From Julia.Ulrich at degruyter.com Fri Sep 2 08:55:59 2011 From: Julia.Ulrich at degruyter.com (Julia.Ulrich at degruyter.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 10:55:59 +0200 Subject: Fall Special: Free Online Access to selected journals and yearbooks from De Gruyter Mouton and De Gruyter Message-ID: De Gruyter Mouton and De Gruyter are delighted to provide you with a one month glimpse into a wide range of high quality journals and yearbooks. Registration takes only a couple of minutes, and you will gain access to 38 periodicals from a broad range of research areas. For more information and to register for your free online access, please visit www.degruyter.com/fall2011 The offer is valid until October 31, 2011. Julia Ulrich Senior Marketing Manager DE GRUYTER Genthiner Str. 13 10785 Berlin, Germany F +49 (0)30.260 05-322 julia.ulrich at degruyter.com www.degruyter.com Verlag Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG. Genthiner Str. 13. 10785 Berlin. Sitz Berlin. Amtsgericht Charlottenburg HR A 2065. Rechtsform: Kommanditgesellschaft. Komplementär: de Gruyter Verlagsbeteiligungs GmbH, Sitz Berlin, Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HR B 46487. Geschäftsführer: Dr. Sven Fund Beiratsvorsitzender: Rüdiger Gebauer Follow us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/degruyter.publishers Register for our free TOC Alerts at www.reference-global.com and refer to www.degruyter.com/newsletter in order to receive the latest news from your field of research. P sustainable thinking...please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to From falonso at dfm.ulpgc.es Sun Sep 4 18:21:45 2011 From: falonso at dfm.ulpgc.es (Francisco Alonso Almeida) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 19:21:45 +0100 Subject: LFE, 2012 CFP Message-ID: [Apologies for cross-postings] Dear all, Find below information concerning the Revista para fines específicos CFP, Issue 2012. Best wishes, Francisco Alonso Call for papers LFE, 18 (Autumn, 2012) Special Issue: Modality in scientific and technical discourse / La modalidad en el discurso científico-técnico Guest editors: Marta Carretero Lapeyre and Ivalla Ortega Barrera The Journal Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos (LFE) invites submissions of original full-length articles from scholars in the field of English for specific purposes. Article topics must fall into any field of applied linguistics within the scope of specialized English. Manuscripts should not exceed 8000 words, including references and notes, and should be submitted electronically using this Internet form. Prospective authors are encouraged to follow the guidelines for submissions in the journal webpage (here). Contributions submitted to LFE should not be under consideration in any other journal. All submissions will be subject to our peer-review process, and the last decision regarding the publication of contributions falls on the General Editors. For further queries on this special issue, you may contact us via email: lfe(at)ulpgc.es Important dates: Submission deadline: 20 February 2012 Readers' reports due: 30 April 2012 Final draft due: 30 June 2012 Publication: Autumn 2012 From bischoff.st at gmail.com Thu Sep 8 16:04:20 2011 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 12:04:20 -0400 Subject: What is linguistics? What is it good for? Message-ID: Hi all, I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas how to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. Thanks, Shannon From jrubba at calpoly.edu Thu Sep 8 17:35:11 2011 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:35:11 -0700 Subject: What is linguistics? What is it good for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: My take: Linguists strive to understand the thing that enables all of human culture: language. Without language, we could not work together. We could not plan. We could not refer to the past, the future, the hypothetical, or the abstract. We could not describe in detail our individual thoughts, emotions, needs, beliefs, or desires. In other words, we would live like other primates. So one thing linguistics is good for is a detailed understanding of how this amazing system works. And that is good for advancing the understanding of human nature. Linguistics is good for collecting the data (descriptions of as many of the world's languages as possible) we use to develop that understanding. Linguistics is also good for a large number of practical applications: assessing children's language development; teaching native and non-native languages; correcting popular myths about language that cause social harm or ill-conceived policies and practices; working with computer science to develop software that can use language as humans do; detecting ideological and social assumptions as revealed through language; developing literacy and language-preservation programs for non-literate cultures and threatened cultures; aiding in the detection, diagnosis, and treatment of congenital or acquired language disorders; working with developers of computer-mediated translation; helping solve crimes through forensic linguistics, etc., etc. Don't know if anyone would want to hear a long list, but, since a lot of people don't know what linguistics is or what it's good for, it could be informative. Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. "Justice is what love looks like Professor, Linguistics in public." Cornel West Linguistics Minor Advisor English Dept. Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba From john at research.haifa.ac.il Thu Sep 8 18:08:43 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 21:08:43 +0300 Subject: What is linguistics? What is it good for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Next month I'm going to be making a trip to South Sudan (independent in July) to give a series of lectures on language policy, orthography development, and language standardization. Africa is an absolute mess in terms of literacy because of ill-advised language policies and inadequate language development. It seems to me that this is something that linguistics is definitely good for. John Quoting "s.t. bischoff" : > Hi all, > > I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is > linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general > audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas how > to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about > answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. > > Thanks, > Shannon > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From grvsmth at panix.com Fri Sep 9 00:08:56 2011 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus Grieve-Smith) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 20:08:56 -0400 Subject: What is linguistics? What is it good for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 9/8/2011 12:04 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is > linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general > audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas how > to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about > answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. > In my intro classes, I have a slide titled "Who uses linguistics, anyway?" with the following list. * Linguists * Computer programmers * Speech therapists * Language teachers * Literary theorists * Editors * Lexicographers * Politicians I go through each group briefly and talk about how they use linguistics. I have a similar slide for phonetics, and I should probably make one for each of the other subfields. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From wilcox at unm.edu Fri Sep 9 01:24:40 2011 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 19:24:40 -0600 Subject: What is linguistics? What is it good for? In-Reply-To: <4E695918.5010004@panix.com> Message-ID: On Sep 8, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Angus Grieve-Smith wrote: > * Linguists > * Computer programmers > * Speech therapists > * Language teachers > * Literary theorists > * Editors > * Lexicographers > * Politicians Interpreters and translators. -- Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. Professor Department of Linguistics University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 From twood at uwc.ac.za Fri Sep 9 07:16:28 2011 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (Tahir Wood) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 09:16:28 +0200 Subject: What is linguistics? What is it good for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi I think there should be a purely humane concern underlying linguistics, in addition to the more pragmatic concerns that have been mentioned. The humanities, I think, pose such questions as: What do we have in common? Where do we differ? Why do we differ? It seems to me that the human awareness of self is an end in itself, and linguistics is and should be part of this vast enterprise (enterprise in the sense of adventure). It is not just about adding value in the marketplace. Tahir >>> "s.t. bischoff" 9/8/2011 6:04 pm >>> Hi all, I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas how to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. Thanks, Shannon -------------- next part -------------- All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/emaildisclaimer From Henrik.Rosenkvist at nordlund.lu.se Fri Sep 9 07:28:37 2011 From: Henrik.Rosenkvist at nordlund.lu.se (Henrik Rosenkvist) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 09:28:37 +0200 Subject: What is linguistics? What is it good for? In-Reply-To: <4E69D96C.1F1D.0069.1@uwc.ac.za> Message-ID: Hi! Linguistics is a human enterprise. Ants have workers, engineers and so forth, but you don't find artists, historians or linguists in an ant hill. We are the only species that feel a need to explore ourselves and that have the means to do so – in my view, the capacities for introspection etc that we have at hand infer almost an obligation to boldly go where no other species can go. And linguistics is one way of doing just that. Henrik R. Tahir Wood skrev: > Hi > > I think there should be a purely humane concern underlying linguistics, in addition to the more pragmatic concerns that have been mentioned. The humanities, I think, pose such questions as: > What do we have in common? > Where do we differ? > Why do we differ? > > It seems to me that the human awareness of self is an end in itself, and linguistics is and should be part of this vast enterprise (enterprise in the sense of adventure). It is not just about adding value in the marketplace. > > Tahir > > > >>>> "s.t. bischoff" 9/8/2011 6:04 pm >>> >>>> > Hi all, > > I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is > linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general > audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas how > to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about > answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. > > Thanks, > Shannon > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/emaildisclaimer > > -- Henrik Rosenkvist docent, nordiska språk Språk- och litteraturcentrum Lunds universitet Box 201 221 00 Lund tel: 046-222 87 04 e-post: Henrik.Rosenkvist at nordlund.lu.se Henrik Rosenkvist Associate Professor, Scandinavian Languages Dept. of Languages and Literature Lund University P. O. Box 201, SE-221 00 Lund, SWEDEN Tel.: +46 46 222 87 04 E-mail: Henrik.Rosenkvist at nordlund.lu.se From language at sprynet.com Fri Sep 9 10:25:58 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 06:25:58 -0400 Subject: What is linguistics? What is it good for? Message-ID: I applaud all of your contributions so far and would only add that past theories of linguistics, were they still fashionable, could provide yet other evidence that our study is not only "good for something" but truly lies at the very center of our many cultures. The Semanticists certainly took this view when they visualized linguistics as a tool we surely need today, nothing less than an ongoing critique of all social, political, and intellectual dialogue, as a way citizens in many societies could distinguish rhetoric from reality. And the Whorf-Sapir descriptivists have also left us a useful tool that can help us to realize that seemingly distinct cultures and languages, though certainly not connected by any "universal grammar," can nonetheless be seen as ultimately comparable and equal in value to our own. At least this assessment, though allegedly discredited, still lurks on the margins of our study. I am particularly heartened by Professor Wilcox' contribution, that translators and interpreters also prove that linguistics is "good for something." I am prepared at the drop of a hat to go a great deal further and assert that they lie at the very heart of all language study, as I have done in my paper "Translation as the Prototype of All Communication," accessible at: http://languag2.home.sprynet.com/f/prototyp.htm#t11 It may well be in all the stages of our learning that every single new word or concept we encounter, even in our primary language, actually requires an act of explanation, enlightenment, clarification--in short translation--for us to understand it. Such an act may be provided by a teacher, a helpful friend, a dictionary or other reference book, or the closer reading of a text. But whatever form it takes, such an act of translation is most often absolutely crucial for us to grasp the meaning. And we ourselves--what we call our "knowledge" and our "understanding"--may be to a fair extent the sum total of these countless acts of translation. With very best to everyone! alex http://language.home.sprynet.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sherman Wilcox" To: "Angus Grieve-Smith" Cc: Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 9:24 PM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > On Sep 8, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Angus Grieve-Smith wrote: > >> * Linguists >> * Computer programmers >> * Speech therapists >> * Language teachers >> * Literary theorists >> * Editors >> * Lexicographers >> * Politicians > > > Interpreters and translators. > > -- > Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. > Professor > Department of Linguistics > University of New Mexico > Albuquerque, NM 87131 > > > From rchen at csusb.edu Fri Sep 9 15:18:39 2011 From: rchen at csusb.edu (Rong Chen) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 08:18:39 -0700 Subject: What is linguistics? What is it good for? In-Reply-To: <4E69D96C.1F1D.0069.1@uwc.ac.za> Message-ID: Hi all, Dovetailing Tahir's post: Linguistics is also a window into the human mind. Human beings have a natural urge to learn about things. Among the things we want to know (about)--which is practically everything--are things about ourselves. Among the things about ourselves is the way our mind works. One might even argue that the mind is the most important aspect about us. Many disciplines study the mind, approaching it from a multitude of perspectives. Linguistics is one of them. By studying language, it offers insights about how the mind works that no other disciplines is capable of offering. Sorry if this point has been made. Cheers, Rong Chen -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Tahir Wood Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 12:16 AM To: FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? Hi I think there should be a purely humane concern underlying linguistics, in addition to the more pragmatic concerns that have been mentioned. The humanities, I think, pose such questions as: What do we have in common? Where do we differ? Why do we differ? It seems to me that the human awareness of self is an end in itself, and linguistics is and should be part of this vast enterprise (enterprise in the sense of adventure). It is not just about adding value in the marketplace. Tahir >>> "s.t. bischoff" 9/8/2011 6:04 pm >>> Hi all, I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas how to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. Thanks, Shannon From danielrr2 at gmail.com Fri Sep 9 15:22:50 2011 From: danielrr2 at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Daniel_Ria=F1o?=) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 17:22:50 +0200 Subject: What is linguistics? What is it good for? In-Reply-To: <880607E0-FCF1-48AB-AFE7-2DAFCE3694C4@unm.edu> Message-ID: Cognitive scientists, even outside cognitive linguistics, Philologists, Ancient (and modern) historians, biologists and the folks who occasionally chance upon a new species & have to find a Greek or Latin name for it, ehhh, writers (and script-writers) trying to make up a new language, ah, no they hire a linguist instead 2011/9/9 Sherman Wilcox : > On Sep 8, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Angus Grieve-Smith wrote: > >> * Linguists >> * Computer programmers >> * Speech therapists >> * Language teachers >> * Literary theorists >> * Editors >> * Lexicographers >> * Politicians > > > Interpreters and translators. > > -- > Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. > Professor > Department of Linguistics > University of New Mexico > Albuquerque, NM 87131 > > > From chancock at albany.edu Fri Sep 9 15:52:12 2011 From: chancock at albany.edu (Hancock, Craig G) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:52:12 -0400 Subject: What is linguistics? What is it good for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: As somewhat of an affectionate outsider--with primary interest in composition and in literacy--let me add a slightly discordant tone. Linguistics is a discipline that often takes language apart for the purpose of understanding it and then has a hard time putting it back together again. Though it is full of useful insights, many of those are not available in user friendly form. It seems a contentious discipline that may be undergoing a paradigm shift. I don't disagree with anything anyone has said, but wanted to add an additional perspective. I have tried to be an advocate for increased attention to language in the K-16 curriculum and finding it a hard sell. Craig -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of alex gross Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 6:26 AM To: Sherman Wilcox; Angus Grieve-Smith Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? I applaud all of your contributions so far and would only add that past theories of linguistics, were they still fashionable, could provide yet other evidence that our study is not only "good for something" but truly lies at the very center of our many cultures. The Semanticists certainly took this view when they visualized linguistics as a tool we surely need today, nothing less than an ongoing critique of all social, political, and intellectual dialogue, as a way citizens in many societies could distinguish rhetoric from reality. And the Whorf-Sapir descriptivists have also left us a useful tool that can help us to realize that seemingly distinct cultures and languages, though certainly not connected by any "universal grammar," can nonetheless be seen as ultimately comparable and equal in value to our own. At least this assessment, though allegedly discredited, still lurks on the margins of our study. I am particularly heartened by Professor Wilcox' contribution, that translators and interpreters also prove that linguistics is "good for something." I am prepared at the drop of a hat to go a great deal further and assert that they lie at the very heart of all language study, as I have done in my paper "Translation as the Prototype of All Communication," accessible at: http://languag2.home.sprynet.com/f/prototyp.htm#t11 It may well be in all the stages of our learning that every single new word or concept we encounter, even in our primary language, actually requires an act of explanation, enlightenment, clarification--in short translation--for us to understand it. Such an act may be provided by a teacher, a helpful friend, a dictionary or other reference book, or the closer reading of a text. But whatever form it takes, such an act of translation is most often absolutely crucial for us to grasp the meaning. And we ourselves--what we call our "knowledge" and our "understanding"--may be to a fair extent the sum total of these countless acts of translation. With very best to everyone! alex http://language.home.sprynet.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sherman Wilcox" To: "Angus Grieve-Smith" Cc: Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 9:24 PM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > On Sep 8, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Angus Grieve-Smith wrote: > >> * Linguists >> * Computer programmers >> * Speech therapists >> * Language teachers >> * Literary theorists >> * Editors >> * Lexicographers >> * Politicians > > > Interpreters and translators. > > -- > Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. > Professor > Department of Linguistics > University of New Mexico > Albuquerque, NM 87131 > > > From cxr1086 at louisiana.edu Fri Sep 9 16:08:09 2011 From: cxr1086 at louisiana.edu (Clai Rice) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:08:09 -0500 Subject: What is linguistics? What is it good for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I sometimes use a diagram by Neil Smith, from page 5 of Language, Bananas, and Bonobos. His introductory essay is titled "How to be the Centre of the Universe," and the diagram shows that the study of language pertains directly to nearly every discipline in the academy. The diagram, but not the whole essay, can be viewed on Amazon's Look Inside function. Clai Rice From cgenetti at linguistics.ucsb.edu Fri Sep 9 17:21:32 2011 From: cgenetti at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Carol Genetti) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 10:21:32 -0700 Subject: JOB: Discourse-based approaches to functional explanation for grammar Message-ID: APOLOGIES FOR CROSS-POSTING The Linguistics Department of the University of California, Santa Barbara seeks to hire a specialist in discourse-based approaches to functional explanation for grammar. The appointment will be tenure-track at the Assistant Professor level, effective July 1, 2012. Candidates' research should be based on a functionally oriented, empirically grounded approach to discourse and grammar, addressing the ways that language use shapes linguistic structure, and making significant theoretical contributions to the question of why languages are as they are. Candidates will be preferred whose research addresses the multidimensional nature of functional explanation, integrating insights from among the following areas: cross-linguistic and typological approaches to functional explanation for grammar; semantic and pragmatic motivations for grammar; historical change, evolution, and grammaticization; interactional functions and sociolinguistic variation of grammar; cognitive processing of grammar; use of innovative methodologies, such as current techniques for corpus-based quantitative and qualitative analysis; work with understudied language(s). We are especially interested in candidates who show the ability to link the theoretical implications of their research to other subdisciplines in linguistics and to related fields, and to interact with colleagues and students across disciplinary boundaries at UCSB. Candidates must have demonstrated excellence in teaching, and will be expected to teach a range of graduate and undergraduate courses in both functional grammar and general linguistics. Ph.D. in linguistics or a related field is required. Ph.D. normally required by the time of appointment. To ensure full consideration, all application materials, including letters of reference, should be received by November 1, 2011. The position will remain open until filled. Applicants should submit the following to search at linguistics.ucsb.edu in a standard electronic format (preferably pdf or rtf): letter of application, statement of research interests, curriculum vitae, and 2 writing samples. Applicants should request 3 academic letters of reference to be sent directly to search at linguistics.ucsb.edu by the November 1 deadline. Applicants should also complete the supplemental online data form at http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/search/coversheet.html. Fax and mail applications not accepted. Inquiries may be addressed to the Search Committee at search at linguistics.ucsb.edu. Interviews will be conducted either via Skype video conference call or in person at the Linguistic Society of America annual meeting (January 5-8, 2012); either interview format will be considered equivalent for consideration. Our department has a genuine commitment to diversity, and is especially interested in candidates who can contribute to the diversity and excellence of the academic community through research, teaching and service. UCSB is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer. From mcarrete at filol.ucm.es Fri Sep 9 17:39:39 2011 From: mcarrete at filol.ucm.es (MARTA BEGONA CARRETERO LAPEYRE) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 19:39:39 +0200 Subject: What is linguistics? What is it good for? Message-ID: Apart from the many benefits mentioned in previous contributions, I would say that linguistics helps us linguists in our everyday life, and, what makes me happy, many of my students have told me so (I lecture on pragmatics and functional linguistics). We have to use language every day for lots of different tasks, and our consciousness of how language works can result in a better use of language, with the consequence that we can do these tasks better. For instance, consciousness about presupposition and implicature can help us read the press or other texts between the lines so that we have tools for not being so easily manipulable. Linguistic knowledge about politeness can give ideas about how to be friendly with others or how to tackle difficult situations at work, at home or in other places. Knowledge of text linguistics permits us to know how well written a text is and also to make amendments if necessary. These are only a few examples... now that I think of it, I even owe linguistics a little improvement of my skill at telling jokes (from awful to less awful). Marta ----- Mensaje original ----- De: Clai Rice Fecha: Viernes, Septiembre 9, 2011 18:08 Asunto: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? A: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > I sometimes use a diagram by Neil Smith, from page 5 of > Language, Bananas, > and Bonobos. His introductory essay is titled "How to be the > Centre of the > Universe," and the diagram shows that the study of language pertains > directly to nearly every discipline in the academy. The diagram, > but not > the whole essay, can be viewed on Amazon's Look Inside function. > > Clai Rice > Marta Carretero Associate Professor Departamento de Filología Inglesa I Facultad de Filología Universidad Complutense de Madrid E-28040-Madrid Spain http://www.ucm.es/info/fing1/profesores/carretero.html From r.lapolla at latrobe.edu.au Sat Sep 10 00:59:02 2011 From: r.lapolla at latrobe.edu.au (Randy LaPolla) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:59:02 +1000 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 96, Issue 4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Linguistics has been seen as limited in its usefulness because of the idea that linguistics is simply about language, and also the idea that language is a "thing" divorced from other things related to human behaviour (using phrases such as "right-edge phenomena" in talking about word or phrase-final phenomena, i.e. thinking about language simply as phonetic symbols on paper, shows how far some parts of linguistics have moved from actual language use). As Grice hinted at in his 1957 article "Meaning" and I have tried to develop more fully (LaPolla 2003, 2010), language is not a "thing", but a form of behaviour, and the same cognitive abilities and tendencies and many of the same principles that underly communicative behaviour (which is also not limited to language use) underly other aspects of human behaviour, so understanding communicative behaviour (which I think is what linguistics should be about) helps us to understand other aspects of human behaviour. When I teach this view in my classes, students can see clearly the relevance of linguistics to everyday life; as one student put it in a recent evaluation, "linguistics is everywhere!". Grice, H. Paul. 1957. Meaning. The Philosophical Review 66.3: 377-388. LaPolla, Randy J. 2003. Why languages differ: Variation in the conventionalization of constraints on inference. In David Bradley, Randy J. LaPolla, Boyd Michailovsky & Graham Thurgood (eds.), Language variation: Papers on variation and change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in honour of James A. Matisoff, 113-144. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. LaPolla, Randy J. 2010. On the logical necessity of a cultural connection for all aspects of linguistic structure. 10th RCLT International Workshop, “The Shaping of Language”, La Trobe University, 14, July 2010. Downloadable podcast and handout: http://itunes.apple.com/au/itunes-u/the-shaping-of-language/id391930814 Randy --- Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA Professor (Chair) of Linguistics La Trobe University VIC 3086 AUSTRALIA Personal site: http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/ RCLT: http://www.latrobe.edu.au/rclt/ The Tibeto-Burman Domain: http://tibeto-burman.net/ Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area: http://stedt.berkeley.edu/ltba/ On 10/09/2011, at 3:00 AM, 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: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Johanna Rubba) > 2. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? > (john at research.haifa.ac.il) > 3. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Angus Grieve-Smith) > 4. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Sherman Wilcox) > 5. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Tahir Wood) > 6. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Henrik Rosenkvist) > 7. