the Renfrew and Gell-Mann
> pieces that were cited a day or two ago.
>
> --fritz
>
>
> Frederick J. Newmeyer
> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington
> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser
> University
> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail]
>
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Andrew Pawley wrote:
>
> > Dear Fritz
> >
> > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics?
> > > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other?
> > > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among?
> > > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences.
> >
> > -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. ?In the parts of the world whose
> languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island
> > SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and
> have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists,
> > cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of popular
> science like Jared Diamond, among others.? I?m thinking in
> > particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and dictionaries,
> (iii) work on lexical semantics.
> >
> > (i) Historical linguistics.? In the 18th century, and especially after
> the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative
> > linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the
> Pacific.? Word lists showing close resemblances between
> > Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful
> evidence then available.? In modern times the syntheses of SE
> > Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green, Kirch
> and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give
> > great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. Unsurprisingly,
> members of other historical disciplines have little interest
> > in the fine points of theories of language change.? What they care about
> in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns
> > of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the culture
> and environment of prehistoric communities.
> >
> > I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of other
> regions (though in few places do the stories told by
> > archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning
> the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across
> > Island SE Asia and the Pacific).? Work on the history of Indo-European
> languages surely holds a place of some eminence in Western
> > intellectual history.? Darwin was among the first to comment on close
> parallels between the family models of historical linguistics
> > and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do their
> sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and
> > try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic clades
> with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza
> > and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale.
> >
> > (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the most
> enduring legacies of linguistic research.??Of course,
> > scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these as
> works of reference and are little concerned with advances in
> > theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in grammar
> writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic
> > generalisations, which brings me to
> >
> > (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences,?
> especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen
> > interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of
> cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists
> > in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s ideas
> about colour term universals is an example, as is the work
> > on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and his
> associates.? In social anthropology key concepts such as mana
> > and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and
> societies.?
> >
> > And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural
> linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and
> > Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists.??
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Andy Pawley
> >
> > _______
> > > John,
> > >
> > > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary
> > > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of
> > > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the
> > > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My
> > > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the
> > > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the
> > > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around
> > > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'.
> > > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my
> > > commentary to a separate survey article.
> > >
> > > --fritz
> > >
> > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics
> > > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other
> > > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among
> > > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences.
> > >
> > >
> > > Frederick J. Newmeyer
> > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington
> > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon
> > > Fraser University
> > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail]
> > >
> > > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote:
> > >
> > > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has
> > > generated, I'd
> > > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from
> > > people in
> > > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey
> > > article is this?
> > > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write
> > > the article or
> > > >is it your own idea?
> > > >Best wishes,
> > > >John
> > > >
> > > >----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --------
> > > >This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa
> > > University>
> > >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:52:04 +0200
> From: Martin Haspelmath <haspelmath at eva.mpg.de>
> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz
> To: Funknet <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>
> Message-ID: <4CC46434.6000408 at eva.mpg.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-7; format=flowed
>
> To Andy Pawley's list of  highly regarded achievements of linguistics,
> one might add the documentation of endangered languages. Over the last
> 15 years, this has become a very visible activity of linguists, and
> quite a bit of additional funding has gone into it.
>
> Note that this is somewhat different from Andy's "grammars and
> dictionaries". Documentary linguists mainly collect (and annotate) texts
> and archive them, leaving description (lexical and grammatical) to a
> later stage.
>
> Also, my sense is that language typology is highly respected, at least
> in Europe, where it has many practitioners. When the World Atlas of
> Language Structures went online, even Science reported on it (in 2008).
>
> While Fritz is right that nonlinguists tend to sympathize with
> long-range comparativists and are sometimes frustrated by the
> conservatism of very traditional historical linguists, they also
> recognize that linguistic evidence is very valuable for finding out
> about human population history. "Language and genetics" is one of the
> Max Planck Society's "research perspectives 2010+". (Note that
> generative linguistics plays no role in the Max Planck institutes,
> probably because it doesn't have the same prestige as historical
> linguistics outside of our field.)
>
> Greetings,
> Martin
>
> Frederick J Newmeyer schrieb:
> > Hi, Andrew,
> >
> > I think that you are mostly right, but there is one way that
> > historical linguistics is roundly condemned by scholars in other
> > fields. Everyody else wants long-range comparisons of the
> > Greenberg/Ruhlen type to be correct and they condemn mainstream
> > historical linguists for being territorial, conservative, Eurocentric,
> > etc. etc. Just look at the Renfrew and Gell-Mann pieces that were
> > cited a day or two ago.
> >
> > --fritz
> >
> >
> > Frederick J. Newmeyer
> > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington
> > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser
> > University
> > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail]
> >
> > On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Andrew Pawley wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Fritz
> >>
> >> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics
> >> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other
> >> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among
> >> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences.
> >>
> >> -- Here I think you're being too gloomy.  In the parts of the world
> >> whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island
> >> SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by
> >> and have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists,
> >> cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of
> >> popular science like Jared Diamond, among others.  I?m thinking in
> >> particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and
> >> dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics.
> >>
> >> (i) Historical linguistics.  In the 18th century, and especially
> >> after the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative
> >> linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the
> >> Pacific.  Word lists showing close resemblances between
> >> Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful
> >> evidence then available.  In modern times the syntheses of SE
> >> Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green,
> >> Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give
> >> great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics.
> >> Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little
> >> interest
> >> in the fine points of theories of language change.  What they care
> >> about in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns
> >> of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the
> >> culture and environment of prehistoric communities.
> >>
> >> I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of
> >> other regions (though in few places do the stories told by
> >> archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those
> >> concerning the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across
> >> Island SE Asia and the Pacific).  Work on the history of
> >> Indo-European languages surely holds a place of some eminence in Western
> >> intellectual history.  Darwin was among the first to comment on close
> >> parallels between the family models of historical linguistics
> >> and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do
> >> their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and
> >> try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic
> >> clades with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza
> >> and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale.
> >>
> >> (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the
> >> most enduring legacies of linguistic research.  Of course,
> >> scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these as
> >> works of reference and are little concerned with advances in
> >> theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in
> >> grammar writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic
> >> generalisations, which brings me to
> >>
> >> (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences,
> >> especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen
> >> interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of
> >> cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists
> >> in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s
> >> ideas about colour term universals is an example, as is the work
> >> on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and his
> >> associates.  In social anthropology key concepts such as mana
> >> and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and
> >> societies.
> >>
> >> And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural
> >> linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and
> >> Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Andy Pawley
> >>
> >> _______
> >> > John,
> >> >
> >> > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary
> >> > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of
> >> > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the
> >> > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My
> >> > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the
> >> > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the
> >> > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around
> >> > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'.
> >> > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my
> >> > commentary to a separate survey article.
> >> >
> >> > --fritz
> >> >
> >> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics
> >> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other
> >> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among
> >> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Frederick J. Newmeyer
> >> > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington
> >> > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon
> >> > Fraser University
> >> > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail]
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has
> >> > generated, I'd
> >> > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from
> >> > people in
> >> > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey
> >> > article is this?
> >> > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write
> >> > the article or
> >> > >is it your own idea?
> >> > >Best wishes,
> >> > >John
> >>
>
>
>
> End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 18
> ***************************************
>



More information about the Funknet mailing list