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (alex gross) > 8. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Rong Chen) > 9. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Daniel Ria?o) > 10. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Hancock, Craig G) > 11. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Clai Rice) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:35:11 -0700 > From: Johanna Rubba > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: s.t. bischoff > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <817F8183-6B1F-4187-BEBC-02F508F66046 at calpoly.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed > > My take: > > Linguists strive to understand the thing that enables all of human > culture: language. Without language, we could not work together. We > could not plan. We could not refer to the past, the future, the > hypothetical, or the abstract. We could not describe in detail our > individual thoughts, emotions, needs, beliefs, or desires. In other > words, we would live like other primates. > > So one thing linguistics is good for is a detailed understanding of > how this amazing system works. And that is good for advancing the > understanding of human nature. > > Linguistics is good for collecting the data (descriptions of as many > of the world's languages as possible) we use to develop that > understanding. > > Linguistics is also good for a large number of practical > applications: assessing children's language development; teaching > native and non-native languages; correcting popular myths about > language that cause social harm or ill-conceived policies and > practices; working with computer science to develop software that can > use language as humans do; detecting ideological and social > assumptions as revealed through language; developing literacy and > language-preservation programs for non-literate cultures and > threatened cultures; aiding in the detection, diagnosis, and > treatment of congenital or acquired language disorders; working with > developers of computer-mediated translation; helping solve crimes > through forensic linguistics, etc., etc. > > Don't know if anyone would want to hear a long list, but, since a lot > of people don't know what linguistics is or what it's good for, it > could be informative. > > Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. "Justice is what love looks like > Professor, Linguistics in public." Cornel West > Linguistics Minor Advisor > English Dept. > Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo > San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 > Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 > Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 > Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 > E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu > URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 21:08:43 +0300 > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: "s.t. bischoff" > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <1315505323.4e6904ab7304a at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 > > Next month I'm going to be making a trip to South Sudan (independent in July) to > give a series of lectures on language policy, orthography development, and > language standardization. Africa is an absolute mess in terms of literacy > because of ill-advised language policies and inadequate language development. > It seems to me that this is something that linguistics is definitely good for. > John > > > > Quoting "s.t. bischoff" : > >> Hi all, >> >> I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is >> linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general >> audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas how >> to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about >> answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. >> >> Thanks, >> Shannon >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 20:08:56 -0400 > From: Angus Grieve-Smith > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4E695918.5010004 at panix.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > On 9/8/2011 12:04 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is >> linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general >> audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas how >> to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about >> answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. >> > > In my intro classes, I have a slide titled "Who uses linguistics, > anyway?" with the following list. > > * Linguists > * Computer programmers > * Speech therapists > * Language teachers > * Literary theorists > * Editors > * Lexicographers > * Politicians > > I go through each group briefly and talk about how they use > linguistics. I have a similar slide for phonetics, and I should > probably make one for each of the other subfields. > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > grvsmth at panix.com > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 19:24:40 -0600 > From: Sherman Wilcox > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: Angus Grieve-Smith > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <880607E0-FCF1-48AB-AFE7-2DAFCE3694C4 at unm.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Sep 8, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Angus Grieve-Smith wrote: > >> * Linguists >> * Computer programmers >> * Speech therapists >> * Language teachers >> * Literary theorists >> * Editors >> * Lexicographers >> * Politicians > > > Interpreters and translators. > > -- > Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. > Professor > Department of Linguistics > University of New Mexico > Albuquerque, NM 87131 > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:16:28 +0200 > From: "Tahir Wood" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: > Message-ID: <4E69D96C.1F1D.0069.1 at uwc.ac.za> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi > > I think there should be a purely humane concern underlying linguistics, in addition to the more pragmatic concerns that have been mentioned. The humanities, I think, pose such questions as: > What do we have in common? > Where do we differ? > Why do we differ? > > It seems to me that the human awareness of self is an end in itself, and linguistics is and should be part of this vast enterprise (enterprise in the sense of adventure). It is not just about adding value in the marketplace. > > Tahir > > >>>> "s.t. bischoff" 9/8/2011 6:04 pm >>> > Hi all, > > I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is > linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general > audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas how > to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about > answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. > > Thanks, > Shannon > > -------------- next part -------------- > All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/emaildisclaimer > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:28:37 +0200 > From: Henrik Rosenkvist > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4E69C025.3060707 at nordlund.lu.se> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > Hi! > > Linguistics is a human enterprise. Ants have workers, engineers and so > forth, but you don't find artists, historians or linguists in an ant > hill. We are the only species that feel a need to explore ourselves and > that have the means to do so ? in my view, the capacities for > introspection etc that we have at hand infer almost an obligation to > boldly go where no other species can go. And linguistics is one way of > doing just that. > > Henrik R. > > Tahir Wood skrev: >> Hi >> >> I think there should be a purely humane concern underlying linguistics, in addition to the more pragmatic concerns that have been mentioned. The humanities, I think, pose such questions as: >> What do we have in common? >> Where do we differ? >> Why do we differ? >> >> It seems to me that the human awareness of self is an end in itself, and linguistics is and should be part of this vast enterprise (enterprise in the sense of adventure). It is not just about adding value in the marketplace. >> >> Tahir >> >> >> >>>>> "s.t. bischoff" 9/8/2011 6:04 pm >>> >>>>> >> Hi all, >> >> I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is >> linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general >> audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas how >> to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about >> answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. >> >> Thanks, >> Shannon >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/emaildisclaimer >> >> > > > -- > Henrik Rosenkvist > docent, nordiska spr?k > Spr?k- och litteraturcentrum > Lunds universitet > Box 201 > 221 00 Lund > tel: 046-222 87 04 > e-post: Henrik.Rosenkvist at nordlund.lu.se > > Henrik Rosenkvist > Associate Professor, Scandinavian Languages > Dept. of Languages and Literature > Lund University > P. O. Box 201, SE-221 00 Lund, SWEDEN > Tel.: +46 46 222 87 04 > E-mail: Henrik.Rosenkvist at nordlund.lu.se > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 06:25:58 -0400 > From: "alex gross" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: "Sherman Wilcox" , "Angus Grieve-Smith" > > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > I applaud all of your contributions so far and would only add that past > theories of linguistics, were they still fashionable, could provide yet > other evidence that our study is not only "good for something" but truly > lies at the very center of our many cultures. > > The Semanticists certainly took this view when they visualized linguistics > as a tool we surely need today, nothing less than an ongoing critique of all > social, political, and intellectual dialogue, as a way citizens in many > societies could distinguish rhetoric from reality. > > And the Whorf-Sapir descriptivists have also left us a useful tool that can > help us to realize that seemingly distinct cultures and languages, though > certainly not connected by any "universal grammar," can nonetheless be seen > as ultimately comparable and equal in value to our own. At least this > assessment, though allegedly discredited, still lurks on the margins of our > study. > > I am particularly heartened by Professor Wilcox' contribution, that > translators and interpreters also prove that linguistics is "good for > something." I am prepared at the drop of a hat to go a great deal further > and assert that they lie at the very heart of all language study, as I have > done in my paper "Translation as the Prototype of All Communication," > accessible at: > > http://languag2.home.sprynet.com/f/prototyp.htm#t11 > > It may well be in all the stages of our learning that every single new word > or concept we encounter, even in our primary language, actually requires an > act of explanation, enlightenment, clarification--in short translation--for > us to understand it. Such an act may be provided by a teacher, a helpful > friend, a dictionary or other reference book, or the closer reading of a > text. But whatever form it takes, such an act of translation is most often > absolutely crucial for us to grasp the meaning. And we ourselves--what we > call our "knowledge" and our "understanding"--may be to a fair extent the > sum total of these countless acts of translation. > > With very best to everyone! > > alex > > http://language.home.sprynet.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sherman Wilcox" > To: "Angus Grieve-Smith" > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 9:24 PM > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > > >> On Sep 8, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Angus Grieve-Smith wrote: >> >>> * Linguists >>> * Computer programmers >>> * Speech therapists >>> * Language teachers >>> * Literary theorists >>> * Editors >>> * Lexicographers >>> * Politicians >> >> >> Interpreters and translators. >> >> -- >> Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. >> Professor >> Department of Linguistics >> University of New Mexico >> Albuquerque, NM 87131 >> >> >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 08:18:39 -0700 > From: Rong Chen > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu > Message-ID: <006c01cc6f03$c0a29fd0$41e7df70$@edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Hi all, > > Dovetailing Tahir's post: Linguistics is also a window into the human mind. > > Human beings have a natural urge to learn about things. Among the things we > want to know (about)--which is practically everything--are things about > ourselves. Among the things about ourselves is the way our mind works. One > might even argue that the mind is the most important aspect about us. > > Many disciplines study the mind, approaching it from a multitude of > perspectives. Linguistics is one of them. By studying language, it offers > insights about how the mind works that no other disciplines is capable of > offering. > > Sorry if this point has been made. > > Cheers, > > Rong Chen > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Tahir Wood > Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 12:16 AM > To: FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > > Hi > > I think there should be a purely humane concern underlying linguistics, in > addition to the more pragmatic concerns that have been mentioned. The > humanities, I think, pose such questions as: > What do we have in common? > Where do we differ? > Why do we differ? > > It seems to me that the human awareness of self is an end in itself, and > linguistics is and should be part of this vast enterprise (enterprise in the > sense of adventure). It is not just about adding value in the marketplace. > > Tahir > > >>>> "s.t. bischoff" 9/8/2011 6:04 pm >>> > Hi all, > > I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is > linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general > audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas how > to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about > answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. > > Thanks, > Shannon > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 17:22:50 +0200 > From: Daniel Ria?o > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: Sherman Wilcox > Cc: Angus Grieve-Smith , funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Cognitive scientists, even outside cognitive linguistics, > Philologists, Ancient (and modern) historians, biologists and the > folks who occasionally chance upon a new species & have to find a > Greek or Latin name for it, ehhh, writers (and script-writers) trying > to make up a new language, ah, no they hire a linguist instead > > > 2011/9/9 Sherman Wilcox : >> On Sep 8, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Angus Grieve-Smith wrote: >> >>> * Linguists >>> * Computer programmers >>> * Speech therapists >>> * Language teachers >>> * Literary theorists >>> * Editors >>> * Lexicographers >>> * Politicians >> >> >> Interpreters and translators. >> >> -- >> Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. >> Professor >> Department of Linguistics >> University of New Mexico >> Albuquerque, NM 87131 >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:52:12 -0400 > From: "Hancock, Craig G" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: alex gross , Sherman Wilcox > , Angus Grieve-Smith > Cc: "funknet at mailman.rice.edu" > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > As somewhat of an affectionate outsider--with primary interest in composition and in literacy--let me add a slightly discordant tone. > Linguistics is a discipline that often takes language apart for the purpose of understanding it and then has a hard time putting it back together again. Though it is full of useful insights, many of those are not available in user friendly form. It seems a contentious discipline that may be undergoing a paradigm shift. > I don't disagree with anything anyone has said, but wanted to add an additional perspective. I have tried to be an advocate for increased attention to language in the K-16 curriculum and finding it a hard sell. > > Craig > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of alex gross > Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 6:26 AM > To: Sherman Wilcox; Angus Grieve-Smith > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > > I applaud all of your contributions so far and would only add that past theories of linguistics, were they still fashionable, could provide yet other evidence that our study is not only "good for something" but truly lies at the very center of our many cultures. > > The Semanticists certainly took this view when they visualized linguistics as a tool we surely need today, nothing less than an ongoing critique of all social, political, and intellectual dialogue, as a way citizens in many societies could distinguish rhetoric from reality. > > And the Whorf-Sapir descriptivists have also left us a useful tool that can help us to realize that seemingly distinct cultures and languages, though certainly not connected by any "universal grammar," can nonetheless be seen as ultimately comparable and equal in value to our own. At least this assessment, though allegedly discredited, still lurks on the margins of our study. > > I am particularly heartened by Professor Wilcox' contribution, that translators and interpreters also prove that linguistics is "good for something." I am prepared at the drop of a hat to go a great deal further and assert that they lie at the very heart of all language study, as I have done in my paper "Translation as the Prototype of All Communication," > accessible at: > > http://languag2.home.sprynet.com/f/prototyp.htm#t11 > > It may well be in all the stages of our learning that every single new word or concept we encounter, even in our primary language, actually requires an act of explanation, enlightenment, clarification--in short translation--for us to understand it. Such an act may be provided by a teacher, a helpful friend, a dictionary or other reference book, or the closer reading of a text. But whatever form it takes, such an act of translation is most often absolutely crucial for us to grasp the meaning. And we ourselves--what we call our "knowledge" and our "understanding"--may be to a fair extent the sum total of these countless acts of translation. > > With very best to everyone! > > alex > > http://language.home.sprynet.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sherman Wilcox" > To: "Angus Grieve-Smith" > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 9:24 PM > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > > >> On Sep 8, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Angus Grieve-Smith wrote: >> >>> * Linguists >>> * Computer programmers >>> * Speech therapists >>> * Language teachers >>> * Literary theorists >>> * Editors >>> * Lexicographers >>> * Politicians >> >> >> Interpreters and translators. >> >> -- >> Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. >> Professor >> Department of Linguistics >> University of New Mexico >> Albuquerque, NM 87131 >> >> >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:08:09 -0500 (CDT) > From: "Clai Rice" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: > Message-ID: <6294DCA5A7C74748AA18AB861E08257A at win.louisiana.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > I sometimes use a diagram by Neil Smith, from page 5 of Language, Bananas, > and Bonobos. His introductory essay is titled "How to be the Centre of the > Universe," and the diagram shows that the study of language pertains > directly to nearly every discipline in the academy. The diagram, but not > the whole essay, can be viewed on Amazon's Look Inside function. > > Clai Rice > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 96, Issue 4 > ************************************** From bischoff.st at gmail.com Sat Sep 10 14:16:58 2011 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:16:58 -0400 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 96, Issue 4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks all, these are all quite nice suggestions and will certainly help in the development of the talk! Cheers, Shannon On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 1:00 PM, 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: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Johanna Rubba) > 2. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? > (john at research.haifa.ac.il) > 3. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Angus Grieve-Smith) > 4. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Sherman Wilcox) > 5. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Tahir Wood) > 6. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Henrik Rosenkvist) > 7. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (alex gross) > 8. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Rong Chen) > 9. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Daniel Ria?o) > 10. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Hancock, Craig G) > 11. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Clai Rice) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:35:11 -0700 > From: Johanna Rubba > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: s.t. bischoff > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <817F8183-6B1F-4187-BEBC-02F508F66046 at calpoly.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed > > My take: > > Linguists strive to understand the thing that enables all of human > culture: language. Without language, we could not work together. We > could not plan. We could not refer to the past, the future, the > hypothetical, or the abstract. We could not describe in detail our > individual thoughts, emotions, needs, beliefs, or desires. In other > words, we would live like other primates. > > So one thing linguistics is good for is a detailed understanding of > how this amazing system works. And that is good for advancing the > understanding of human nature. > > Linguistics is good for collecting the data (descriptions of as many > of the world's languages as possible) we use to develop that > understanding. > > Linguistics is also good for a large number of practical > applications: assessing children's language development; teaching > native and non-native languages; correcting popular myths about > language that cause social harm or ill-conceived policies and > practices; working with computer science to develop software that can > use language as humans do; detecting ideological and social > assumptions as revealed through language; developing literacy and > language-preservation programs for non-literate cultures and > threatened cultures; aiding in the detection, diagnosis, and > treatment of congenital or acquired language disorders; working with > developers of computer-mediated translation; helping solve crimes > through forensic linguistics, etc., etc. > > Don't know if anyone would want to hear a long list, but, since a lot > of people don't know what linguistics is or what it's good for, it > could be informative. > > Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. "Justice is > what love looks like > Professor, Linguistics in > public." Cornel West > Linguistics Minor Advisor > English Dept. > Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo > San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 > Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 > Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 > Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 > E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu > URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 21:08:43 +0300 > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: "s.t. bischoff" > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <1315505323.4e6904ab7304a at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 > > Next month I'm going to be making a trip to South Sudan (independent in > July) to > give a series of lectures on language policy, orthography development, and > language standardization. Africa is an absolute mess in terms of literacy > because of ill-advised language policies and inadequate language > development. > It seems to me that this is something that linguistics is definitely good > for. > John > > > > Quoting "s.t. bischoff" : > > > Hi all, > > > > I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is > > linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general > > audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas > how > > to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about > > answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. > > > > Thanks, > > Shannon > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 20:08:56 -0400 > From: Angus Grieve-Smith > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4E695918.5010004 at panix.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > On 9/8/2011 12:04 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is > > linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general > > audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas > how > > to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about > > answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. > > > > In my intro classes, I have a slide titled "Who uses linguistics, > anyway?" with the following list. > > * Linguists > * Computer programmers > * Speech therapists > * Language teachers > * Literary theorists > * Editors > * Lexicographers > * Politicians > > I go through each group briefly and talk about how they use > linguistics. I have a similar slide for phonetics, and I should > probably make one for each of the other subfields. > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > grvsmth at panix.com > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 19:24:40 -0600 > From: Sherman Wilcox > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: Angus Grieve-Smith > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <880607E0-FCF1-48AB-AFE7-2DAFCE3694C4 at unm.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Sep 8, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Angus Grieve-Smith wrote: > > > * Linguists > > * Computer programmers > > * Speech therapists > > * Language teachers > > * Literary theorists > > * Editors > > * Lexicographers > > * Politicians > > > Interpreters and translators. > > -- > Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. > Professor > Department of Linguistics > University of New Mexico > Albuquerque, NM 87131 > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:16:28 +0200 > From: "Tahir Wood" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: > Message-ID: <4E69D96C.1F1D.0069.1 at uwc.ac.za> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi > > I think there should be a purely humane concern underlying linguistics, in > addition to the more pragmatic concerns that have been mentioned. The > humanities, I think, pose such questions as: > What do we have in common? > Where do we differ? > Why do we differ? > > It seems to me that the human awareness of self is an end in itself, and > linguistics is and should be part of this vast enterprise (enterprise in the > sense of adventure). It is not just about adding value in the marketplace. > > Tahir > > > >>> "s.t. bischoff" 9/8/2011 6:04 pm >>> > Hi all, > > I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is > linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general > audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas > how > to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about > answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. > > Thanks, > Shannon > > -------------- next part -------------- > All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer > http://www.uwc.ac.za/emaildisclaimer > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:28:37 +0200 > From: Henrik Rosenkvist > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4E69C025.3060707 at nordlund.lu.se> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > Hi! > > Linguistics is a human enterprise. Ants have workers, engineers and so > forth, but you don't find artists, historians or linguists in an ant > hill. We are the only species that feel a need to explore ourselves and > that have the means to do so ? in my view, the capacities for > introspection etc that we have at hand infer almost an obligation to > boldly go where no other species can go. And linguistics is one way of > doing just that. > > Henrik R. > > Tahir Wood skrev: > > Hi > > > > I think there should be a purely humane concern underlying linguistics, > in addition to the more pragmatic concerns that have been mentioned. The > humanities, I think, pose such questions as: > > What do we have in common? > > Where do we differ? > > Why do we differ? > > > > It seems to me that the human awareness of self is an end in itself, and > linguistics is and should be part of this vast enterprise (enterprise in the > sense of adventure). It is not just about adding value in the marketplace. > > > > Tahir > > > > > > > >>>> "s.t. bischoff" 9/8/2011 6:04 pm >>> > >>>> > > Hi all, > > > > I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is > > linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general > > audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas > how > > to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about > > answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. > > > > Thanks, > > Shannon > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer > http://www.uwc.ac.za/emaildisclaimer > > > > > > > -- > Henrik Rosenkvist > docent, nordiska spr?k > Spr?k- och litteraturcentrum > Lunds universitet > Box 201 > 221 00 Lund > tel: 046-222 87 04 > e-post: Henrik.Rosenkvist at nordlund.lu.se > > Henrik Rosenkvist > Associate Professor, Scandinavian Languages > Dept. of Languages and Literature > Lund University > P. O. Box 201, SE-221 00 Lund, SWEDEN > Tel.: +46 46 222 87 04 > E-mail: Henrik.Rosenkvist at nordlund.lu.se > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 06:25:58 -0400 > From: "alex gross" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: "Sherman Wilcox" , "Angus Grieve-Smith" > > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > I applaud all of your contributions so far and would only add that past > theories of linguistics, were they still fashionable, could provide yet > other evidence that our study is not only "good for something" but truly > lies at the very center of our many cultures. > > The Semanticists certainly took this view when they visualized linguistics > as a tool we surely need today, nothing less than an ongoing critique of > all > social, political, and intellectual dialogue, as a way citizens in many > societies could distinguish rhetoric from reality. > > And the Whorf-Sapir descriptivists have also left us a useful tool that can > help us to realize that seemingly distinct cultures and languages, though > certainly not connected by any "universal grammar," can nonetheless be seen > as ultimately comparable and equal in value to our own. At least this > assessment, though allegedly discredited, still lurks on the margins of our > study. > > I am particularly heartened by Professor Wilcox' contribution, that > translators and interpreters also prove that linguistics is "good for > something." I am prepared at the drop of a hat to go a great deal further > and assert that they lie at the very heart of all language study, as I have > done in my paper "Translation as the Prototype of All Communication," > accessible at: > > http://languag2.home.sprynet.com/f/prototyp.htm#t11 > > It may well be in all the stages of our learning that every single new word > or concept we encounter, even in our primary language, actually requires an > act of explanation, enlightenment, clarification--in short > translation--for > us to understand it. Such an act may be provided by a teacher, a helpful > friend, a dictionary or other reference book, or the closer reading of a > text. But whatever form it takes, such an act of translation is most often > absolutely crucial for us to grasp the meaning. And we ourselves--what we > call our "knowledge" and our "understanding"--may be to a fair extent the > sum total of these countless acts of translation. > > With very best to everyone! > > alex > > http://language.home.sprynet.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sherman Wilcox" > To: "Angus Grieve-Smith" > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 9:24 PM > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > > > > On Sep 8, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Angus Grieve-Smith wrote: > > > >> * Linguists > >> * Computer programmers > >> * Speech therapists > >> * Language teachers > >> * Literary theorists > >> * Editors > >> * Lexicographers > >> * Politicians > > > > > > Interpreters and translators. > > > > -- > > Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. > > Professor > > Department of Linguistics > > University of New Mexico > > Albuquerque, NM 87131 > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 08:18:39 -0700 > From: Rong Chen > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu > Message-ID: <006c01cc6f03$c0a29fd0$41e7df70$@edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Hi all, > > Dovetailing Tahir's post: Linguistics is also a window into the human mind. > > Human beings have a natural urge to learn about things. Among the things we > want to know (about)--which is practically everything--are things about > ourselves. Among the things about ourselves is the way our mind works. One > might even argue that the mind is the most important aspect about us. > > Many disciplines study the mind, approaching it from a multitude of > perspectives. Linguistics is one of them. By studying language, it offers > insights about how the mind works that no other disciplines is capable of > offering. > > Sorry if this point has been made. > > Cheers, > > Rong Chen > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Tahir Wood > Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 12:16 AM > To: FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > > Hi > > I think there should be a purely humane concern underlying linguistics, in > addition to the more pragmatic concerns that have been mentioned. The > humanities, I think, pose such questions as: > What do we have in common? > Where do we differ? > Why do we differ? > > It seems to me that the human awareness of self is an end in itself, and > linguistics is and should be part of this vast enterprise (enterprise in > the > sense of adventure). It is not just about adding value in the marketplace. > > Tahir > > > >>> "s.t. bischoff" 9/8/2011 6:04 pm >>> > Hi all, > > I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is > linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general > audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas > how > to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about > answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. > > Thanks, > Shannon > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 17:22:50 +0200 > From: Daniel Ria?o > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: Sherman Wilcox > Cc: Angus Grieve-Smith , funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Cognitive scientists, even outside cognitive linguistics, > Philologists, Ancient (and modern) historians, biologists and the > folks who occasionally chance upon a new species & have to find a > Greek or Latin name for it, ehhh, writers (and script-writers) trying > to make up a new language, ah, no they hire a linguist instead > > > 2011/9/9 Sherman Wilcox : > > On Sep 8, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Angus Grieve-Smith wrote: > > > >> * Linguists > >> * Computer programmers > >> * Speech therapists > >> * Language teachers > >> * Literary theorists > >> * Editors > >> * Lexicographers > >> * Politicians > > > > > > Interpreters and translators. > > > > -- > > Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. > > Professor > > Department of Linguistics > > University of New Mexico > > Albuquerque, NM 87131 > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:52:12 -0400 > From: "Hancock, Craig G" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: alex gross , Sherman Wilcox > , Angus Grieve-Smith > Cc: "funknet at mailman.rice.edu" > Message-ID: > < > F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220ED18429 at UAEXCH07.univ.albany.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > As somewhat of an affectionate outsider--with primary interest in > composition and in literacy--let me add a slightly discordant tone. > Linguistics is a discipline that often takes language apart for the > purpose of understanding it and then has a hard time putting it back > together again. Though it is full of useful insights, many of those are not > available in user friendly form. It seems a contentious discipline that may > be undergoing a paradigm shift. > I don't disagree with anything anyone has said, but wanted to add an > additional perspective. I have tried to be an advocate for increased > attention to language in the K-16 curriculum and finding it a hard sell. > > Craig > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto: > funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of alex gross > Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 6:26 AM > To: Sherman Wilcox; Angus Grieve-Smith > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > > I applaud all of your contributions so far and would only add that past > theories of linguistics, were they still fashionable, could provide yet > other evidence that our study is not only "good for something" but truly > lies at the very center of our many cultures. > > The Semanticists certainly took this view when they visualized linguistics > as a tool we surely need today, nothing less than an ongoing critique of all > social, political, and intellectual dialogue, as a way citizens in many > societies could distinguish rhetoric from reality. > > And the Whorf-Sapir descriptivists have also left us a useful tool that can > help us to realize that seemingly distinct cultures and languages, though > certainly not connected by any "universal grammar," can nonetheless be seen > as ultimately comparable and equal in value to our own. At least this > assessment, though allegedly discredited, still lurks on the margins of our > study. > > I am particularly heartened by Professor Wilcox' contribution, that > translators and interpreters also prove that linguistics is "good for > something." I am prepared at the drop of a hat to go a great deal further > and assert that they lie at the very heart of all language study, as I have > done in my paper "Translation as the Prototype of All Communication," > accessible at: > > http://languag2.home.sprynet.com/f/prototyp.htm#t11 > > It may well be in all the stages of our learning that every single new word > or concept we encounter, even in our primary language, actually requires an > act of explanation, enlightenment, clarification--in short translation--for > us to understand it. Such an act may be provided by a teacher, a helpful > friend, a dictionary or other reference book, or the closer reading of a > text. But whatever form it takes, such an act of translation is most often > absolutely crucial for us to grasp the meaning. And we ourselves--what we > call our "knowledge" and our "understanding"--may be to a fair extent the > sum total of these countless acts of translation. > > With very best to everyone! > > alex > > http://language.home.sprynet.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sherman Wilcox" > To: "Angus Grieve-Smith" > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 9:24 PM > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > > > > On Sep 8, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Angus Grieve-Smith wrote: > > > >> * Linguists > >> * Computer programmers > >> * Speech therapists > >> * Language teachers > >> * Literary theorists > >> * Editors > >> * Lexicographers > >> * Politicians > > > > > > Interpreters and translators. > > > > -- > > Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. > > Professor > > Department of Linguistics > > University of New Mexico > > Albuquerque, NM 87131 > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:08:09 -0500 (CDT) > From: "Clai Rice" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: > Message-ID: <6294DCA5A7C74748AA18AB861E08257A at win.louisiana.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > I sometimes use a diagram by Neil Smith, from page 5 of Language, Bananas, > and Bonobos. His introductory essay is titled "How to be the Centre of the > Universe," and the diagram shows that the study of language pertains > directly to nearly every discipline in the academy. The diagram, but not > the whole essay, can be viewed on Amazon's Look Inside function. > > Clai Rice > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 96, Issue 4 > ************************************** > From FontaineL at cardiff.ac.uk Tue Sep 13 10:29:09 2011 From: FontaineL at cardiff.ac.uk (Lise Fontaine) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:29:09 +0100 Subject: 2nd LinC Summer school in Systemic Functional Linguistics Message-ID: The research network for Linguistics in Cardiff is pleased to announce the 2nd LinC Summer school in Systemic Functional Linguistics Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales September 3 – 5, 2012 Systemic Functional Linguistics and the classroom The goal of the summer school is to offer research and training in both understanding the Systemic Functional Linguistic theory of language and applying it to educational settings. The summer school will run two parallel courses: introduction and applied. The introduction to SFL course is ideal for people with little or no experience of SFL or those who want a refresher course. The applied course assumes a good foundation in SFL and is suited for people interested in applying SFL to educational settings. Both are suitable for professionals, students, and researchers who have an interest in learning more about Systemic Functional Linguistics and its applications. Provisional programme to include: Functional grammar; Phonology and intonation; Text analysis; UAM CorpusTool; Teaching writing through SFL; Use of corpora in teaching; Classroom discourse; SFL in language learning. Instructors: Sheena Gardner, Geoff Thompson, Mick O’Donnell, Tom Bartlett, Gerard O’Grady and Lise Fontaine. Call for Poster Presentations Participants at the summer school are encouraged to submit an abstract for a Poster Presentation. Accepted proposals will be presented at a poster session during the summer school. Deadline for proposal submissions is May 1st, 2012. Send abstracts of 500 words to linc-network at cf.ac.uk. Registration: Places are limited. Registration fee is £120 for the full three days. For more information, please see: http://www.cf.ac.uk/encap/linc From language at sprynet.com Thu Sep 15 06:34:58 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 02:34:58 -0400 Subject: What is linguistics? What is it good for? Message-ID: Since translation has recently been mentioned under our topic, this review in The Economist of a new book by David Bellos may be of interest: http://www.economist.com/node/21528575/ I've been pretty well behaved over the past few months, so I wonder if I can get away with rephrasing Prof. Bischoff's questions somewhat: How about "mainstream" generative linguistics? What is it good for? All the best to everyone! alex http://language.home.sprynet.com All the best to everyone! alex ----- Original Message ----- From: "s.t. bischoff" To: Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 12:04 PM Subject: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > Hi all, > > I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is > linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general > audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas > how > to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about > answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. > > Thanks, > Shannon > From boye at hum.ku.dk Fri Sep 16 13:51:37 2011 From: boye at hum.ku.dk (Kasper Boye) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:51:37 +0200 Subject: Workshop on complementizers in European languages Message-ID: We apologize for cross-posting --- Workshop on Semantic Functions of Complementizers in European Languages Friday 28 October – Saturday 29 October, 2011 LANCHART, University of Copenhagen, Denmark Workshop URL http://dgcss.hum.ku.dk/arrangementer/semantic_functions_of_complementizers_in_european_languages/ Brief description The workshop brings together researchers representing major language families in Europe to describe semantic complementizer functions as well as those phenomena on which semantic complementizer functions may be assumed to have a direct descriptive or explanatory impact: complementizer systems, diachrony of complementizers, complementizer omission, and complementizer combination Full description http://dgcss.hum.ku.dk/arrangementer/semantic_functions_of_complementizers_in_european_languages/full_description_-_semantic_function/ Programme http://dgcss.hum.ku.dk/arrangementer/semantic_functions_of_complementizers_in_european_languages/programme_-_semantic_functions/ Accommodation http://dgcss.hum.ku.dk/arrangementer/semantic_functions_of_complementizers_in_european_languages/accomodation_-_semantic_functions/ Organizers Kasper Boye (University of Copenhagen; kabo at hum.ku.dk) Petar Kehayov (University of Tartu; petar.kehayov at ut.ee) There is no registration fee! But please register by sending an email to one of the organizers by 17 October, 2011. --- Kasper Boye LANCHART Centre University of Copenhagen Njalsgade 136, 5. 2300 Copenhagen S Denmark From BartlettT at cardiff.ac.uk Fri Sep 16 14:19:43 2011 From: BartlettT at cardiff.ac.uk (Tom Bartlett) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:19:43 +0100 Subject: Grammatical titbit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Here's an interesting titbit I haven't seen picked up on before: With mental processes as pseudomodals in relative clauses THAT can be omitted even when it is acting as Subject: That's the man I think stole my bike. *That's the man stole my bike. My first thought was that this was simply because "gardenpathing" caused by the juxtaposition of Subject and Finite had been disrupted, but the same isn't true with modal adverbs: *That's the man possibly stole my bike. This doesn't seem to be down to the influence of the congruent use of the projecting verb either: *That's John; I think stole my bike. Does this jar with anyone's idiolect? Or, conversely, is anyone happy with: *That's the man stole my bike. Is this possible in Northern English English? I am tempted by other sentences such as: ?You're the one told me to do it! Any ideas? All the best, Tom. From dick at ling.ucl.ac.uk Sat Sep 17 19:18:49 2011 From: dick at ling.ucl.ac.uk (Richard Hudson) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 20:18:49 +0100 Subject: Grammatical titbit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: That's interesting Tom. I must admit I hadn't noticed it either. I think the examples you're trying with zero subject relatives are a red herring, because your main point applies when the relative is inside a subject NP: (1) The man I think stole my bike is over there. (2) **The man stole my bike is over there. But the explanation is surely quite simple: at the point just after "man" where the speaker chooses between zero and who/that, the only thing that's relevant is that the pronoun would NOT be subject of the *next* verb, "think", which already has its own subject ("I"). In other words, the pronoun would be just extractee, not subject or object, in relation to "think". It's only further into the sentence that its relation to "stole" becomes relevant. So the rule for using zero pronouns (or whatever you want to call them) is that they're allowed unless the understood pronoun would be subject of the first following verb. Does that make sense? Dick Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm On 16/09/2011 15:19, Tom Bartlett wrote: > Here's an interesting titbit I haven't seen picked up on before: > With mental processes as pseudomodals in relative clauses THAT can be omitted even when it is acting as Subject: > That's the man I think stole my bike. > *That's the man stole my bike. > My first thought was that this was simply because "gardenpathing" caused by the juxtaposition of Subject and Finite had been disrupted, but the same isn't true with modal adverbs: > *That's the man possibly stole my bike. > > This doesn't seem to be down to the influence of the congruent use of the projecting verb either: > *That's John; I think stole my bike. > Does this jar with anyone's idiolect? Or, conversely, is anyone happy with: > *That's the man stole my bike. > Is this possible in Northern English English? I am tempted by other sentences such as: > ?You're the one told me to do it! > Any ideas? > All the best, > Tom. > > From edith at uwm.edu Mon Sep 19 21:29:57 2011 From: edith at uwm.edu (Edith A Moravcsik) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:29:57 -0500 Subject: Conference on endangered languages Message-ID: A conference on Language Death, Endangerment, Documentation and Revitalization will be held October 20-22, Thursday through Saturday, on the campus of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. For keynote speakers, general program, registration and accommodations, please visit the conference website: http://www4.uwm.edu/letsci/conferences/linguistics.2011 -- Edith A. Moravcsik Professor Emerita of Linguistics Department of Linguistics University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Milwaukee, WI 53201-0413 USA From edith at uwm.edu Mon Sep 19 23:10:48 2011 From: edith at uwm.edu (Edith A Moravcsik) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:10:48 -0500 Subject: Correction In-Reply-To: <1361540191.420609.1316473715463.JavaMail.root@mail12.pantherlink.uwm.edu> Message-ID: I am sorry for the error in my last message. The correct URL for the Conference on Language Death, Endangerment, Documentation and Revitalization is as follows: http://www4.uwm.edu/letsci/conferences/linguistics2011 -- Edith A. Moravcsik Professor Emerita of Linguistics Department of Linguistics University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Milwaukee, WI 53201-0413 USA From r.lapolla at latrobe.edu.au Sun Sep 25 23:51:55 2011 From: r.lapolla at latrobe.edu.au (Randy LaPolla) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:51:55 +1000 Subject: Grammatical titbit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This phenomenon might be related to what Knud Lambrecht talked about in this 1988 article: Lambrecht, Knud. 1988. “There was a farmer had a dog: Syntactic amalgams revisited.” Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Randy On 19/09/2011, at 3:00 AM, 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: Grammatical titbit (Richard Hudson) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 20:18:49 +0100 > From: Richard Hudson > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Grammatical titbit > To: funknet > Message-ID: <4E74F299.1080407 at ling.ucl.ac.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > That's interesting Tom. I must admit I hadn't noticed it either. I think > the examples you're trying with zero subject relatives are a red > herring, because your main point applies when the relative is inside a > subject NP: > (1) The man I think stole my bike is over there. > (2) **The man stole my bike is over there. > But the explanation is surely quite simple: at the point just after > "man" where the speaker chooses between zero and who/that, the only > thing that's relevant is that the pronoun would NOT be subject of the > *next* verb, "think", which already has its own subject ("I"). In other > words, the pronoun would be just extractee, not subject or object, in > relation to "think". It's only further into the sentence that its > relation to "stole" becomes relevant. So the rule for using zero > pronouns (or whatever you want to call them) is that they're allowed > unless the understood pronoun would be subject of the first following verb. > > Does that make sense? > > Dick > > > Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > > On 16/09/2011 15:19, Tom Bartlett wrote: >> Here's an interesting titbit I haven't seen picked up on before: >> With mental processes as pseudomodals in relative clauses THAT can be omitted even when it is acting as Subject: >> That's the man I think stole my bike. >> *That's the man stole my bike. >> My first thought was that this was simply because "gardenpathing" caused by the juxtaposition of Subject and Finite had been disrupted, but the same isn't true with modal adverbs: >> *That's the man possibly stole my bike. >> >> This doesn't seem to be down to the influence of the congruent use of the projecting verb either: >> *That's John; I think stole my bike. >> Does this jar with anyone's idiolect? Or, conversely, is anyone happy with: >> *That's the man stole my bike. >> Is this possible in Northern English English? I am tempted by other sentences such as: >> ?You're the one told me to do it! >> Any ideas? >> All the best, >> Tom. >> >> > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 96, Issue 9 > ************************************** From eitkonen at utu.fi Mon Sep 26 11:58:12 2011 From: eitkonen at utu.fi (Esa Itkonen) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:58:12 +0300 Subject: time (almost) without space? Message-ID: The article 'When time is not space', by C. Sinha et al., was discussed a couple of months ago on Funknet. The authors claim that in Amondawa (= an Amazonian language of the Tupi Guarani family) there is a sort of dissociation between spatial and temporal expressions. (Notice that 'dissociation' is a shorthand of my own which does not do justice to the complexity of the argument by Sinha et al.)Now, if one happens to be acquainted with Everett & Kern's excellent 1997 grammar of Wari' (= a genetically unrelated Amazonian language, of the Chapakura[n] family), one might be excused for thinking that something similar is going on here as well. First, the inventory of spatial expressions (= directional verbs & body-part nouns in POSS constructions) is very detailed (pp. 252-284) whereas the inventory of temporal expressions is rather exiguous (pp. 285-290). Second, the two inventories seem disjoint. Temporal expressions are divided into a) diurnal and b) seasonal ones: a) 'day', 'night', 'afternoon', 'dusk', 'sun', 'moon'; b) "seasons of the year are indicated by reference to rain, lack of it, or activity in the gardens" (p. 286). "All other references to location in time are expressed by the appropriate Portuguese terms" (p. 286). "Exact references to time are for the most part irrelevant in Wari' " (p. 287). Third, space-to-time metaphors seem to be lacking, apart from a single example like 'in the middle (= "waist") of the night'. On the other hand, the putative space vs. time dissociation seems undermined by the existence of two (= space vs. time) three-level systems of demonstrative adjectives (p. 153) and pronouns (pp. 305-306) where the spatial expressions constitute a transparent (and analogous) basis for their temporal counterparts. I wonder if there is any way to lure Dan Everett into commenting on the above. Esa Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen From dan at daneverett.org Mon Sep 26 18:44:41 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:44:41 -0400 Subject: Wari' Message-ID: Esa, You seem to have captured the facts of Wari' quite well. I believe that the demonstrative pronoun system is nearly unique. I have published on Wari' pronouns and morphology, in addition to the grammar in IJAL (http://www.jstor.org/pss/10.1086/497874) and in the Handbook of Morphology (Blackwell, Spencer & Zwicky, eds). Wari' also has a construction for expressing future tenses that, although much more cumbersome phonologically/syntactically, is replacing the future tense markers in frequency. It is what I have referred to as the Intentional State Construction (found in the book, Investigations of the Syntax-Semantics-Pragmatics Interface, edited by Robert Van Valin). Like many Amazonian languages, Wari' prefers to express intentions as quotes to talk about other minds and even future events. So instead of saying "It will rain" (which they can say easily with the future tense suffixes) they more commonly say "The sky says 'I rain.'" It is one of the most interesting constructions I have ever seen, for various reasons (not least of which is that it seems intractable to an X-bar theoretic/Merge account, but is quite easy to express in either RRG or Construction Grammar). Kwaza, a language analyzed brilliantly by Heine van der Voort) has a similar construction, which is interesting since it is in the same state as Wari', but genetically unrelated. I talk about unusual constructions and other phenomena one might link to cultural values in a forthcoming book from Random House (USA) and Profile (UK), Language: The Cultural Tool, to be released in March 2012. Jeanette Sakel and I discuss methods for looking at relationships between culture and grammar in our forthcoming book, Linguistic Fieldwork (CUP red series, Dec 2011). I think that the folks at the MPI Leipzig, for their Rara and Rarissima Conference a few years ago selected Wari' as have the greatest number of rarities known for any language. A cool language. Spoken by about 1500 people in Rondonia, Brazil, along the Bolivian border. Last surviving Chapakuran language. The co-author of the Wari' grammar is New Tribes missionary, Barbara Kern. She is the one who really speaks the language. We based the grammar on her more than 1000 pages of transcribed texts and additional work with native speakers (by me) on many aspects of the grammar that arose in writing for publication. -- Dan ************************* Daniel L. Everett Dean of Arts and Sciences Bentley University 175 Forest St. Waltham, MA 02451 Fax: 781-891-2125 Phone: 781 891 2113 http://academics.bentley.edu/arts-sciences/dean-arts-and-sciences http://daneverettbooks.com From bischoff.st at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 21:56:32 2011 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 17:56:32 -0400 Subject: Who is/isn't a linguist? Message-ID: Hello all, I've been covering "linguistic relativity" with students in a current course I am teaching. When ever I cover this topic I must pause and wonder at the claim often found that "Whorf was an amateur", something students often notice as well. I pause because I wonder what or who determines when someone is or is not a linguist. As we all know Whorf published a good number of papers in respected journals, taught courses at Yale, and so on. Yet, it is not uncommon to find reference to him as an amateur, that is, not a "real" linguist. Yet, Boas, who had no formal training in linguistics is one of, if not the, most important "linguistics" of the 20th century and is regarded as such. In addition, Chomksy (and Dr. Newmeyer I hope you will correct me here if I am wrong), has really seemed to have no interest what so ever in language other than as a "phenomena" of study, the result of the mind/brain (the real object of study) that allows him to pursue a theory of mind. In his own words *The phenomena that scientists work with cannot be identified with the nature of the object they are investigating (personal communication): in this case the object of study is NOT language but the mind/brain (if I am understanding correctly). In short, Chomsky seems to have used language to pursue a theory of mind, not "linguistics"...yet he is often cited as a "linguist" on par with, if not exceeding, Boas...certainly his influence has had similar effect. I am inclined to believe this is in great part politics, fashion, and image (of the field)...but I wonder if anyone else might have insights into this issue...as it is one that students find quite intriguing...which lends itself to bringing them into the field. Cheers, Shannon * From busylinguist at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 23:21:50 2011 From: busylinguist at gmail.com (carey benom) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 08:21:50 +0900 Subject: Who is/isn't a linguist? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Interesting question, Shannon. I sometimes think that all human beings who speak/sign a language are linguists, as they have had to go through the process of - beginning with no background - collecting and analyzing vast amounts of data, creating categories, testing and revising hypotheses, forming conclusions, etc. in order to create a grammar of a language from the ground up. Such a process could be argued to be distinct from the "scientific" analysis of language, as it is based on "folk" or naive understanding, but I am not sure that such a binary distinction is the right or only way to see things. For example, some card-carrying linguists use only qualitative methodologies, and linguists who use quantitative methods may consider their work "unscientific". Other linguists, such as Chomsky, use intuition-derived data that seems very suspect to many people on this list, who may refer to it is "bad science" or "unscientific". Therefore, in my classes, I sometimes refer to language-using humans who don't have a background in linguistics in school (or elsewhere) as "poor linguists", as they lack the tools, range of experience, and perspective of those of us with such a background. Best, Carey Benom Kyushu University On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 6:56 AM, s.t. bischoff wrote: > Hello all, > > I've been covering "linguistic relativity" with students in a current > course > I am teaching. When ever I cover this topic I must pause and wonder at the > claim often found that "Whorf was an amateur", something students often > notice as well. I pause because I wonder what or who determines when > someone > is or is not a linguist. As we all know Whorf published a good number of > papers in respected journals, taught courses at Yale, and so on. Yet, it is > not uncommon to find reference to him as an amateur, that is, not a "real" > linguist. Yet, Boas, who had no formal training in linguistics is one of, > if > not the, most important "linguistics" of the 20th century and is regarded > as > such. In addition, Chomksy (and Dr. Newmeyer I hope you will correct me > here > if I am wrong), has really seemed to have no interest what so ever in > language other than as a "phenomena" of study, the result of the mind/brain > (the real object of study) that allows him to pursue a theory of mind. In > his own words *The phenomena that scientists work with cannot be identified > with the nature of the object they are investigating (personal > communication): in this case the object of study is NOT language but the > mind/brain (if I am understanding correctly). In short, Chomsky seems to > have used language to pursue a theory of mind, not "linguistics"...yet he > is > often cited as a "linguist" on par with, if not exceeding, Boas...certainly > his influence has had similar effect. I am inclined to believe this is in > great part politics, fashion, and image (of the field)...but I wonder if > anyone else might have insights into this issue...as it is one that > students > find quite intriguing...which lends itself to bringing them into the field. > > Cheers, > Shannon > * > From fjn at u.washington.edu Thu Sep 29 07:36:05 2011 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:36:05 -0700 Subject: Who is/isn't a linguist? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Shannon, All of the leading linguists of history have had ultimate goals that extended beyond analyses of linguistic phenomena per se. Grimm thought of his work on sound changes as leading to a better understanding of human cultural evolution. Saussure's ultimate goal was a theory of signs (not just linguistic ones) that would shed light on shared elements in social interaction. Jakobson would have been the first to reject the idea that a linguist's goals should be 'merely linguistic'. In any event, one could hardly accuse Chomsky -- over his career! -- of neglecting the analysis of concrete linguistic phenomena. One thinks of his pioneering studies of English auxiliaries, island constraints, binding phenomena, nominalizations, and so on. Most of these studies were carried out after his explicit commitment to develop a theory of mind. --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 Wed, 28 Sep 2011, s.t. bischoff wrote: > Hello all, > > I've been covering "linguistic relativity" with students in a current course > I am teaching. When ever I cover this topic I must pause and wonder at the > claim often found that "Whorf was an amateur", something students often > notice as well. I pause because I wonder what or who determines when someone > is or is not a linguist. As we all know Whorf published a good number of > papers in respected journals, taught courses at Yale, and so on. Yet, it is > not uncommon to find reference to him as an amateur, that is, not a "real" > linguist. Yet, Boas, who had no formal training in linguistics is one of, if > not the, most important "linguistics" of the 20th century and is regarded as > such. In addition, Chomksy (and Dr. Newmeyer I hope you will correct me here > if I am wrong), has really seemed to have no interest what so ever in > language other than as a "phenomena" of study, the result of the mind/brain > (the real object of study) that allows him to pursue a theory of mind. In > his own words *The phenomena that scientists work with cannot be identified > with the nature of the object they are investigating (personal > communication): in this case the object of study is NOT language but the > mind/brain (if I am understanding correctly). In short, Chomsky seems to > have used language to pursue a theory of mind, not "linguistics"...yet he is > often cited as a "linguist" on par with, if not exceeding, Boas...certainly > his influence has had similar effect. I am inclined to believe this is in > great part politics, fashion, and image (of the field)...but I wonder if > anyone else might have insights into this issue...as it is one that students > find quite intriguing...which lends itself to bringing them into the field. > > Cheers, > Shannon > * > From dan at daneverett.org Thu Sep 29 09:38:12 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 05:38:12 -0400 Subject: Who is/isn't a linguist? Message-ID: Shannon, Fritz, and all, The question of "who is a linguist" might be little more than the vestige of what Popper and others called "essentialism," harking back to Plato. Probably not a lot of use in trying to sharpen the denotation of the term by getting at the essence of what it refers to. What group one belongs to is a matter of taste and preference. Linguists form a group of people with shared values. People who share more values will identify more with one another. Some linguists share more values with each other than they do with others who call themselves linguists and so the natural tendency is for the one group to think that their values are better markers than those of the other group. More generally, are their values that can be called "linguistic?" Then those who share them are linguists, if one finds that sort of thing useful. On the other hand, if by "linguist" we refer to a profession, then I think that the number of linguists will shrink over the next few years due to the pressures on higher education and the values of incoming students, which include employment. If we cannot provide employment, yet label people based on what they are paid to do, the reference set of "linguist" will shrink. So I think it is vital that we think about what it means to be a linguist in light of the employment problem. For many years, I have become more convinced that linguistics PhD programs, like many PhD programs in the humanities, are borderline Ponzi schemes. I have written on this in Inside Higher Ed (http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2011/08/30/essay_on_how_humanities_can_be_strengthened_by_embracing_ties_to_professional_education). When Peter Ladefoged was the chair of linguistics at UCLA he sent out a letter to prospective applicants to tell them about the US job market and to suggest that they had little chance at getting a job at a research university (this was over 30 years ago!) and that perhaps the best linguistics of the future would be done by plumbers and carpenters. The profession needs to ask itself whether Whorf himself embodied the future. Very good linguistics by moonlighting, being a talented hobbyist. -- Dan On Sep 29, 2011, at 3:36 AM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Shannon, > > All of the leading linguists of history have had ultimate goals that extended beyond analyses of linguistic phenomena per se. Grimm thought of his work on sound changes as leading to a better understanding of human cultural evolution. Saussure's ultimate goal was a theory of signs (not just linguistic ones) that would shed light on shared elements in social interaction. Jakobson would have been the first to reject the idea that a linguist's goals should be 'merely linguistic'. > > In any event, one could hardly accuse Chomsky -- over his career! -- of neglecting the analysis of concrete linguistic phenomena. One thinks of his pioneering studies of English auxiliaries, island constraints, binding phenomena, nominalizations, and so on. Most of these studies were carried out after his explicit commitment to develop a theory of mind. > > --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 Wed, 28 Sep 2011, s.t. bischoff wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> I've been covering "linguistic relativity" with students in a current course >> I am teaching. When ever I cover this topic I must pause and wonder at the >> claim often found that "Whorf was an amateur", something students often >> notice as well. I pause because I wonder what or who determines when someone >> is or is not a linguist. As we all know Whorf published a good number of >> papers in respected journals, taught courses at Yale, and so on. Yet, it is >> not uncommon to find reference to him as an amateur, that is, not a "real" >> linguist. Yet, Boas, who had no formal training in linguistics is one of, if >> not the, most important "linguistics" of the 20th century and is regarded as >> such. In addition, Chomksy (and Dr. Newmeyer I hope you will correct me here >> if I am wrong), has really seemed to have no interest what so ever in >> language other than as a "phenomena" of study, the result of the mind/brain >> (the real object of study) that allows him to pursue a theory of mind. In >> his own words *The phenomena that scientists work with cannot be identified >> with the nature of the object they are investigating (personal >> communication): in this case the object of study is NOT language but the >> mind/brain (if I am understanding correctly). In short, Chomsky seems to >> have used language to pursue a theory of mind, not "linguistics"...yet he is >> often cited as a "linguist" on par with, if not exceeding, Boas...certainly >> his influence has had similar effect. I am inclined to believe this is in >> great part politics, fashion, and image (of the field)...but I wonder if >> anyone else might have insights into this issue...as it is one that students >> find quite intriguing...which lends itself to bringing them into the field. >> >> Cheers, >> Shannon >> * >> > From bischoff.st at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 12:01:25 2011 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 08:01:25 -0400 Subject: Who is/isn't a linguist? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks all for the the insights...Dan I think you've gotten to heart of my query, and summed it up rather nicely. Given your comments, the challenge would seem to be helping students decide if they want to be a part of the "linguistic" community as a "professional"...in which case they need to be well aware of the realities of the employment situation...or a member of the "linguistic" community in sense of "shared values" as you put it. In this case, Whorf could serve as an example of a member of the linguistic community who made valuable contributions but paid his rent by being an insurance inspector. Cheers, Shannon On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:36 AM, Everett, Daniel wrote: > Shannon, Fritz, and all, > > The question of "who is a linguist" might be little more than the vestige > of what Popper and others called "essentialism," harking back to Plato. > Probably not a lot of use in trying to sharpen the denotation of the term by > getting at the essence of what it refers to. > > What group one belongs to is a matter of taste and preference. Linguists > form a group of people with shared values. People who share more values will > identify more with one another. Some linguists share more values with each > other than they do with others who call themselves linguists and so the > natural tendency is for the one group to think that their values are better > markers than those of the other group. More generally, are their values that > can be called "linguistic?" Then those who share them are linguists, if one > finds that sort of thing useful. > > On the other hand, if by "linguist" we refer to a profession, then I think > that the number of linguists will shrink over the next few years due to the > pressures on higher education and the values of incoming students, which > include employment. If we cannot provide employment, yet label people based > on what they are paid to do, the reference set of "linguist" will shrink. > > So I think it is vital that we think about what it means to be a linguist > in light of the employment problem. For many years, I have become more > convinced that linguistics PhD programs, like many PhD programs in the > humanities, are borderline Ponzi schemes. I have written on this in Inside > Higher Ed ( > http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2011/08/30/essay_on_how_humanities_can_be_strengthened_by_embracing_ties_to_professional_education > ). > > When Peter Ladefoged was the chair of linguistics at UCLA he sent out a > letter to prospective applicants to tell them about the US job market and to > suggest that they had little chance at getting a job at a research > university (this was over 30 years ago!) and that perhaps the best > linguistics of the future would be done by plumbers and carpenters. > > The profession needs to ask itself whether Whorf himself embodied the > future. Very good linguistics by moonlighting, being a talented hobbyist. > > -- Dan > > > > > On Sep 29, 2011, at 3:36 AM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > > Shannon, > > > > All of the leading linguists of history have had ultimate goals that > extended beyond analyses of linguistic phenomena per se. Grimm thought of > his work on sound changes as leading to a better understanding of human > cultural evolution. Saussure's ultimate goal was a theory of signs (not just > linguistic ones) that would shed light on shared elements in social > interaction. Jakobson would have been the first to reject the idea that a > linguist's goals should be 'merely linguistic'. > > > > In any event, one could hardly accuse Chomsky -- over his career! -- of > neglecting the analysis of concrete linguistic phenomena. One thinks of his > pioneering studies of English auxiliaries, island constraints, binding > phenomena, nominalizations, and so on. Most of these studies were carried > out after his explicit commitment to develop a theory of mind. > > > > --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 Wed, 28 Sep 2011, s.t. bischoff wrote: > > > >> Hello all, > >> > >> I've been covering "linguistic relativity" with students in a current > course > >> I am teaching. When ever I cover this topic I must pause and wonder at > the > >> claim often found that "Whorf was an amateur", something students often > >> notice as well. I pause because I wonder what or who determines when > someone > >> is or is not a linguist. As we all know Whorf published a good number of > >> papers in respected journals, taught courses at Yale, and so on. Yet, it > is > >> not uncommon to find reference to him as an amateur, that is, not a > "real" > >> linguist. Yet, Boas, who had no formal training in linguistics is one > of, if > >> not the, most important "linguistics" of the 20th century and is > regarded as > >> such. In addition, Chomksy (and Dr. Newmeyer I hope you will correct me > here > >> if I am wrong), has really seemed to have no interest what so ever in > >> language other than as a "phenomena" of study, the result of the > mind/brain > >> (the real object of study) that allows him to pursue a theory of mind. > In > >> his own words *The phenomena that scientists work with cannot be > identified > >> with the nature of the object they are investigating (personal > >> communication): in this case the object of study is NOT language but the > >> mind/brain (if I am understanding correctly). In short, Chomsky seems to > >> have used language to pursue a theory of mind, not "linguistics"...yet > he is > >> often cited as a "linguist" on par with, if not exceeding, > Boas...certainly > >> his influence has had similar effect. I am inclined to believe this is > in > >> great part politics, fashion, and image (of the field)...but I wonder if > >> anyone else might have insights into this issue...as it is one that > students > >> find quite intriguing...which lends itself to bringing them into the > field. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Shannon > >> * > >> > > > > From wilcox at unm.edu Thu Sep 29 15:54:23 2011 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:54:23 -0600 Subject: Who is/isn't a linguist? In-Reply-To: <2D284C7A-9483-45ED-A9A3-7FEC1925637C@daneverett.org> Message-ID: On Sep 29, 2011, at 3:38 AM, Daniel Everett wrote: > So I think it is vital that we think about what it means to be a linguist in light of the employment problem. Dan, I really appreciated your comments. For the past 25+ years I've taught mostly undergraduate students in our signed language interpreting program, with the occasional graduate seminar in linguistics thrown in to make me feel like a "real" linguist. One of my colleagues used to say that the interpreting program was really a "clinical" or applied program and as such not truly appropriate for a College of Arts and Sciences. I used to bristle at that sentiment. The older I get, though, the more I take pride in being identified as working in an applied area, even though at heart my own interests are (and always have been) entirely theoretical (I'm not saying I'm very good at it, just that those ideas and questions are what tickle my brain). Next week I have to give a presentation to our Board of Regents (apparently each month they invite a faculty member to discuss his/her teaching and research so they can learn what we do -- a pretty good idea, since many of them seem to have not a clue what faculty do). I've been told to tell them about our impact on the community; accordingly, one of my slides is labeled simply "JOBS" (not just for our interpreter graduates, but for the deaf people in the community they will serve while in school, in job interviews, on the job, buying cars, etc.). But I'll also be emphasizing that an important part of what I, we, do is to discover new knowledge, explore new ideas, whether or not we see immediate application. I watch many of our interpreting students grimace when I talk about "theoretical" concepts -- they got attracted to the field, for the most part, not because they wanted to study linguistics and learn about whether ASL does or does not have passive constructions, but because they wanted to *do* something with that language, help people. They soon see, though, that even this boring (to them) "theoretical stuff" has direct application to how they'll do their jobs (what do you do when someone says and you have to sign, "Mistakes were made"?). And, of course, some of them get sucked into linguistics entirely. Our local two-year community college has a TV commercial that emphasizes their goal of preparing students for a job, a trade. It ends with "Education that matters!" I want to scream every time I hear that commercial: ALL EDUCATION MATTERS. I hope we linguists don't buy into the false dichotomy of thinking we either do theory or we do practice. -- Sherman Wilcox Professor Department of Linguistics University of New Mexico From grvsmth at panix.com Thu Sep 29 18:30:56 2011 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:30:56 -0400 Subject: Who is/isn't a linguist? In-Reply-To: <26076147-92AF-4AB3-87C2-06BA3FCAEA70@unm.edu> Message-ID: Some very interesting discussion on this topic. In fact, it echoes similar debates you can find all over about categories, which on a deeper level turn out to be about boundary policing. We're not just linguists here, we're functionalists, so I want to bring in George Lakoff's presentation of Eleanor Rosch's theories. I blogged about them in connection with fights in the transgender community over questions like, "Who is/isn't a woman?" "Who is/isn't transgender?" and most recently, "Who is/isn't transsexual?" http://transblog.grieve-smith.com/?p=41 http://transblog.grieve-smith.com/?cat=9 In these terms, what Dan refers to as platonism is the act of treating a radial category as a simple category. In reality, the category of "linguist" has a prototype (went to MIT, works in a formalist framework, studies syntax, works on English, has an academic job, has time and funding for research), and a bunch of satellite subcategories, and we can apply Lakoff's "but test" to it: 1) She's a linguist, but she doesn't study syntax. 2) #She's a linguist, but she studies syntax. and so on: 3) #She's a linguist, but she has research funding. (This may not be as strange as it sounds, indicating shifting of the prototype.) 4) #She's a linguist, but she works in the Minimalist framework. In the transgender categories, the platonism masks a very real boundary-policing going on, which is ultimately a fight over resources. Funding for transgender community outreach is scarce, and someone doesn't want the transvestites getting any of it, so they're "not really transgender." Since I'm on the job market, I will leave the implications of "who is/isn't a linguist" as an exercise for the reader. I will point out that once, when I mentioned a career path similar to Whorf's, I was told that a particular institution "doesn't grant recreational Ph.D.s." And Sherman may remember a meeting where he was essentially forced to tell me that I couldn't do my dissertation on sign-language synthesis because the topic wasn't theoretical enough. (I have to mention that I learned a ton of useful stuff in the graduate seminar I took with him.) The natural reaction is to say, "Who says I'm not a linguist? Damn straight I'm a linguist! You're the one who's not a linguist!" That's essentially what Shannon did, and I sympathize with it. But under the Roschian view, there are simply different senses of "linguist." In one sense, Whorf was not a "real linguist," and in another sense, Chomsky is not a "real linguist." If we want to get past the boundary policing, we need to ask, "why does it matter who's a linguist?" Is it about credibility, or funding, or jobs? If so, we can restate these claims as "Whorf doesn't deserve to be taken seriously because he didn't have a tenured academic position." Or "Person X shouldn't get the job because she doesn't do formalist syntax." Or "Person Y shouldn't get the grant because he didn't go to the right school." But then we'd have to be honest with our prejudices and power games. So, have I ruined my chances in this ultra-competitive market for a tenure-track job in functional linguistics yet? -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith Adjunct Assistant Professor Saint John's University grvsmth at panix.com From Victor.Golla at humboldt.edu Fri Sep 30 01:32:47 2011 From: Victor.Golla at humboldt.edu (Victor K. Golla) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:32:47 -0700 Subject: Who is/isn't a linguist? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Going back to Shannon's original topic -- whether Benjamin Whorf was a linguist. For all of the reasons Dan Everett gives, I think the question is meaningful only in sociological terms, and even then it must be sensitive to the sociology of the era in which Whorf lived. The answer seems unequivocal: From the moment that Whorf enrolled as a student in Sapir's graduate classes at Yale, he tacitly submitted himself to the rules of the academic game of "linguistics" set by Sapir, the university, and most importantly by his fellow students. The evidence is clear that he honored those rules and was accepted as a status equal by the academic linguists of his day. I once asked Mary Haas about her opinion of Whorf. "Oh, Ben was a kook!" she sighed. But not because of his linguistics. Whorf regularly got A's, even the occasional A+, on his seminar papers -- nearly all of which were on hard-core descriptive and comparative topics, such as Hopi phonemics or the subclassification of Uto-Aztecan. Rather, it was Whorf's personal quirks that made Mary roll her eyes. She was particularly struck by his fear of elevators; he would struggle up ten flights of stairs to get to Mary and Morris Swadesh's apartment for a party. Victor Golla From fjn at u.washington.edu Fri Sep 30 06:45:18 2011 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:45:18 -0700 Subject: Who is/isn't a linguist? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I just wanted to reinforce what Victor wrote. When Whorf died very young in 1941 -- he was only 44 years old -- the journal Language gave him a full obituary. That was a very rare occurrence then (as now). There is no question that, despite his 'amateur status', he was considered by the linguists of the day not just as a 'linguist', but as their equal. --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 Thu, 29 Sep 2011, Victor K. Golla wrote: > Going back to Shannon's original topic -- whether Benjamin Whorf was a > linguist. > > For all of the reasons Dan Everett gives, I think the question is > meaningful only in sociological terms, and even then it must be > sensitive to the sociology of the era in which Whorf lived. > > The answer seems unequivocal: From the moment that Whorf enrolled as > a student in Sapir's graduate classes at Yale, he tacitly submitted > himself to the rules of the academic game of "linguistics" set by > Sapir, the university, and most importantly by his fellow students. > The evidence is clear that he honored those rules and was accepted as > a status equal by the academic linguists of his day. > > I once asked Mary Haas about her opinion of Whorf. "Oh, Ben was a > kook!" she sighed. But not because of his linguistics. Whorf > regularly got A's, even the occasional A+, on his seminar papers -- > nearly all of which were on hard-core descriptive and comparative > topics, such as Hopi phonemics or the subclassification of > Uto-Aztecan. Rather, it was Whorf's personal quirks that made Mary > roll her eyes. She was particularly struck by his fear of elevators; > he would struggle up ten flights of stairs to get to Mary and Morris > Swadesh's apartment for a party. > > Victor Golla > From d.f.lesley-neuman at umail.leidenuniv.nl Fri Sep 30 10:48:33 2011 From: d.f.lesley-neuman at umail.leidenuniv.nl (Diane Lesley-Neuman) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:48:33 +0200 Subject: Who is/isn't a linguist? Message-ID: One of the reasons I have gone into language description/literacy development alongside of other scientific pursuits, is that it is a true application of linguistic knowledge in service to a language community. I do not wish to simply be a documenter who goes from community to community documenting languages. I prefer to dedicate myself to a group of languages with shared characteristics and shared histories, and lend a hand where needed--while getting a lot of marvelous data I can also do theoretical and instrumental work on. If this means that at different times I may be working as an English teacher in a nearby school/university while I do it and elicit through a dominant, encroaching language--so be it. In the end, I am doing analytical work on languages, while learning and using multiple languages--which fits the definition of linguist in my book. In the course of my professional practice and training, I have to work on and in my native English, and my acquired languages Spanish and Swahili, in addition to learning as I can the languages that are objects of study, be they Quechua, Marathi, Sundanese Wolof,Kinyarwanda, Thai, Turkana, Karimojong, Datooga, DhoLuo, Ciyao. I now need to study Dutch to get along where I am living, as well as brush up on my German and French to read professional literature. All of this language work keeps me very busy. I do not take kindly to someone telling me I am not a linguist, given that work in/on language some 16-18 hours per day. I also notice that the term "linguist" is applied by laypeople to those who study and speak many languages. I think that the inclusive term may be the most accurate. There are certain groups who seek to restrict membership in the field to those who subscribe to and practice a certain brand of linguistic theory. This attitude impoverishes the field of possibilities. Had I followed what I had been told by such individuals, professors of linguistics all, I would never have become one. Some of them still probably believe that I am not a linguist yet. My linguistics articles are passing peer review and my professors in Europe believe that I am a linguist. I come into the lab, make recordings and corpora, read historical linguistics, delve into grammars and articles and argue for my model of word order change, of the phonology-morphology interface, etc. Over the triple-whammy discrimination of age-sex-social class,which is probably the key determinants of the negative judgments of my first professors, have I now made it? -- Diane F. Lesley-Neuman c/o Phonetics Laboratory Leiden University Cleveringaplaats 1 Room 111 2311 BD Leiden The Netherlands From Julia.Ulrich at degruyter.com Fri Sep 2 08:55:59 2011 From: Julia.Ulrich at degruyter.com (Julia.Ulrich at degruyter.com) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 10:55:59 +0200 Subject: Fall Special: Free Online Access to selected journals and yearbooks from De Gruyter Mouton and De Gruyter Message-ID: De Gruyter Mouton and De Gruyter are delighted to provide you with a one month glimpse into a wide range of high quality journals and yearbooks. Registration takes only a couple of minutes, and you will gain access to 38 periodicals from a broad range of research areas. For more information and to register for your free online access, please visit www.degruyter.com/fall2011 The offer is valid until October 31, 2011. Julia Ulrich Senior Marketing Manager DE GRUYTER Genthiner Str. 13 10785 Berlin, Germany F +49 (0)30.260 05-322 julia.ulrich at degruyter.com www.degruyter.com Verlag Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG. Genthiner Str. 13. 10785 Berlin. Sitz Berlin. Amtsgericht Charlottenburg HR A 2065. Rechtsform: Kommanditgesellschaft. Komplement?r: de Gruyter Verlagsbeteiligungs GmbH, Sitz Berlin, Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HR B 46487. Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Dr. Sven Fund Beiratsvorsitzender: R?diger Gebauer Follow us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/degruyter.publishers Register for our free TOC Alerts at www.reference-global.com and refer to www.degruyter.com/newsletter in order to receive the latest news from your field of research. P sustainable thinking...please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to From falonso at dfm.ulpgc.es Sun Sep 4 18:21:45 2011 From: falonso at dfm.ulpgc.es (Francisco Alonso Almeida) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 19:21:45 +0100 Subject: LFE, 2012 CFP Message-ID: [Apologies for cross-postings] Dear all, Find below information concerning the Revista para fines espec?ficos CFP, Issue 2012. Best wishes, Francisco Alonso Call for papers LFE, 18 (Autumn, 2012) Special Issue: Modality in scientific and technical discourse / La modalidad en el discurso cient?fico-t?cnico Guest editors: Marta Carretero Lapeyre and Ivalla Ortega Barrera The Journal Revista de Lenguas para Fines Espec?ficos (LFE) invites submissions of original full-length articles from scholars in the field of English for specific purposes. Article topics must fall into any field of applied linguistics within the scope of specialized English. Manuscripts should not exceed 8000 words, including references and notes, and should be submitted electronically using this Internet form. Prospective authors are encouraged to follow the guidelines for submissions in the journal webpage (here). Contributions submitted to LFE should not be under consideration in any other journal. All submissions will be subject to our peer-review process, and the last decision regarding the publication of contributions falls on the General Editors. For further queries on this special issue, you may contact us via email: lfe(at)ulpgc.es Important dates: Submission deadline: 20 February 2012 Readers' reports due: 30 April 2012 Final draft due: 30 June 2012 Publication: Autumn 2012 From bischoff.st at gmail.com Thu Sep 8 16:04:20 2011 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 12:04:20 -0400 Subject: What is linguistics? What is it good for? Message-ID: Hi all, I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas how to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. Thanks, Shannon From jrubba at calpoly.edu Thu Sep 8 17:35:11 2011 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:35:11 -0700 Subject: What is linguistics? What is it good for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: My take: Linguists strive to understand the thing that enables all of human culture: language. Without language, we could not work together. We could not plan. We could not refer to the past, the future, the hypothetical, or the abstract. We could not describe in detail our individual thoughts, emotions, needs, beliefs, or desires. In other words, we would live like other primates. So one thing linguistics is good for is a detailed understanding of how this amazing system works. And that is good for advancing the understanding of human nature. Linguistics is good for collecting the data (descriptions of as many of the world's languages as possible) we use to develop that understanding. Linguistics is also good for a large number of practical applications: assessing children's language development; teaching native and non-native languages; correcting popular myths about language that cause social harm or ill-conceived policies and practices; working with computer science to develop software that can use language as humans do; detecting ideological and social assumptions as revealed through language; developing literacy and language-preservation programs for non-literate cultures and threatened cultures; aiding in the detection, diagnosis, and treatment of congenital or acquired language disorders; working with developers of computer-mediated translation; helping solve crimes through forensic linguistics, etc., etc. Don't know if anyone would want to hear a long list, but, since a lot of people don't know what linguistics is or what it's good for, it could be informative. Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. "Justice is what love looks like Professor, Linguistics in public." Cornel West Linguistics Minor Advisor English Dept. Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba From john at research.haifa.ac.il Thu Sep 8 18:08:43 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 21:08:43 +0300 Subject: What is linguistics? What is it good for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Next month I'm going to be making a trip to South Sudan (independent in July) to give a series of lectures on language policy, orthography development, and language standardization. Africa is an absolute mess in terms of literacy because of ill-advised language policies and inadequate language development. It seems to me that this is something that linguistics is definitely good for. John Quoting "s.t. bischoff" : > Hi all, > > I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is > linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general > audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas how > to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about > answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. > > Thanks, > Shannon > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From grvsmth at panix.com Fri Sep 9 00:08:56 2011 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus Grieve-Smith) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 20:08:56 -0400 Subject: What is linguistics? What is it good for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 9/8/2011 12:04 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is > linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general > audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas how > to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about > answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. > In my intro classes, I have a slide titled "Who uses linguistics, anyway?" with the following list. * Linguists * Computer programmers * Speech therapists * Language teachers * Literary theorists * Editors * Lexicographers * Politicians I go through each group briefly and talk about how they use linguistics. I have a similar slide for phonetics, and I should probably make one for each of the other subfields. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From wilcox at unm.edu Fri Sep 9 01:24:40 2011 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 19:24:40 -0600 Subject: What is linguistics? What is it good for? In-Reply-To: <4E695918.5010004@panix.com> Message-ID: On Sep 8, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Angus Grieve-Smith wrote: > * Linguists > * Computer programmers > * Speech therapists > * Language teachers > * Literary theorists > * Editors > * Lexicographers > * Politicians Interpreters and translators. -- Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. Professor Department of Linguistics University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 From twood at uwc.ac.za Fri Sep 9 07:16:28 2011 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (Tahir Wood) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 09:16:28 +0200 Subject: What is linguistics? What is it good for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi I think there should be a purely humane concern underlying linguistics, in addition to the more pragmatic concerns that have been mentioned. The humanities, I think, pose such questions as: What do we have in common? Where do we differ? Why do we differ? It seems to me that the human awareness of self is an end in itself, and linguistics is and should be part of this vast enterprise (enterprise in the sense of adventure). It is not just about adding value in the marketplace. Tahir >>> "s.t. bischoff" 9/8/2011 6:04 pm >>> Hi all, I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas how to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. Thanks, Shannon -------------- next part -------------- All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/emaildisclaimer From Henrik.Rosenkvist at nordlund.lu.se Fri Sep 9 07:28:37 2011 From: Henrik.Rosenkvist at nordlund.lu.se (Henrik Rosenkvist) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 09:28:37 +0200 Subject: What is linguistics? What is it good for? In-Reply-To: <4E69D96C.1F1D.0069.1@uwc.ac.za> Message-ID: Hi! Linguistics is a human enterprise. Ants have workers, engineers and so forth, but you don't find artists, historians or linguists in an ant hill. We are the only species that feel a need to explore ourselves and that have the means to do so ? in my view, the capacities for introspection etc that we have at hand infer almost an obligation to boldly go where no other species can go. And linguistics is one way of doing just that. Henrik R. Tahir Wood skrev: > Hi > > I think there should be a purely humane concern underlying linguistics, in addition to the more pragmatic concerns that have been mentioned. The humanities, I think, pose such questions as: > What do we have in common? > Where do we differ? > Why do we differ? > > It seems to me that the human awareness of self is an end in itself, and linguistics is and should be part of this vast enterprise (enterprise in the sense of adventure). It is not just about adding value in the marketplace. > > Tahir > > > >>>> "s.t. bischoff" 9/8/2011 6:04 pm >>> >>>> > Hi all, > > I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is > linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general > audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas how > to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about > answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. > > Thanks, > Shannon > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/emaildisclaimer > > -- Henrik Rosenkvist docent, nordiska spr?k Spr?k- och litteraturcentrum Lunds universitet Box 201 221 00 Lund tel: 046-222 87 04 e-post: Henrik.Rosenkvist at nordlund.lu.se Henrik Rosenkvist Associate Professor, Scandinavian Languages Dept. of Languages and Literature Lund University P. O. Box 201, SE-221 00 Lund, SWEDEN Tel.: +46 46 222 87 04 E-mail: Henrik.Rosenkvist at nordlund.lu.se From language at sprynet.com Fri Sep 9 10:25:58 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 06:25:58 -0400 Subject: What is linguistics? What is it good for? Message-ID: I applaud all of your contributions so far and would only add that past theories of linguistics, were they still fashionable, could provide yet other evidence that our study is not only "good for something" but truly lies at the very center of our many cultures. The Semanticists certainly took this view when they visualized linguistics as a tool we surely need today, nothing less than an ongoing critique of all social, political, and intellectual dialogue, as a way citizens in many societies could distinguish rhetoric from reality. And the Whorf-Sapir descriptivists have also left us a useful tool that can help us to realize that seemingly distinct cultures and languages, though certainly not connected by any "universal grammar," can nonetheless be seen as ultimately comparable and equal in value to our own. At least this assessment, though allegedly discredited, still lurks on the margins of our study. I am particularly heartened by Professor Wilcox' contribution, that translators and interpreters also prove that linguistics is "good for something." I am prepared at the drop of a hat to go a great deal further and assert that they lie at the very heart of all language study, as I have done in my paper "Translation as the Prototype of All Communication," accessible at: http://languag2.home.sprynet.com/f/prototyp.htm#t11 It may well be in all the stages of our learning that every single new word or concept we encounter, even in our primary language, actually requires an act of explanation, enlightenment, clarification--in short translation--for us to understand it. Such an act may be provided by a teacher, a helpful friend, a dictionary or other reference book, or the closer reading of a text. But whatever form it takes, such an act of translation is most often absolutely crucial for us to grasp the meaning. And we ourselves--what we call our "knowledge" and our "understanding"--may be to a fair extent the sum total of these countless acts of translation. With very best to everyone! alex http://language.home.sprynet.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sherman Wilcox" To: "Angus Grieve-Smith" Cc: Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 9:24 PM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > On Sep 8, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Angus Grieve-Smith wrote: > >> * Linguists >> * Computer programmers >> * Speech therapists >> * Language teachers >> * Literary theorists >> * Editors >> * Lexicographers >> * Politicians > > > Interpreters and translators. > > -- > Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. > Professor > Department of Linguistics > University of New Mexico > Albuquerque, NM 87131 > > > From rchen at csusb.edu Fri Sep 9 15:18:39 2011 From: rchen at csusb.edu (Rong Chen) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 08:18:39 -0700 Subject: What is linguistics? What is it good for? In-Reply-To: <4E69D96C.1F1D.0069.1@uwc.ac.za> Message-ID: Hi all, Dovetailing Tahir's post: Linguistics is also a window into the human mind. Human beings have a natural urge to learn about things. Among the things we want to know (about)--which is practically everything--are things about ourselves. Among the things about ourselves is the way our mind works. One might even argue that the mind is the most important aspect about us. Many disciplines study the mind, approaching it from a multitude of perspectives. Linguistics is one of them. By studying language, it offers insights about how the mind works that no other disciplines is capable of offering. Sorry if this point has been made. Cheers, Rong Chen -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Tahir Wood Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 12:16 AM To: FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? Hi I think there should be a purely humane concern underlying linguistics, in addition to the more pragmatic concerns that have been mentioned. The humanities, I think, pose such questions as: What do we have in common? Where do we differ? Why do we differ? It seems to me that the human awareness of self is an end in itself, and linguistics is and should be part of this vast enterprise (enterprise in the sense of adventure). It is not just about adding value in the marketplace. Tahir >>> "s.t. bischoff" 9/8/2011 6:04 pm >>> Hi all, I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas how to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. Thanks, Shannon From danielrr2 at gmail.com Fri Sep 9 15:22:50 2011 From: danielrr2 at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Daniel_Ria=F1o?=) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 17:22:50 +0200 Subject: What is linguistics? What is it good for? In-Reply-To: <880607E0-FCF1-48AB-AFE7-2DAFCE3694C4@unm.edu> Message-ID: Cognitive scientists, even outside cognitive linguistics, Philologists, Ancient (and modern) historians, biologists and the folks who occasionally chance upon a new species & have to find a Greek or Latin name for it, ehhh, writers (and script-writers) trying to make up a new language, ah, no they hire a linguist instead 2011/9/9 Sherman Wilcox : > On Sep 8, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Angus Grieve-Smith wrote: > >> * Linguists >> * Computer programmers >> * Speech therapists >> * Language teachers >> * Literary theorists >> * Editors >> * Lexicographers >> * Politicians > > > Interpreters and translators. > > -- > Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. > Professor > Department of Linguistics > University of New Mexico > Albuquerque, NM 87131 > > > From chancock at albany.edu Fri Sep 9 15:52:12 2011 From: chancock at albany.edu (Hancock, Craig G) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:52:12 -0400 Subject: What is linguistics? What is it good for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: As somewhat of an affectionate outsider--with primary interest in composition and in literacy--let me add a slightly discordant tone. Linguistics is a discipline that often takes language apart for the purpose of understanding it and then has a hard time putting it back together again. Though it is full of useful insights, many of those are not available in user friendly form. It seems a contentious discipline that may be undergoing a paradigm shift. I don't disagree with anything anyone has said, but wanted to add an additional perspective. I have tried to be an advocate for increased attention to language in the K-16 curriculum and finding it a hard sell. Craig -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of alex gross Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 6:26 AM To: Sherman Wilcox; Angus Grieve-Smith Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? I applaud all of your contributions so far and would only add that past theories of linguistics, were they still fashionable, could provide yet other evidence that our study is not only "good for something" but truly lies at the very center of our many cultures. The Semanticists certainly took this view when they visualized linguistics as a tool we surely need today, nothing less than an ongoing critique of all social, political, and intellectual dialogue, as a way citizens in many societies could distinguish rhetoric from reality. And the Whorf-Sapir descriptivists have also left us a useful tool that can help us to realize that seemingly distinct cultures and languages, though certainly not connected by any "universal grammar," can nonetheless be seen as ultimately comparable and equal in value to our own. At least this assessment, though allegedly discredited, still lurks on the margins of our study. I am particularly heartened by Professor Wilcox' contribution, that translators and interpreters also prove that linguistics is "good for something." I am prepared at the drop of a hat to go a great deal further and assert that they lie at the very heart of all language study, as I have done in my paper "Translation as the Prototype of All Communication," accessible at: http://languag2.home.sprynet.com/f/prototyp.htm#t11 It may well be in all the stages of our learning that every single new word or concept we encounter, even in our primary language, actually requires an act of explanation, enlightenment, clarification--in short translation--for us to understand it. Such an act may be provided by a teacher, a helpful friend, a dictionary or other reference book, or the closer reading of a text. But whatever form it takes, such an act of translation is most often absolutely crucial for us to grasp the meaning. And we ourselves--what we call our "knowledge" and our "understanding"--may be to a fair extent the sum total of these countless acts of translation. With very best to everyone! alex http://language.home.sprynet.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sherman Wilcox" To: "Angus Grieve-Smith" Cc: Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 9:24 PM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > On Sep 8, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Angus Grieve-Smith wrote: > >> * Linguists >> * Computer programmers >> * Speech therapists >> * Language teachers >> * Literary theorists >> * Editors >> * Lexicographers >> * Politicians > > > Interpreters and translators. > > -- > Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. > Professor > Department of Linguistics > University of New Mexico > Albuquerque, NM 87131 > > > From cxr1086 at louisiana.edu Fri Sep 9 16:08:09 2011 From: cxr1086 at louisiana.edu (Clai Rice) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:08:09 -0500 Subject: What is linguistics? What is it good for? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I sometimes use a diagram by Neil Smith, from page 5 of Language, Bananas, and Bonobos. His introductory essay is titled "How to be the Centre of the Universe," and the diagram shows that the study of language pertains directly to nearly every discipline in the academy. The diagram, but not the whole essay, can be viewed on Amazon's Look Inside function. Clai Rice From cgenetti at linguistics.ucsb.edu Fri Sep 9 17:21:32 2011 From: cgenetti at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Carol Genetti) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 10:21:32 -0700 Subject: JOB: Discourse-based approaches to functional explanation for grammar Message-ID: APOLOGIES FOR CROSS-POSTING The Linguistics Department of the University of California, Santa Barbara seeks to hire a specialist in discourse-based approaches to functional explanation for grammar. The appointment will be tenure-track at the Assistant Professor level, effective July 1, 2012. Candidates' research should be based on a functionally oriented, empirically grounded approach to discourse and grammar, addressing the ways that language use shapes linguistic structure, and making significant theoretical contributions to the question of why languages are as they are. Candidates will be preferred whose research addresses the multidimensional nature of functional explanation, integrating insights from among the following areas: cross-linguistic and typological approaches to functional explanation for grammar; semantic and pragmatic motivations for grammar; historical change, evolution, and grammaticization; interactional functions and sociolinguistic variation of grammar; cognitive processing of grammar; use of innovative methodologies, such as current techniques for corpus-based quantitative and qualitative analysis; work with understudied language(s). We are especially interested in candidates who show the ability to link the theoretical implications of their research to other subdisciplines in linguistics and to related fields, and to interact with colleagues and students across disciplinary boundaries at UCSB. Candidates must have demonstrated excellence in teaching, and will be expected to teach a range of graduate and undergraduate courses in both functional grammar and general linguistics. Ph.D. in linguistics or a related field is required. Ph.D. normally required by the time of appointment. To ensure full consideration, all application materials, including letters of reference, should be received by November 1, 2011. The position will remain open until filled. Applicants should submit the following to search at linguistics.ucsb.edu in a standard electronic format (preferably pdf or rtf): letter of application, statement of research interests, curriculum vitae, and 2 writing samples. Applicants should request 3 academic letters of reference to be sent directly to search at linguistics.ucsb.edu by the November 1 deadline. Applicants should also complete the supplemental online data form at http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/search/coversheet.html. Fax and mail applications not accepted. Inquiries may be addressed to the Search Committee at search at linguistics.ucsb.edu. Interviews will be conducted either via Skype video conference call or in person at the Linguistic Society of America annual meeting (January 5-8, 2012); either interview format will be considered equivalent for consideration. Our department has a genuine commitment to diversity, and is especially interested in candidates who can contribute to the diversity and excellence of the academic community through research, teaching and service. UCSB is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer. From mcarrete at filol.ucm.es Fri Sep 9 17:39:39 2011 From: mcarrete at filol.ucm.es (MARTA BEGONA CARRETERO LAPEYRE) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 19:39:39 +0200 Subject: What is linguistics? What is it good for? Message-ID: Apart from the many benefits mentioned in previous contributions, I would say that linguistics helps us linguists in our everyday life, and, what makes me happy, many of my students have told me so (I lecture on pragmatics and functional linguistics). We have to use language every day for lots of different tasks, and our consciousness of how language works can result in a better use of language, with the consequence that we can do these tasks better. For instance, consciousness about presupposition and implicature can help us read the press or other texts between the lines so that we have tools for not being so easily manipulable. Linguistic knowledge about politeness can give ideas about how to be friendly with others or how to tackle difficult situations at work, at home or in other places. Knowledge of text linguistics permits us to know how well written a text is and also to make amendments if necessary. These are only a few examples... now that I think of it, I even owe linguistics a little improvement of my skill at telling jokes (from awful to less awful). Marta ----- Mensaje original ----- De: Clai Rice Fecha: Viernes, Septiembre 9, 2011 18:08 Asunto: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? A: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > I sometimes use a diagram by Neil Smith, from page 5 of > Language, Bananas, > and Bonobos. His introductory essay is titled "How to be the > Centre of the > Universe," and the diagram shows that the study of language pertains > directly to nearly every discipline in the academy. The diagram, > but not > the whole essay, can be viewed on Amazon's Look Inside function. > > Clai Rice > Marta Carretero Associate Professor Departamento de Filolog?a Inglesa I Facultad de Filolog?a Universidad Complutense de Madrid E-28040-Madrid Spain http://www.ucm.es/info/fing1/profesores/carretero.html From r.lapolla at latrobe.edu.au Sat Sep 10 00:59:02 2011 From: r.lapolla at latrobe.edu.au (Randy LaPolla) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:59:02 +1000 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 96, Issue 4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Linguistics has been seen as limited in its usefulness because of the idea that linguistics is simply about language, and also the idea that language is a "thing" divorced from other things related to human behaviour (using phrases such as "right-edge phenomena" in talking about word or phrase-final phenomena, i.e. thinking about language simply as phonetic symbols on paper, shows how far some parts of linguistics have moved from actual language use). As Grice hinted at in his 1957 article "Meaning" and I have tried to develop more fully (LaPolla 2003, 2010), language is not a "thing", but a form of behaviour, and the same cognitive abilities and tendencies and many of the same principles that underly communicative behaviour (which is also not limited to language use) underly other aspects of human behaviour, so understanding communicative behaviour (which I think is what linguistics should be about) helps us to understand other aspects of human behaviour. When I teach this view in my classes, students can see clearly the relevance of linguistics to everyday life; as one student put it in a recent evaluation, "linguistics is everywhere!". Grice, H. Paul. 1957. Meaning. The Philosophical Review 66.3: 377-388. LaPolla, Randy J. 2003. Why languages differ: Variation in the conventionalization of constraints on inference. In David Bradley, Randy J. LaPolla, Boyd Michailovsky & Graham Thurgood (eds.), Language variation: Papers on variation and change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in honour of James A. Matisoff, 113-144. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. LaPolla, Randy J. 2010. On the logical necessity of a cultural connection for all aspects of linguistic structure. 10th RCLT International Workshop, ?The Shaping of Language?, La Trobe University, 14, July 2010. Downloadable podcast and handout: http://itunes.apple.com/au/itunes-u/the-shaping-of-language/id391930814 Randy --- Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA Professor (Chair) of Linguistics La Trobe University VIC 3086 AUSTRALIA Personal site: http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/ RCLT: http://www.latrobe.edu.au/rclt/ The Tibeto-Burman Domain: http://tibeto-burman.net/ Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area: http://stedt.berkeley.edu/ltba/ On 10/09/2011, at 3:00 AM, 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: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Johanna Rubba) > 2. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? > (john at research.haifa.ac.il) > 3. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Angus Grieve-Smith) > 4. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Sherman Wilcox) > 5. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Tahir Wood) > 6. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Henrik Rosenkvist) > 7. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (alex gross) > 8. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Rong Chen) > 9. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Daniel Ria?o) > 10. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Hancock, Craig G) > 11. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Clai Rice) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:35:11 -0700 > From: Johanna Rubba > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: s.t. bischoff > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <817F8183-6B1F-4187-BEBC-02F508F66046 at calpoly.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed > > My take: > > Linguists strive to understand the thing that enables all of human > culture: language. Without language, we could not work together. We > could not plan. We could not refer to the past, the future, the > hypothetical, or the abstract. We could not describe in detail our > individual thoughts, emotions, needs, beliefs, or desires. In other > words, we would live like other primates. > > So one thing linguistics is good for is a detailed understanding of > how this amazing system works. And that is good for advancing the > understanding of human nature. > > Linguistics is good for collecting the data (descriptions of as many > of the world's languages as possible) we use to develop that > understanding. > > Linguistics is also good for a large number of practical > applications: assessing children's language development; teaching > native and non-native languages; correcting popular myths about > language that cause social harm or ill-conceived policies and > practices; working with computer science to develop software that can > use language as humans do; detecting ideological and social > assumptions as revealed through language; developing literacy and > language-preservation programs for non-literate cultures and > threatened cultures; aiding in the detection, diagnosis, and > treatment of congenital or acquired language disorders; working with > developers of computer-mediated translation; helping solve crimes > through forensic linguistics, etc., etc. > > Don't know if anyone would want to hear a long list, but, since a lot > of people don't know what linguistics is or what it's good for, it > could be informative. > > Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. "Justice is what love looks like > Professor, Linguistics in public." Cornel West > Linguistics Minor Advisor > English Dept. > Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo > San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 > Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 > Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 > Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 > E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu > URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 21:08:43 +0300 > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: "s.t. bischoff" > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <1315505323.4e6904ab7304a at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 > > Next month I'm going to be making a trip to South Sudan (independent in July) to > give a series of lectures on language policy, orthography development, and > language standardization. Africa is an absolute mess in terms of literacy > because of ill-advised language policies and inadequate language development. > It seems to me that this is something that linguistics is definitely good for. > John > > > > Quoting "s.t. bischoff" : > >> Hi all, >> >> I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is >> linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general >> audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas how >> to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about >> answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. >> >> Thanks, >> Shannon >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 20:08:56 -0400 > From: Angus Grieve-Smith > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4E695918.5010004 at panix.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > On 9/8/2011 12:04 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is >> linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general >> audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas how >> to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about >> answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. >> > > In my intro classes, I have a slide titled "Who uses linguistics, > anyway?" with the following list. > > * Linguists > * Computer programmers > * Speech therapists > * Language teachers > * Literary theorists > * Editors > * Lexicographers > * Politicians > > I go through each group briefly and talk about how they use > linguistics. I have a similar slide for phonetics, and I should > probably make one for each of the other subfields. > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > grvsmth at panix.com > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 19:24:40 -0600 > From: Sherman Wilcox > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: Angus Grieve-Smith > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <880607E0-FCF1-48AB-AFE7-2DAFCE3694C4 at unm.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Sep 8, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Angus Grieve-Smith wrote: > >> * Linguists >> * Computer programmers >> * Speech therapists >> * Language teachers >> * Literary theorists >> * Editors >> * Lexicographers >> * Politicians > > > Interpreters and translators. > > -- > Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. > Professor > Department of Linguistics > University of New Mexico > Albuquerque, NM 87131 > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:16:28 +0200 > From: "Tahir Wood" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: > Message-ID: <4E69D96C.1F1D.0069.1 at uwc.ac.za> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi > > I think there should be a purely humane concern underlying linguistics, in addition to the more pragmatic concerns that have been mentioned. The humanities, I think, pose such questions as: > What do we have in common? > Where do we differ? > Why do we differ? > > It seems to me that the human awareness of self is an end in itself, and linguistics is and should be part of this vast enterprise (enterprise in the sense of adventure). It is not just about adding value in the marketplace. > > Tahir > > >>>> "s.t. bischoff" 9/8/2011 6:04 pm >>> > Hi all, > > I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is > linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general > audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas how > to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about > answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. > > Thanks, > Shannon > > -------------- next part -------------- > All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/emaildisclaimer > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:28:37 +0200 > From: Henrik Rosenkvist > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4E69C025.3060707 at nordlund.lu.se> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > Hi! > > Linguistics is a human enterprise. Ants have workers, engineers and so > forth, but you don't find artists, historians or linguists in an ant > hill. We are the only species that feel a need to explore ourselves and > that have the means to do so ? in my view, the capacities for > introspection etc that we have at hand infer almost an obligation to > boldly go where no other species can go. And linguistics is one way of > doing just that. > > Henrik R. > > Tahir Wood skrev: >> Hi >> >> I think there should be a purely humane concern underlying linguistics, in addition to the more pragmatic concerns that have been mentioned. The humanities, I think, pose such questions as: >> What do we have in common? >> Where do we differ? >> Why do we differ? >> >> It seems to me that the human awareness of self is an end in itself, and linguistics is and should be part of this vast enterprise (enterprise in the sense of adventure). It is not just about adding value in the marketplace. >> >> Tahir >> >> >> >>>>> "s.t. bischoff" 9/8/2011 6:04 pm >>> >>>>> >> Hi all, >> >> I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is >> linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general >> audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas how >> to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about >> answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. >> >> Thanks, >> Shannon >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/emaildisclaimer >> >> > > > -- > Henrik Rosenkvist > docent, nordiska spr?k > Spr?k- och litteraturcentrum > Lunds universitet > Box 201 > 221 00 Lund > tel: 046-222 87 04 > e-post: Henrik.Rosenkvist at nordlund.lu.se > > Henrik Rosenkvist > Associate Professor, Scandinavian Languages > Dept. of Languages and Literature > Lund University > P. O. Box 201, SE-221 00 Lund, SWEDEN > Tel.: +46 46 222 87 04 > E-mail: Henrik.Rosenkvist at nordlund.lu.se > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 06:25:58 -0400 > From: "alex gross" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: "Sherman Wilcox" , "Angus Grieve-Smith" > > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > I applaud all of your contributions so far and would only add that past > theories of linguistics, were they still fashionable, could provide yet > other evidence that our study is not only "good for something" but truly > lies at the very center of our many cultures. > > The Semanticists certainly took this view when they visualized linguistics > as a tool we surely need today, nothing less than an ongoing critique of all > social, political, and intellectual dialogue, as a way citizens in many > societies could distinguish rhetoric from reality. > > And the Whorf-Sapir descriptivists have also left us a useful tool that can > help us to realize that seemingly distinct cultures and languages, though > certainly not connected by any "universal grammar," can nonetheless be seen > as ultimately comparable and equal in value to our own. At least this > assessment, though allegedly discredited, still lurks on the margins of our > study. > > I am particularly heartened by Professor Wilcox' contribution, that > translators and interpreters also prove that linguistics is "good for > something." I am prepared at the drop of a hat to go a great deal further > and assert that they lie at the very heart of all language study, as I have > done in my paper "Translation as the Prototype of All Communication," > accessible at: > > http://languag2.home.sprynet.com/f/prototyp.htm#t11 > > It may well be in all the stages of our learning that every single new word > or concept we encounter, even in our primary language, actually requires an > act of explanation, enlightenment, clarification--in short translation--for > us to understand it. Such an act may be provided by a teacher, a helpful > friend, a dictionary or other reference book, or the closer reading of a > text. But whatever form it takes, such an act of translation is most often > absolutely crucial for us to grasp the meaning. And we ourselves--what we > call our "knowledge" and our "understanding"--may be to a fair extent the > sum total of these countless acts of translation. > > With very best to everyone! > > alex > > http://language.home.sprynet.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sherman Wilcox" > To: "Angus Grieve-Smith" > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 9:24 PM > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > > >> On Sep 8, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Angus Grieve-Smith wrote: >> >>> * Linguists >>> * Computer programmers >>> * Speech therapists >>> * Language teachers >>> * Literary theorists >>> * Editors >>> * Lexicographers >>> * Politicians >> >> >> Interpreters and translators. >> >> -- >> Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. >> Professor >> Department of Linguistics >> University of New Mexico >> Albuquerque, NM 87131 >> >> >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 08:18:39 -0700 > From: Rong Chen > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu > Message-ID: <006c01cc6f03$c0a29fd0$41e7df70$@edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Hi all, > > Dovetailing Tahir's post: Linguistics is also a window into the human mind. > > Human beings have a natural urge to learn about things. Among the things we > want to know (about)--which is practically everything--are things about > ourselves. Among the things about ourselves is the way our mind works. One > might even argue that the mind is the most important aspect about us. > > Many disciplines study the mind, approaching it from a multitude of > perspectives. Linguistics is one of them. By studying language, it offers > insights about how the mind works that no other disciplines is capable of > offering. > > Sorry if this point has been made. > > Cheers, > > Rong Chen > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Tahir Wood > Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 12:16 AM > To: FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > > Hi > > I think there should be a purely humane concern underlying linguistics, in > addition to the more pragmatic concerns that have been mentioned. The > humanities, I think, pose such questions as: > What do we have in common? > Where do we differ? > Why do we differ? > > It seems to me that the human awareness of self is an end in itself, and > linguistics is and should be part of this vast enterprise (enterprise in the > sense of adventure). It is not just about adding value in the marketplace. > > Tahir > > >>>> "s.t. bischoff" 9/8/2011 6:04 pm >>> > Hi all, > > I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is > linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general > audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas how > to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about > answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. > > Thanks, > Shannon > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 17:22:50 +0200 > From: Daniel Ria?o > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: Sherman Wilcox > Cc: Angus Grieve-Smith , funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Cognitive scientists, even outside cognitive linguistics, > Philologists, Ancient (and modern) historians, biologists and the > folks who occasionally chance upon a new species & have to find a > Greek or Latin name for it, ehhh, writers (and script-writers) trying > to make up a new language, ah, no they hire a linguist instead > > > 2011/9/9 Sherman Wilcox : >> On Sep 8, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Angus Grieve-Smith wrote: >> >>> * Linguists >>> * Computer programmers >>> * Speech therapists >>> * Language teachers >>> * Literary theorists >>> * Editors >>> * Lexicographers >>> * Politicians >> >> >> Interpreters and translators. >> >> -- >> Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. >> Professor >> Department of Linguistics >> University of New Mexico >> Albuquerque, NM 87131 >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:52:12 -0400 > From: "Hancock, Craig G" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: alex gross , Sherman Wilcox > , Angus Grieve-Smith > Cc: "funknet at mailman.rice.edu" > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > As somewhat of an affectionate outsider--with primary interest in composition and in literacy--let me add a slightly discordant tone. > Linguistics is a discipline that often takes language apart for the purpose of understanding it and then has a hard time putting it back together again. Though it is full of useful insights, many of those are not available in user friendly form. It seems a contentious discipline that may be undergoing a paradigm shift. > I don't disagree with anything anyone has said, but wanted to add an additional perspective. I have tried to be an advocate for increased attention to language in the K-16 curriculum and finding it a hard sell. > > Craig > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of alex gross > Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 6:26 AM > To: Sherman Wilcox; Angus Grieve-Smith > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > > I applaud all of your contributions so far and would only add that past theories of linguistics, were they still fashionable, could provide yet other evidence that our study is not only "good for something" but truly lies at the very center of our many cultures. > > The Semanticists certainly took this view when they visualized linguistics as a tool we surely need today, nothing less than an ongoing critique of all social, political, and intellectual dialogue, as a way citizens in many societies could distinguish rhetoric from reality. > > And the Whorf-Sapir descriptivists have also left us a useful tool that can help us to realize that seemingly distinct cultures and languages, though certainly not connected by any "universal grammar," can nonetheless be seen as ultimately comparable and equal in value to our own. At least this assessment, though allegedly discredited, still lurks on the margins of our study. > > I am particularly heartened by Professor Wilcox' contribution, that translators and interpreters also prove that linguistics is "good for something." I am prepared at the drop of a hat to go a great deal further and assert that they lie at the very heart of all language study, as I have done in my paper "Translation as the Prototype of All Communication," > accessible at: > > http://languag2.home.sprynet.com/f/prototyp.htm#t11 > > It may well be in all the stages of our learning that every single new word or concept we encounter, even in our primary language, actually requires an act of explanation, enlightenment, clarification--in short translation--for us to understand it. Such an act may be provided by a teacher, a helpful friend, a dictionary or other reference book, or the closer reading of a text. But whatever form it takes, such an act of translation is most often absolutely crucial for us to grasp the meaning. And we ourselves--what we call our "knowledge" and our "understanding"--may be to a fair extent the sum total of these countless acts of translation. > > With very best to everyone! > > alex > > http://language.home.sprynet.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sherman Wilcox" > To: "Angus Grieve-Smith" > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 9:24 PM > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > > >> On Sep 8, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Angus Grieve-Smith wrote: >> >>> * Linguists >>> * Computer programmers >>> * Speech therapists >>> * Language teachers >>> * Literary theorists >>> * Editors >>> * Lexicographers >>> * Politicians >> >> >> Interpreters and translators. >> >> -- >> Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. >> Professor >> Department of Linguistics >> University of New Mexico >> Albuquerque, NM 87131 >> >> >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:08:09 -0500 (CDT) > From: "Clai Rice" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: > Message-ID: <6294DCA5A7C74748AA18AB861E08257A at win.louisiana.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > I sometimes use a diagram by Neil Smith, from page 5 of Language, Bananas, > and Bonobos. His introductory essay is titled "How to be the Centre of the > Universe," and the diagram shows that the study of language pertains > directly to nearly every discipline in the academy. The diagram, but not > the whole essay, can be viewed on Amazon's Look Inside function. > > Clai Rice > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 96, Issue 4 > ************************************** From bischoff.st at gmail.com Sat Sep 10 14:16:58 2011 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:16:58 -0400 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 96, Issue 4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks all, these are all quite nice suggestions and will certainly help in the development of the talk! Cheers, Shannon On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 1:00 PM, 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: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Johanna Rubba) > 2. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? > (john at research.haifa.ac.il) > 3. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Angus Grieve-Smith) > 4. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Sherman Wilcox) > 5. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Tahir Wood) > 6. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Henrik Rosenkvist) > 7. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (alex gross) > 8. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Rong Chen) > 9. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Daniel Ria?o) > 10. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Hancock, Craig G) > 11. Re: What is linguistics? What is it good for? (Clai Rice) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:35:11 -0700 > From: Johanna Rubba > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: s.t. bischoff > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <817F8183-6B1F-4187-BEBC-02F508F66046 at calpoly.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed > > My take: > > Linguists strive to understand the thing that enables all of human > culture: language. Without language, we could not work together. We > could not plan. We could not refer to the past, the future, the > hypothetical, or the abstract. We could not describe in detail our > individual thoughts, emotions, needs, beliefs, or desires. In other > words, we would live like other primates. > > So one thing linguistics is good for is a detailed understanding of > how this amazing system works. And that is good for advancing the > understanding of human nature. > > Linguistics is good for collecting the data (descriptions of as many > of the world's languages as possible) we use to develop that > understanding. > > Linguistics is also good for a large number of practical > applications: assessing children's language development; teaching > native and non-native languages; correcting popular myths about > language that cause social harm or ill-conceived policies and > practices; working with computer science to develop software that can > use language as humans do; detecting ideological and social > assumptions as revealed through language; developing literacy and > language-preservation programs for non-literate cultures and > threatened cultures; aiding in the detection, diagnosis, and > treatment of congenital or acquired language disorders; working with > developers of computer-mediated translation; helping solve crimes > through forensic linguistics, etc., etc. > > Don't know if anyone would want to hear a long list, but, since a lot > of people don't know what linguistics is or what it's good for, it > could be informative. > > Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. "Justice is > what love looks like > Professor, Linguistics in > public." Cornel West > Linguistics Minor Advisor > English Dept. > Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo > San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 > Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 > Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 > Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 > E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu > URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 21:08:43 +0300 > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: "s.t. bischoff" > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <1315505323.4e6904ab7304a at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 > > Next month I'm going to be making a trip to South Sudan (independent in > July) to > give a series of lectures on language policy, orthography development, and > language standardization. Africa is an absolute mess in terms of literacy > because of ill-advised language policies and inadequate language > development. > It seems to me that this is something that linguistics is definitely good > for. > John > > > > Quoting "s.t. bischoff" : > > > Hi all, > > > > I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is > > linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general > > audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas > how > > to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about > > answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. > > > > Thanks, > > Shannon > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 20:08:56 -0400 > From: Angus Grieve-Smith > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4E695918.5010004 at panix.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > On 9/8/2011 12:04 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is > > linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general > > audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas > how > > to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about > > answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. > > > > In my intro classes, I have a slide titled "Who uses linguistics, > anyway?" with the following list. > > * Linguists > * Computer programmers > * Speech therapists > * Language teachers > * Literary theorists > * Editors > * Lexicographers > * Politicians > > I go through each group briefly and talk about how they use > linguistics. I have a similar slide for phonetics, and I should > probably make one for each of the other subfields. > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > grvsmth at panix.com > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 19:24:40 -0600 > From: Sherman Wilcox > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: Angus Grieve-Smith > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <880607E0-FCF1-48AB-AFE7-2DAFCE3694C4 at unm.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Sep 8, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Angus Grieve-Smith wrote: > > > * Linguists > > * Computer programmers > > * Speech therapists > > * Language teachers > > * Literary theorists > > * Editors > > * Lexicographers > > * Politicians > > > Interpreters and translators. > > -- > Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. > Professor > Department of Linguistics > University of New Mexico > Albuquerque, NM 87131 > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:16:28 +0200 > From: "Tahir Wood" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: > Message-ID: <4E69D96C.1F1D.0069.1 at uwc.ac.za> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi > > I think there should be a purely humane concern underlying linguistics, in > addition to the more pragmatic concerns that have been mentioned. The > humanities, I think, pose such questions as: > What do we have in common? > Where do we differ? > Why do we differ? > > It seems to me that the human awareness of self is an end in itself, and > linguistics is and should be part of this vast enterprise (enterprise in the > sense of adventure). It is not just about adding value in the marketplace. > > Tahir > > > >>> "s.t. bischoff" 9/8/2011 6:04 pm >>> > Hi all, > > I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is > linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general > audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas > how > to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about > answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. > > Thanks, > Shannon > > -------------- next part -------------- > All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer > http://www.uwc.ac.za/emaildisclaimer > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:28:37 +0200 > From: Henrik Rosenkvist > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4E69C025.3060707 at nordlund.lu.se> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > Hi! > > Linguistics is a human enterprise. Ants have workers, engineers and so > forth, but you don't find artists, historians or linguists in an ant > hill. We are the only species that feel a need to explore ourselves and > that have the means to do so ? in my view, the capacities for > introspection etc that we have at hand infer almost an obligation to > boldly go where no other species can go. And linguistics is one way of > doing just that. > > Henrik R. > > Tahir Wood skrev: > > Hi > > > > I think there should be a purely humane concern underlying linguistics, > in addition to the more pragmatic concerns that have been mentioned. The > humanities, I think, pose such questions as: > > What do we have in common? > > Where do we differ? > > Why do we differ? > > > > It seems to me that the human awareness of self is an end in itself, and > linguistics is and should be part of this vast enterprise (enterprise in the > sense of adventure). It is not just about adding value in the marketplace. > > > > Tahir > > > > > > > >>>> "s.t. bischoff" 9/8/2011 6:04 pm >>> > >>>> > > Hi all, > > > > I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is > > linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general > > audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas > how > > to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about > > answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. > > > > Thanks, > > Shannon > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer > http://www.uwc.ac.za/emaildisclaimer > > > > > > > -- > Henrik Rosenkvist > docent, nordiska spr?k > Spr?k- och litteraturcentrum > Lunds universitet > Box 201 > 221 00 Lund > tel: 046-222 87 04 > e-post: Henrik.Rosenkvist at nordlund.lu.se > > Henrik Rosenkvist > Associate Professor, Scandinavian Languages > Dept. of Languages and Literature > Lund University > P. O. Box 201, SE-221 00 Lund, SWEDEN > Tel.: +46 46 222 87 04 > E-mail: Henrik.Rosenkvist at nordlund.lu.se > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 06:25:58 -0400 > From: "alex gross" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: "Sherman Wilcox" , "Angus Grieve-Smith" > > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > I applaud all of your contributions so far and would only add that past > theories of linguistics, were they still fashionable, could provide yet > other evidence that our study is not only "good for something" but truly > lies at the very center of our many cultures. > > The Semanticists certainly took this view when they visualized linguistics > as a tool we surely need today, nothing less than an ongoing critique of > all > social, political, and intellectual dialogue, as a way citizens in many > societies could distinguish rhetoric from reality. > > And the Whorf-Sapir descriptivists have also left us a useful tool that can > help us to realize that seemingly distinct cultures and languages, though > certainly not connected by any "universal grammar," can nonetheless be seen > as ultimately comparable and equal in value to our own. At least this > assessment, though allegedly discredited, still lurks on the margins of our > study. > > I am particularly heartened by Professor Wilcox' contribution, that > translators and interpreters also prove that linguistics is "good for > something." I am prepared at the drop of a hat to go a great deal further > and assert that they lie at the very heart of all language study, as I have > done in my paper "Translation as the Prototype of All Communication," > accessible at: > > http://languag2.home.sprynet.com/f/prototyp.htm#t11 > > It may well be in all the stages of our learning that every single new word > or concept we encounter, even in our primary language, actually requires an > act of explanation, enlightenment, clarification--in short > translation--for > us to understand it. Such an act may be provided by a teacher, a helpful > friend, a dictionary or other reference book, or the closer reading of a > text. But whatever form it takes, such an act of translation is most often > absolutely crucial for us to grasp the meaning. And we ourselves--what we > call our "knowledge" and our "understanding"--may be to a fair extent the > sum total of these countless acts of translation. > > With very best to everyone! > > alex > > http://language.home.sprynet.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sherman Wilcox" > To: "Angus Grieve-Smith" > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 9:24 PM > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > > > > On Sep 8, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Angus Grieve-Smith wrote: > > > >> * Linguists > >> * Computer programmers > >> * Speech therapists > >> * Language teachers > >> * Literary theorists > >> * Editors > >> * Lexicographers > >> * Politicians > > > > > > Interpreters and translators. > > > > -- > > Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. > > Professor > > Department of Linguistics > > University of New Mexico > > Albuquerque, NM 87131 > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 08:18:39 -0700 > From: Rong Chen > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu > Message-ID: <006c01cc6f03$c0a29fd0$41e7df70$@edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Hi all, > > Dovetailing Tahir's post: Linguistics is also a window into the human mind. > > Human beings have a natural urge to learn about things. Among the things we > want to know (about)--which is practically everything--are things about > ourselves. Among the things about ourselves is the way our mind works. One > might even argue that the mind is the most important aspect about us. > > Many disciplines study the mind, approaching it from a multitude of > perspectives. Linguistics is one of them. By studying language, it offers > insights about how the mind works that no other disciplines is capable of > offering. > > Sorry if this point has been made. > > Cheers, > > Rong Chen > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Tahir Wood > Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 12:16 AM > To: FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > > Hi > > I think there should be a purely humane concern underlying linguistics, in > addition to the more pragmatic concerns that have been mentioned. The > humanities, I think, pose such questions as: > What do we have in common? > Where do we differ? > Why do we differ? > > It seems to me that the human awareness of self is an end in itself, and > linguistics is and should be part of this vast enterprise (enterprise in > the > sense of adventure). It is not just about adding value in the marketplace. > > Tahir > > > >>> "s.t. bischoff" 9/8/2011 6:04 pm >>> > Hi all, > > I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is > linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general > audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas > how > to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about > answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. > > Thanks, > Shannon > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 17:22:50 +0200 > From: Daniel Ria?o > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: Sherman Wilcox > Cc: Angus Grieve-Smith , funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Cognitive scientists, even outside cognitive linguistics, > Philologists, Ancient (and modern) historians, biologists and the > folks who occasionally chance upon a new species & have to find a > Greek or Latin name for it, ehhh, writers (and script-writers) trying > to make up a new language, ah, no they hire a linguist instead > > > 2011/9/9 Sherman Wilcox : > > On Sep 8, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Angus Grieve-Smith wrote: > > > >> * Linguists > >> * Computer programmers > >> * Speech therapists > >> * Language teachers > >> * Literary theorists > >> * Editors > >> * Lexicographers > >> * Politicians > > > > > > Interpreters and translators. > > > > -- > > Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. > > Professor > > Department of Linguistics > > University of New Mexico > > Albuquerque, NM 87131 > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:52:12 -0400 > From: "Hancock, Craig G" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: alex gross , Sherman Wilcox > , Angus Grieve-Smith > Cc: "funknet at mailman.rice.edu" > Message-ID: > < > F40FC1AE6A9A4040ADA52FC8864BB10E220ED18429 at UAEXCH07.univ.albany.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > As somewhat of an affectionate outsider--with primary interest in > composition and in literacy--let me add a slightly discordant tone. > Linguistics is a discipline that often takes language apart for the > purpose of understanding it and then has a hard time putting it back > together again. Though it is full of useful insights, many of those are not > available in user friendly form. It seems a contentious discipline that may > be undergoing a paradigm shift. > I don't disagree with anything anyone has said, but wanted to add an > additional perspective. I have tried to be an advocate for increased > attention to language in the K-16 curriculum and finding it a hard sell. > > Craig > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto: > funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of alex gross > Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 6:26 AM > To: Sherman Wilcox; Angus Grieve-Smith > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > > I applaud all of your contributions so far and would only add that past > theories of linguistics, were they still fashionable, could provide yet > other evidence that our study is not only "good for something" but truly > lies at the very center of our many cultures. > > The Semanticists certainly took this view when they visualized linguistics > as a tool we surely need today, nothing less than an ongoing critique of all > social, political, and intellectual dialogue, as a way citizens in many > societies could distinguish rhetoric from reality. > > And the Whorf-Sapir descriptivists have also left us a useful tool that can > help us to realize that seemingly distinct cultures and languages, though > certainly not connected by any "universal grammar," can nonetheless be seen > as ultimately comparable and equal in value to our own. At least this > assessment, though allegedly discredited, still lurks on the margins of our > study. > > I am particularly heartened by Professor Wilcox' contribution, that > translators and interpreters also prove that linguistics is "good for > something." I am prepared at the drop of a hat to go a great deal further > and assert that they lie at the very heart of all language study, as I have > done in my paper "Translation as the Prototype of All Communication," > accessible at: > > http://languag2.home.sprynet.com/f/prototyp.htm#t11 > > It may well be in all the stages of our learning that every single new word > or concept we encounter, even in our primary language, actually requires an > act of explanation, enlightenment, clarification--in short translation--for > us to understand it. Such an act may be provided by a teacher, a helpful > friend, a dictionary or other reference book, or the closer reading of a > text. But whatever form it takes, such an act of translation is most often > absolutely crucial for us to grasp the meaning. And we ourselves--what we > call our "knowledge" and our "understanding"--may be to a fair extent the > sum total of these countless acts of translation. > > With very best to everyone! > > alex > > http://language.home.sprynet.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sherman Wilcox" > To: "Angus Grieve-Smith" > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 9:24 PM > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > > > > On Sep 8, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Angus Grieve-Smith wrote: > > > >> * Linguists > >> * Computer programmers > >> * Speech therapists > >> * Language teachers > >> * Literary theorists > >> * Editors > >> * Lexicographers > >> * Politicians > > > > > > Interpreters and translators. > > > > -- > > Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. > > Professor > > Department of Linguistics > > University of New Mexico > > Albuquerque, NM 87131 > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:08:09 -0500 (CDT) > From: "Clai Rice" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > To: > Message-ID: <6294DCA5A7C74748AA18AB861E08257A at win.louisiana.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > I sometimes use a diagram by Neil Smith, from page 5 of Language, Bananas, > and Bonobos. His introductory essay is titled "How to be the Centre of the > Universe," and the diagram shows that the study of language pertains > directly to nearly every discipline in the academy. The diagram, but not > the whole essay, can be viewed on Amazon's Look Inside function. > > Clai Rice > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 96, Issue 4 > ************************************** > From FontaineL at cardiff.ac.uk Tue Sep 13 10:29:09 2011 From: FontaineL at cardiff.ac.uk (Lise Fontaine) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:29:09 +0100 Subject: 2nd LinC Summer school in Systemic Functional Linguistics Message-ID: The research network for Linguistics in Cardiff is pleased to announce the 2nd LinC Summer school in Systemic Functional Linguistics Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales September 3 ? 5, 2012 Systemic Functional Linguistics and the classroom The goal of the summer school is to offer research and training in both understanding the Systemic Functional Linguistic theory of language and applying it to educational settings. The summer school will run two parallel courses: introduction and applied. The introduction to SFL course is ideal for people with little or no experience of SFL or those who want a refresher course. The applied course assumes a good foundation in SFL and is suited for people interested in applying SFL to educational settings. Both are suitable for professionals, students, and researchers who have an interest in learning more about Systemic Functional Linguistics and its applications. Provisional programme to include: Functional grammar; Phonology and intonation; Text analysis; UAM CorpusTool; Teaching writing through SFL; Use of corpora in teaching; Classroom discourse; SFL in language learning. Instructors: Sheena Gardner, Geoff Thompson, Mick O?Donnell, Tom Bartlett, Gerard O?Grady and Lise Fontaine. Call for Poster Presentations Participants at the summer school are encouraged to submit an abstract for a Poster Presentation. Accepted proposals will be presented at a poster session during the summer school. Deadline for proposal submissions is May 1st, 2012. Send abstracts of 500 words to linc-network at cf.ac.uk. Registration: Places are limited. Registration fee is ?120 for the full three days. For more information, please see: http://www.cf.ac.uk/encap/linc From language at sprynet.com Thu Sep 15 06:34:58 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 02:34:58 -0400 Subject: What is linguistics? What is it good for? Message-ID: Since translation has recently been mentioned under our topic, this review in The Economist of a new book by David Bellos may be of interest: http://www.economist.com/node/21528575/ I've been pretty well behaved over the past few months, so I wonder if I can get away with rephrasing Prof. Bischoff's questions somewhat: How about "mainstream" generative linguistics? What is it good for? All the best to everyone! alex http://language.home.sprynet.com All the best to everyone! alex ----- Original Message ----- From: "s.t. bischoff" To: Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 12:04 PM Subject: [FUNKNET] What is linguistics? What is it good for? > Hi all, > > I've been asked by my Dean to give a talk which he has titled "What is > linguistics? What is it good for?". This talk will be given to a general > audience of faculty, students, and administrators. I have several ideas > how > to approach this, but I wanted to ask folks how they might go about > answering the two questions in the title in such a situation. > > Thanks, > Shannon > From boye at hum.ku.dk Fri Sep 16 13:51:37 2011 From: boye at hum.ku.dk (Kasper Boye) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:51:37 +0200 Subject: Workshop on complementizers in European languages Message-ID: We apologize for cross-posting --- Workshop on Semantic Functions of Complementizers in European Languages Friday 28 October ? Saturday 29 October, 2011 LANCHART, University of Copenhagen, Denmark Workshop URL http://dgcss.hum.ku.dk/arrangementer/semantic_functions_of_complementizers_in_european_languages/ Brief description The workshop brings together researchers representing major language families in Europe to describe semantic complementizer functions as well as those phenomena on which semantic complementizer functions may be assumed to have a direct descriptive or explanatory impact: complementizer systems, diachrony of complementizers, complementizer omission, and complementizer combination Full description http://dgcss.hum.ku.dk/arrangementer/semantic_functions_of_complementizers_in_european_languages/full_description_-_semantic_function/ Programme http://dgcss.hum.ku.dk/arrangementer/semantic_functions_of_complementizers_in_european_languages/programme_-_semantic_functions/ Accommodation http://dgcss.hum.ku.dk/arrangementer/semantic_functions_of_complementizers_in_european_languages/accomodation_-_semantic_functions/ Organizers Kasper Boye (University of Copenhagen; kabo at hum.ku.dk) Petar Kehayov (University of Tartu; petar.kehayov at ut.ee) There is no registration fee! But please register by sending an email to one of the organizers by 17 October, 2011. --- Kasper Boye LANCHART Centre University of Copenhagen Njalsgade 136, 5. 2300 Copenhagen S Denmark From BartlettT at cardiff.ac.uk Fri Sep 16 14:19:43 2011 From: BartlettT at cardiff.ac.uk (Tom Bartlett) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:19:43 +0100 Subject: Grammatical titbit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Here's an interesting titbit I haven't seen picked up on before: With mental processes as pseudomodals in relative clauses THAT can be omitted even when it is acting as Subject: That's the man I think stole my bike. *That's the man stole my bike. My first thought was that this was simply because "gardenpathing" caused by the juxtaposition of Subject and Finite had been disrupted, but the same isn't true with modal adverbs: *That's the man possibly stole my bike. This doesn't seem to be down to the influence of the congruent use of the projecting verb either: *That's John; I think stole my bike. Does this jar with anyone's idiolect? Or, conversely, is anyone happy with: *That's the man stole my bike. Is this possible in Northern English English? I am tempted by other sentences such as: ?You're the one told me to do it! Any ideas? All the best, Tom. From dick at ling.ucl.ac.uk Sat Sep 17 19:18:49 2011 From: dick at ling.ucl.ac.uk (Richard Hudson) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 20:18:49 +0100 Subject: Grammatical titbit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: That's interesting Tom. I must admit I hadn't noticed it either. I think the examples you're trying with zero subject relatives are a red herring, because your main point applies when the relative is inside a subject NP: (1) The man I think stole my bike is over there. (2) **The man stole my bike is over there. But the explanation is surely quite simple: at the point just after "man" where the speaker chooses between zero and who/that, the only thing that's relevant is that the pronoun would NOT be subject of the *next* verb, "think", which already has its own subject ("I"). In other words, the pronoun would be just extractee, not subject or object, in relation to "think". It's only further into the sentence that its relation to "stole" becomes relevant. So the rule for using zero pronouns (or whatever you want to call them) is that they're allowed unless the understood pronoun would be subject of the first following verb. Does that make sense? Dick Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm On 16/09/2011 15:19, Tom Bartlett wrote: > Here's an interesting titbit I haven't seen picked up on before: > With mental processes as pseudomodals in relative clauses THAT can be omitted even when it is acting as Subject: > That's the man I think stole my bike. > *That's the man stole my bike. > My first thought was that this was simply because "gardenpathing" caused by the juxtaposition of Subject and Finite had been disrupted, but the same isn't true with modal adverbs: > *That's the man possibly stole my bike. > > This doesn't seem to be down to the influence of the congruent use of the projecting verb either: > *That's John; I think stole my bike. > Does this jar with anyone's idiolect? Or, conversely, is anyone happy with: > *That's the man stole my bike. > Is this possible in Northern English English? I am tempted by other sentences such as: > ?You're the one told me to do it! > Any ideas? > All the best, > Tom. > > From edith at uwm.edu Mon Sep 19 21:29:57 2011 From: edith at uwm.edu (Edith A Moravcsik) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:29:57 -0500 Subject: Conference on endangered languages Message-ID: A conference on Language Death, Endangerment, Documentation and Revitalization will be held October 20-22, Thursday through Saturday, on the campus of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. For keynote speakers, general program, registration and accommodations, please visit the conference website: http://www4.uwm.edu/letsci/conferences/linguistics.2011 -- Edith A. Moravcsik Professor Emerita of Linguistics Department of Linguistics University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Milwaukee, WI 53201-0413 USA From edith at uwm.edu Mon Sep 19 23:10:48 2011 From: edith at uwm.edu (Edith A Moravcsik) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:10:48 -0500 Subject: Correction In-Reply-To: <1361540191.420609.1316473715463.JavaMail.root@mail12.pantherlink.uwm.edu> Message-ID: I am sorry for the error in my last message. The correct URL for the Conference on Language Death, Endangerment, Documentation and Revitalization is as follows: http://www4.uwm.edu/letsci/conferences/linguistics2011 -- Edith A. Moravcsik Professor Emerita of Linguistics Department of Linguistics University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Milwaukee, WI 53201-0413 USA From r.lapolla at latrobe.edu.au Sun Sep 25 23:51:55 2011 From: r.lapolla at latrobe.edu.au (Randy LaPolla) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:51:55 +1000 Subject: Grammatical titbit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This phenomenon might be related to what Knud Lambrecht talked about in this 1988 article: Lambrecht, Knud. 1988. ?There was a farmer had a dog: Syntactic amalgams revisited.? Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Randy On 19/09/2011, at 3:00 AM, 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: Grammatical titbit (Richard Hudson) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 20:18:49 +0100 > From: Richard Hudson > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Grammatical titbit > To: funknet > Message-ID: <4E74F299.1080407 at ling.ucl.ac.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > That's interesting Tom. I must admit I hadn't noticed it either. I think > the examples you're trying with zero subject relatives are a red > herring, because your main point applies when the relative is inside a > subject NP: > (1) The man I think stole my bike is over there. > (2) **The man stole my bike is over there. > But the explanation is surely quite simple: at the point just after > "man" where the speaker chooses between zero and who/that, the only > thing that's relevant is that the pronoun would NOT be subject of the > *next* verb, "think", which already has its own subject ("I"). In other > words, the pronoun would be just extractee, not subject or object, in > relation to "think". It's only further into the sentence that its > relation to "stole" becomes relevant. So the rule for using zero > pronouns (or whatever you want to call them) is that they're allowed > unless the understood pronoun would be subject of the first following verb. > > Does that make sense? > > Dick > > > Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > > On 16/09/2011 15:19, Tom Bartlett wrote: >> Here's an interesting titbit I haven't seen picked up on before: >> With mental processes as pseudomodals in relative clauses THAT can be omitted even when it is acting as Subject: >> That's the man I think stole my bike. >> *That's the man stole my bike. >> My first thought was that this was simply because "gardenpathing" caused by the juxtaposition of Subject and Finite had been disrupted, but the same isn't true with modal adverbs: >> *That's the man possibly stole my bike. >> >> This doesn't seem to be down to the influence of the congruent use of the projecting verb either: >> *That's John; I think stole my bike. >> Does this jar with anyone's idiolect? Or, conversely, is anyone happy with: >> *That's the man stole my bike. >> Is this possible in Northern English English? I am tempted by other sentences such as: >> ?You're the one told me to do it! >> Any ideas? >> All the best, >> Tom. >> >> > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 96, Issue 9 > ************************************** From eitkonen at utu.fi Mon Sep 26 11:58:12 2011 From: eitkonen at utu.fi (Esa Itkonen) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:58:12 +0300 Subject: time (almost) without space? Message-ID: The article 'When time is not space', by C. Sinha et al., was discussed a couple of months ago on Funknet. The authors claim that in Amondawa (= an Amazonian language of the Tupi Guarani family) there is a sort of dissociation between spatial and temporal expressions. (Notice that 'dissociation' is a shorthand of my own which does not do justice to the complexity of the argument by Sinha et al.)Now, if one happens to be acquainted with Everett & Kern's excellent 1997 grammar of Wari' (= a genetically unrelated Amazonian language, of the Chapakura[n] family), one might be excused for thinking that something similar is going on here as well. First, the inventory of spatial expressions (= directional verbs & body-part nouns in POSS constructions) is very detailed (pp. 252-284) whereas the inventory of temporal expressions is rather exiguous (pp. 285-290). Second, the two inventories seem disjoint. Temporal expressions are divided into a) diurnal and b) seasonal ones: a) 'day', 'night', 'afternoon', 'dusk', 'sun', 'moon'; b) "seasons of the year are indicated by reference to rain, lack of it, or activity in the gardens" (p. 286). "All other references to location in time are expressed by the appropriate Portuguese terms" (p. 286). "Exact references to time are for the most part irrelevant in Wari' " (p. 287). Third, space-to-time metaphors seem to be lacking, apart from a single example like 'in the middle (= "waist") of the night'. On the other hand, the putative space vs. time dissociation seems undermined by the existence of two (= space vs. time) three-level systems of demonstrative adjectives (p. 153) and pronouns (pp. 305-306) where the spatial expressions constitute a transparent (and analogous) basis for their temporal counterparts. I wonder if there is any way to lure Dan Everett into commenting on the above. Esa Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen From dan at daneverett.org Mon Sep 26 18:44:41 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:44:41 -0400 Subject: Wari' Message-ID: Esa, You seem to have captured the facts of Wari' quite well. I believe that the demonstrative pronoun system is nearly unique. I have published on Wari' pronouns and morphology, in addition to the grammar in IJAL (http://www.jstor.org/pss/10.1086/497874) and in the Handbook of Morphology (Blackwell, Spencer & Zwicky, eds). Wari' also has a construction for expressing future tenses that, although much more cumbersome phonologically/syntactically, is replacing the future tense markers in frequency. It is what I have referred to as the Intentional State Construction (found in the book, Investigations of the Syntax-Semantics-Pragmatics Interface, edited by Robert Van Valin). Like many Amazonian languages, Wari' prefers to express intentions as quotes to talk about other minds and even future events. So instead of saying "It will rain" (which they can say easily with the future tense suffixes) they more commonly say "The sky says 'I rain.'" It is one of the most interesting constructions I have ever seen, for various reasons (not least of which is that it seems intractable to an X-bar theoretic/Merge account, but is quite easy to express in either RRG or Construction Grammar). Kwaza, a language analyzed brilliantly by Heine van der Voort) has a similar construction, which is interesting since it is in the same state as Wari', but genetically unrelated. I talk about unusual constructions and other phenomena one might link to cultural values in a forthcoming book from Random House (USA) and Profile (UK), Language: The Cultural Tool, to be released in March 2012. Jeanette Sakel and I discuss methods for looking at relationships between culture and grammar in our forthcoming book, Linguistic Fieldwork (CUP red series, Dec 2011). I think that the folks at the MPI Leipzig, for their Rara and Rarissima Conference a few years ago selected Wari' as have the greatest number of rarities known for any language. A cool language. Spoken by about 1500 people in Rondonia, Brazil, along the Bolivian border. Last surviving Chapakuran language. The co-author of the Wari' grammar is New Tribes missionary, Barbara Kern. She is the one who really speaks the language. We based the grammar on her more than 1000 pages of transcribed texts and additional work with native speakers (by me) on many aspects of the grammar that arose in writing for publication. -- Dan ************************* Daniel L. Everett Dean of Arts and Sciences Bentley University 175 Forest St. Waltham, MA 02451 Fax: 781-891-2125 Phone: 781 891 2113 http://academics.bentley.edu/arts-sciences/dean-arts-and-sciences http://daneverettbooks.com From bischoff.st at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 21:56:32 2011 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 17:56:32 -0400 Subject: Who is/isn't a linguist? Message-ID: Hello all, I've been covering "linguistic relativity" with students in a current course I am teaching. When ever I cover this topic I must pause and wonder at the claim often found that "Whorf was an amateur", something students often notice as well. I pause because I wonder what or who determines when someone is or is not a linguist. As we all know Whorf published a good number of papers in respected journals, taught courses at Yale, and so on. Yet, it is not uncommon to find reference to him as an amateur, that is, not a "real" linguist. Yet, Boas, who had no formal training in linguistics is one of, if not the, most important "linguistics" of the 20th century and is regarded as such. In addition, Chomksy (and Dr. Newmeyer I hope you will correct me here if I am wrong), has really seemed to have no interest what so ever in language other than as a "phenomena" of study, the result of the mind/brain (the real object of study) that allows him to pursue a theory of mind. In his own words *The phenomena that scientists work with cannot be identified with the nature of the object they are investigating (personal communication): in this case the object of study is NOT language but the mind/brain (if I am understanding correctly). In short, Chomsky seems to have used language to pursue a theory of mind, not "linguistics"...yet he is often cited as a "linguist" on par with, if not exceeding, Boas...certainly his influence has had similar effect. I am inclined to believe this is in great part politics, fashion, and image (of the field)...but I wonder if anyone else might have insights into this issue...as it is one that students find quite intriguing...which lends itself to bringing them into the field. Cheers, Shannon * From busylinguist at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 23:21:50 2011 From: busylinguist at gmail.com (carey benom) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 08:21:50 +0900 Subject: Who is/isn't a linguist? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Interesting question, Shannon. I sometimes think that all human beings who speak/sign a language are linguists, as they have had to go through the process of - beginning with no background - collecting and analyzing vast amounts of data, creating categories, testing and revising hypotheses, forming conclusions, etc. in order to create a grammar of a language from the ground up. Such a process could be argued to be distinct from the "scientific" analysis of language, as it is based on "folk" or naive understanding, but I am not sure that such a binary distinction is the right or only way to see things. For example, some card-carrying linguists use only qualitative methodologies, and linguists who use quantitative methods may consider their work "unscientific". Other linguists, such as Chomsky, use intuition-derived data that seems very suspect to many people on this list, who may refer to it is "bad science" or "unscientific". Therefore, in my classes, I sometimes refer to language-using humans who don't have a background in linguistics in school (or elsewhere) as "poor linguists", as they lack the tools, range of experience, and perspective of those of us with such a background. Best, Carey Benom Kyushu University On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 6:56 AM, s.t. bischoff wrote: > Hello all, > > I've been covering "linguistic relativity" with students in a current > course > I am teaching. When ever I cover this topic I must pause and wonder at the > claim often found that "Whorf was an amateur", something students often > notice as well. I pause because I wonder what or who determines when > someone > is or is not a linguist. As we all know Whorf published a good number of > papers in respected journals, taught courses at Yale, and so on. Yet, it is > not uncommon to find reference to him as an amateur, that is, not a "real" > linguist. Yet, Boas, who had no formal training in linguistics is one of, > if > not the, most important "linguistics" of the 20th century and is regarded > as > such. In addition, Chomksy (and Dr. Newmeyer I hope you will correct me > here > if I am wrong), has really seemed to have no interest what so ever in > language other than as a "phenomena" of study, the result of the mind/brain > (the real object of study) that allows him to pursue a theory of mind. In > his own words *The phenomena that scientists work with cannot be identified > with the nature of the object they are investigating (personal > communication): in this case the object of study is NOT language but the > mind/brain (if I am understanding correctly). In short, Chomsky seems to > have used language to pursue a theory of mind, not "linguistics"...yet he > is > often cited as a "linguist" on par with, if not exceeding, Boas...certainly > his influence has had similar effect. I am inclined to believe this is in > great part politics, fashion, and image (of the field)...but I wonder if > anyone else might have insights into this issue...as it is one that > students > find quite intriguing...which lends itself to bringing them into the field. > > Cheers, > Shannon > * > From fjn at u.washington.edu Thu Sep 29 07:36:05 2011 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:36:05 -0700 Subject: Who is/isn't a linguist? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Shannon, All of the leading linguists of history have had ultimate goals that extended beyond analyses of linguistic phenomena per se. Grimm thought of his work on sound changes as leading to a better understanding of human cultural evolution. Saussure's ultimate goal was a theory of signs (not just linguistic ones) that would shed light on shared elements in social interaction. Jakobson would have been the first to reject the idea that a linguist's goals should be 'merely linguistic'. In any event, one could hardly accuse Chomsky -- over his career! -- of neglecting the analysis of concrete linguistic phenomena. One thinks of his pioneering studies of English auxiliaries, island constraints, binding phenomena, nominalizations, and so on. Most of these studies were carried out after his explicit commitment to develop a theory of mind. --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 Wed, 28 Sep 2011, s.t. bischoff wrote: > Hello all, > > I've been covering "linguistic relativity" with students in a current course > I am teaching. When ever I cover this topic I must pause and wonder at the > claim often found that "Whorf was an amateur", something students often > notice as well. I pause because I wonder what or who determines when someone > is or is not a linguist. As we all know Whorf published a good number of > papers in respected journals, taught courses at Yale, and so on. Yet, it is > not uncommon to find reference to him as an amateur, that is, not a "real" > linguist. Yet, Boas, who had no formal training in linguistics is one of, if > not the, most important "linguistics" of the 20th century and is regarded as > such. In addition, Chomksy (and Dr. Newmeyer I hope you will correct me here > if I am wrong), has really seemed to have no interest what so ever in > language other than as a "phenomena" of study, the result of the mind/brain > (the real object of study) that allows him to pursue a theory of mind. In > his own words *The phenomena that scientists work with cannot be identified > with the nature of the object they are investigating (personal > communication): in this case the object of study is NOT language but the > mind/brain (if I am understanding correctly). In short, Chomsky seems to > have used language to pursue a theory of mind, not "linguistics"...yet he is > often cited as a "linguist" on par with, if not exceeding, Boas...certainly > his influence has had similar effect. I am inclined to believe this is in > great part politics, fashion, and image (of the field)...but I wonder if > anyone else might have insights into this issue...as it is one that students > find quite intriguing...which lends itself to bringing them into the field. > > Cheers, > Shannon > * > From dan at daneverett.org Thu Sep 29 09:38:12 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 05:38:12 -0400 Subject: Who is/isn't a linguist? Message-ID: Shannon, Fritz, and all, The question of "who is a linguist" might be little more than the vestige of what Popper and others called "essentialism," harking back to Plato. Probably not a lot of use in trying to sharpen the denotation of the term by getting at the essence of what it refers to. What group one belongs to is a matter of taste and preference. Linguists form a group of people with shared values. People who share more values will identify more with one another. Some linguists share more values with each other than they do with others who call themselves linguists and so the natural tendency is for the one group to think that their values are better markers than those of the other group. More generally, are their values that can be called "linguistic?" Then those who share them are linguists, if one finds that sort of thing useful. On the other hand, if by "linguist" we refer to a profession, then I think that the number of linguists will shrink over the next few years due to the pressures on higher education and the values of incoming students, which include employment. If we cannot provide employment, yet label people based on what they are paid to do, the reference set of "linguist" will shrink. So I think it is vital that we think about what it means to be a linguist in light of the employment problem. For many years, I have become more convinced that linguistics PhD programs, like many PhD programs in the humanities, are borderline Ponzi schemes. I have written on this in Inside Higher Ed (http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2011/08/30/essay_on_how_humanities_can_be_strengthened_by_embracing_ties_to_professional_education). When Peter Ladefoged was the chair of linguistics at UCLA he sent out a letter to prospective applicants to tell them about the US job market and to suggest that they had little chance at getting a job at a research university (this was over 30 years ago!) and that perhaps the best linguistics of the future would be done by plumbers and carpenters. The profession needs to ask itself whether Whorf himself embodied the future. Very good linguistics by moonlighting, being a talented hobbyist. -- Dan On Sep 29, 2011, at 3:36 AM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Shannon, > > All of the leading linguists of history have had ultimate goals that extended beyond analyses of linguistic phenomena per se. Grimm thought of his work on sound changes as leading to a better understanding of human cultural evolution. Saussure's ultimate goal was a theory of signs (not just linguistic ones) that would shed light on shared elements in social interaction. Jakobson would have been the first to reject the idea that a linguist's goals should be 'merely linguistic'. > > In any event, one could hardly accuse Chomsky -- over his career! -- of neglecting the analysis of concrete linguistic phenomena. One thinks of his pioneering studies of English auxiliaries, island constraints, binding phenomena, nominalizations, and so on. Most of these studies were carried out after his explicit commitment to develop a theory of mind. > > --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 Wed, 28 Sep 2011, s.t. bischoff wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> I've been covering "linguistic relativity" with students in a current course >> I am teaching. When ever I cover this topic I must pause and wonder at the >> claim often found that "Whorf was an amateur", something students often >> notice as well. I pause because I wonder what or who determines when someone >> is or is not a linguist. As we all know Whorf published a good number of >> papers in respected journals, taught courses at Yale, and so on. Yet, it is >> not uncommon to find reference to him as an amateur, that is, not a "real" >> linguist. Yet, Boas, who had no formal training in linguistics is one of, if >> not the, most important "linguistics" of the 20th century and is regarded as >> such. In addition, Chomksy (and Dr. Newmeyer I hope you will correct me here >> if I am wrong), has really seemed to have no interest what so ever in >> language other than as a "phenomena" of study, the result of the mind/brain >> (the real object of study) that allows him to pursue a theory of mind. In >> his own words *The phenomena that scientists work with cannot be identified >> with the nature of the object they are investigating (personal >> communication): in this case the object of study is NOT language but the >> mind/brain (if I am understanding correctly). In short, Chomsky seems to >> have used language to pursue a theory of mind, not "linguistics"...yet he is >> often cited as a "linguist" on par with, if not exceeding, Boas...certainly >> his influence has had similar effect. I am inclined to believe this is in >> great part politics, fashion, and image (of the field)...but I wonder if >> anyone else might have insights into this issue...as it is one that students >> find quite intriguing...which lends itself to bringing them into the field. >> >> Cheers, >> Shannon >> * >> > From bischoff.st at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 12:01:25 2011 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 08:01:25 -0400 Subject: Who is/isn't a linguist? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks all for the the insights...Dan I think you've gotten to heart of my query, and summed it up rather nicely. Given your comments, the challenge would seem to be helping students decide if they want to be a part of the "linguistic" community as a "professional"...in which case they need to be well aware of the realities of the employment situation...or a member of the "linguistic" community in sense of "shared values" as you put it. In this case, Whorf could serve as an example of a member of the linguistic community who made valuable contributions but paid his rent by being an insurance inspector. Cheers, Shannon On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:36 AM, Everett, Daniel wrote: > Shannon, Fritz, and all, > > The question of "who is a linguist" might be little more than the vestige > of what Popper and others called "essentialism," harking back to Plato. > Probably not a lot of use in trying to sharpen the denotation of the term by > getting at the essence of what it refers to. > > What group one belongs to is a matter of taste and preference. Linguists > form a group of people with shared values. People who share more values will > identify more with one another. Some linguists share more values with each > other than they do with others who call themselves linguists and so the > natural tendency is for the one group to think that their values are better > markers than those of the other group. More generally, are their values that > can be called "linguistic?" Then those who share them are linguists, if one > finds that sort of thing useful. > > On the other hand, if by "linguist" we refer to a profession, then I think > that the number of linguists will shrink over the next few years due to the > pressures on higher education and the values of incoming students, which > include employment. If we cannot provide employment, yet label people based > on what they are paid to do, the reference set of "linguist" will shrink. > > So I think it is vital that we think about what it means to be a linguist > in light of the employment problem. For many years, I have become more > convinced that linguistics PhD programs, like many PhD programs in the > humanities, are borderline Ponzi schemes. I have written on this in Inside > Higher Ed ( > http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2011/08/30/essay_on_how_humanities_can_be_strengthened_by_embracing_ties_to_professional_education > ). > > When Peter Ladefoged was the chair of linguistics at UCLA he sent out a > letter to prospective applicants to tell them about the US job market and to > suggest that they had little chance at getting a job at a research > university (this was over 30 years ago!) and that perhaps the best > linguistics of the future would be done by plumbers and carpenters. > > The profession needs to ask itself whether Whorf himself embodied the > future. Very good linguistics by moonlighting, being a talented hobbyist. > > -- Dan > > > > > On Sep 29, 2011, at 3:36 AM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > > Shannon, > > > > All of the leading linguists of history have had ultimate goals that > extended beyond analyses of linguistic phenomena per se. Grimm thought of > his work on sound changes as leading to a better understanding of human > cultural evolution. Saussure's ultimate goal was a theory of signs (not just > linguistic ones) that would shed light on shared elements in social > interaction. Jakobson would have been the first to reject the idea that a > linguist's goals should be 'merely linguistic'. > > > > In any event, one could hardly accuse Chomsky -- over his career! -- of > neglecting the analysis of concrete linguistic phenomena. One thinks of his > pioneering studies of English auxiliaries, island constraints, binding > phenomena, nominalizations, and so on. Most of these studies were carried > out after his explicit commitment to develop a theory of mind. > > > > --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 Wed, 28 Sep 2011, s.t. bischoff wrote: > > > >> Hello all, > >> > >> I've been covering "linguistic relativity" with students in a current > course > >> I am teaching. When ever I cover this topic I must pause and wonder at > the > >> claim often found that "Whorf was an amateur", something students often > >> notice as well. I pause because I wonder what or who determines when > someone > >> is or is not a linguist. As we all know Whorf published a good number of > >> papers in respected journals, taught courses at Yale, and so on. Yet, it > is > >> not uncommon to find reference to him as an amateur, that is, not a > "real" > >> linguist. Yet, Boas, who had no formal training in linguistics is one > of, if > >> not the, most important "linguistics" of the 20th century and is > regarded as > >> such. In addition, Chomksy (and Dr. Newmeyer I hope you will correct me > here > >> if I am wrong), has really seemed to have no interest what so ever in > >> language other than as a "phenomena" of study, the result of the > mind/brain > >> (the real object of study) that allows him to pursue a theory of mind. > In > >> his own words *The phenomena that scientists work with cannot be > identified > >> with the nature of the object they are investigating (personal > >> communication): in this case the object of study is NOT language but the > >> mind/brain (if I am understanding correctly). In short, Chomsky seems to > >> have used language to pursue a theory of mind, not "linguistics"...yet > he is > >> often cited as a "linguist" on par with, if not exceeding, > Boas...certainly > >> his influence has had similar effect. I am inclined to believe this is > in > >> great part politics, fashion, and image (of the field)...but I wonder if > >> anyone else might have insights into this issue...as it is one that > students > >> find quite intriguing...which lends itself to bringing them into the > field. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Shannon > >> * > >> > > > > From wilcox at unm.edu Thu Sep 29 15:54:23 2011 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:54:23 -0600 Subject: Who is/isn't a linguist? In-Reply-To: <2D284C7A-9483-45ED-A9A3-7FEC1925637C@daneverett.org> Message-ID: On Sep 29, 2011, at 3:38 AM, Daniel Everett wrote: > So I think it is vital that we think about what it means to be a linguist in light of the employment problem. Dan, I really appreciated your comments. For the past 25+ years I've taught mostly undergraduate students in our signed language interpreting program, with the occasional graduate seminar in linguistics thrown in to make me feel like a "real" linguist. One of my colleagues used to say that the interpreting program was really a "clinical" or applied program and as such not truly appropriate for a College of Arts and Sciences. I used to bristle at that sentiment. The older I get, though, the more I take pride in being identified as working in an applied area, even though at heart my own interests are (and always have been) entirely theoretical (I'm not saying I'm very good at it, just that those ideas and questions are what tickle my brain). Next week I have to give a presentation to our Board of Regents (apparently each month they invite a faculty member to discuss his/her teaching and research so they can learn what we do -- a pretty good idea, since many of them seem to have not a clue what faculty do). I've been told to tell them about our impact on the community; accordingly, one of my slides is labeled simply "JOBS" (not just for our interpreter graduates, but for the deaf people in the community they will serve while in school, in job interviews, on the job, buying cars, etc.). But I'll also be emphasizing that an important part of what I, we, do is to discover new knowledge, explore new ideas, whether or not we see immediate application. I watch many of our interpreting students grimace when I talk about "theoretical" concepts -- they got attracted to the field, for the most part, not because they wanted to study linguistics and learn about whether ASL does or does not have passive constructions, but because they wanted to *do* something with that language, help people. They soon see, though, that even this boring (to them) "theoretical stuff" has direct application to how they'll do their jobs (what do you do when someone says and you have to sign, "Mistakes were made"?). And, of course, some of them get sucked into linguistics entirely. Our local two-year community college has a TV commercial that emphasizes their goal of preparing students for a job, a trade. It ends with "Education that matters!" I want to scream every time I hear that commercial: ALL EDUCATION MATTERS. I hope we linguists don't buy into the false dichotomy of thinking we either do theory or we do practice. -- Sherman Wilcox Professor Department of Linguistics University of New Mexico From grvsmth at panix.com Thu Sep 29 18:30:56 2011 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:30:56 -0400 Subject: Who is/isn't a linguist? In-Reply-To: <26076147-92AF-4AB3-87C2-06BA3FCAEA70@unm.edu> Message-ID: Some very interesting discussion on this topic. In fact, it echoes similar debates you can find all over about categories, which on a deeper level turn out to be about boundary policing. We're not just linguists here, we're functionalists, so I want to bring in George Lakoff's presentation of Eleanor Rosch's theories. I blogged about them in connection with fights in the transgender community over questions like, "Who is/isn't a woman?" "Who is/isn't transgender?" and most recently, "Who is/isn't transsexual?" http://transblog.grieve-smith.com/?p=41 http://transblog.grieve-smith.com/?cat=9 In these terms, what Dan refers to as platonism is the act of treating a radial category as a simple category. In reality, the category of "linguist" has a prototype (went to MIT, works in a formalist framework, studies syntax, works on English, has an academic job, has time and funding for research), and a bunch of satellite subcategories, and we can apply Lakoff's "but test" to it: 1) She's a linguist, but she doesn't study syntax. 2) #She's a linguist, but she studies syntax. and so on: 3) #She's a linguist, but she has research funding. (This may not be as strange as it sounds, indicating shifting of the prototype.) 4) #She's a linguist, but she works in the Minimalist framework. In the transgender categories, the platonism masks a very real boundary-policing going on, which is ultimately a fight over resources. Funding for transgender community outreach is scarce, and someone doesn't want the transvestites getting any of it, so they're "not really transgender." Since I'm on the job market, I will leave the implications of "who is/isn't a linguist" as an exercise for the reader. I will point out that once, when I mentioned a career path similar to Whorf's, I was told that a particular institution "doesn't grant recreational Ph.D.s." And Sherman may remember a meeting where he was essentially forced to tell me that I couldn't do my dissertation on sign-language synthesis because the topic wasn't theoretical enough. (I have to mention that I learned a ton of useful stuff in the graduate seminar I took with him.) The natural reaction is to say, "Who says I'm not a linguist? Damn straight I'm a linguist! You're the one who's not a linguist!" That's essentially what Shannon did, and I sympathize with it. But under the Roschian view, there are simply different senses of "linguist." In one sense, Whorf was not a "real linguist," and in another sense, Chomsky is not a "real linguist." If we want to get past the boundary policing, we need to ask, "why does it matter who's a linguist?" Is it about credibility, or funding, or jobs? If so, we can restate these claims as "Whorf doesn't deserve to be taken seriously because he didn't have a tenured academic position." Or "Person X shouldn't get the job because she doesn't do formalist syntax." Or "Person Y shouldn't get the grant because he didn't go to the right school." But then we'd have to be honest with our prejudices and power games. So, have I ruined my chances in this ultra-competitive market for a tenure-track job in functional linguistics yet? -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith Adjunct Assistant Professor Saint John's University grvsmth at panix.com From Victor.Golla at humboldt.edu Fri Sep 30 01:32:47 2011 From: Victor.Golla at humboldt.edu (Victor K. Golla) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:32:47 -0700 Subject: Who is/isn't a linguist? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Going back to Shannon's original topic -- whether Benjamin Whorf was a linguist. For all of the reasons Dan Everett gives, I think the question is meaningful only in sociological terms, and even then it must be sensitive to the sociology of the era in which Whorf lived. The answer seems unequivocal: From the moment that Whorf enrolled as a student in Sapir's graduate classes at Yale, he tacitly submitted himself to the rules of the academic game of "linguistics" set by Sapir, the university, and most importantly by his fellow students. The evidence is clear that he honored those rules and was accepted as a status equal by the academic linguists of his day. I once asked Mary Haas about her opinion of Whorf. "Oh, Ben was a kook!" she sighed. But not because of his linguistics. Whorf regularly got A's, even the occasional A+, on his seminar papers -- nearly all of which were on hard-core descriptive and comparative topics, such as Hopi phonemics or the subclassification of Uto-Aztecan. Rather, it was Whorf's personal quirks that made Mary roll her eyes. She was particularly struck by his fear of elevators; he would struggle up ten flights of stairs to get to Mary and Morris Swadesh's apartment for a party. Victor Golla From fjn at u.washington.edu Fri Sep 30 06:45:18 2011 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:45:18 -0700 Subject: Who is/isn't a linguist? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I just wanted to reinforce what Victor wrote. When Whorf died very young in 1941 -- he was only 44 years old -- the journal Language gave him a full obituary. That was a very rare occurrence then (as now). There is no question that, despite his 'amateur status', he was considered by the linguists of the day not just as a 'linguist', but as their equal. --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 Thu, 29 Sep 2011, Victor K. Golla wrote: > Going back to Shannon's original topic -- whether Benjamin Whorf was a > linguist. > > For all of the reasons Dan Everett gives, I think the question is > meaningful only in sociological terms, and even then it must be > sensitive to the sociology of the era in which Whorf lived. > > The answer seems unequivocal: From the moment that Whorf enrolled as > a student in Sapir's graduate classes at Yale, he tacitly submitted > himself to the rules of the academic game of "linguistics" set by > Sapir, the university, and most importantly by his fellow students. > The evidence is clear that he honored those rules and was accepted as > a status equal by the academic linguists of his day. > > I once asked Mary Haas about her opinion of Whorf. "Oh, Ben was a > kook!" she sighed. But not because of his linguistics. Whorf > regularly got A's, even the occasional A+, on his seminar papers -- > nearly all of which were on hard-core descriptive and comparative > topics, such as Hopi phonemics or the subclassification of > Uto-Aztecan. Rather, it was Whorf's personal quirks that made Mary > roll her eyes. She was particularly struck by his fear of elevators; > he would struggle up ten flights of stairs to get to Mary and Morris > Swadesh's apartment for a party. > > Victor Golla > From d.f.lesley-neuman at umail.leidenuniv.nl Fri Sep 30 10:48:33 2011 From: d.f.lesley-neuman at umail.leidenuniv.nl (Diane Lesley-Neuman) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:48:33 +0200 Subject: Who is/isn't a linguist? Message-ID: One of the reasons I have gone into language description/literacy development alongside of other scientific pursuits, is that it is a true application of linguistic knowledge in service to a language community. I do not wish to simply be a documenter who goes from community to community documenting languages. I prefer to dedicate myself to a group of languages with shared characteristics and shared histories, and lend a hand where needed--while getting a lot of marvelous data I can also do theoretical and instrumental work on. If this means that at different times I may be working as an English teacher in a nearby school/university while I do it and elicit through a dominant, encroaching language--so be it. In the end, I am doing analytical work on languages, while learning and using multiple languages--which fits the definition of linguist in my book. In the course of my professional practice and training, I have to work on and in my native English, and my acquired languages Spanish and Swahili, in addition to learning as I can the languages that are objects of study, be they Quechua, Marathi, Sundanese Wolof,Kinyarwanda, Thai, Turkana, Karimojong, Datooga, DhoLuo, Ciyao. I now need to study Dutch to get along where I am living, as well as brush up on my German and French to read professional literature. All of this language work keeps me very busy. I do not take kindly to someone telling me I am not a linguist, given that work in/on language some 16-18 hours per day. I also notice that the term "linguist" is applied by laypeople to those who study and speak many languages. I think that the inclusive term may be the most accurate. There are certain groups who seek to restrict membership in the field to those who subscribe to and practice a certain brand of linguistic theory. This attitude impoverishes the field of possibilities. Had I followed what I had been told by such individuals, professors of linguistics all, I would never have become one. Some of them still probably believe that I am not a linguist yet. My linguistics articles are passing peer review and my professors in Europe believe that I am a linguist. I come into the lab, make recordings and corpora, read historical linguistics, delve into grammars and articles and argue for my model of word order change, of the phonology-morphology interface, etc. Over the triple-whammy discrimination of age-sex-social class,which is probably the key determinants of the negative judgments of my first professors, have I now made it? -- Diane F. Lesley-Neuman c/o Phonetics Laboratory Leiden University Cleveringaplaats 1 Room 111 2311 BD Leiden The Netherlands