Campbell's def. of "language"

[Ralf-Stefan Georg]

>Campbell defines these terms (and reviewer Bartholomew
>     does not comment, so presumably regards these definitions
>     as quite normal, unremarkable):

>'dialect' is a variety (regional or social) of a language,
>     mutually intelligible with other dialects

>'language' is a distinct linguistic entity that is
>     mutually unintelligible with other languages

>I simply do not believe that Larry Trask is unaware that this is
>     standard linguistic usage.  He is not forced to use it himself,
>     but he is obligated to treat this usage with respect,
>     not to evade discussions based upon it by ridiculing it.

That something is "standard linguistic usage" does of course not mean that
there is nothing to comment or think about. We all have to use undefined
terms sometimes, but for some purposes definitions are important and a
matter which should be looked into every now and then. What Campbell does
is to *define* the terms "l." and "d." *for the purposes of his book*. This
is a recommendable practise. The very fact that C. *introduced explicitly*
these terms, accompanied by an explit purpose-focussed definition is
responsible for the reviewer not commenting about it. If he hadn't done
this, this or that reviewer might find reasons to ask what he means by
these terms. In a work of this kind, overflowing with names for linguistic
varieties, this is inevitable. On the other hand, if there were such a
thing as a "standard linguistic usage" of these terms, C. would hardly have
bothered to present a definition. Since there isn't, he had to and did.

Further, if this definition - well-suited for C.'s purposes and entirely
unobjectionable as long as the definition is maintained - were "standard"
in "linguistics", a lot of "languages" would, much to the surprise of their
speakers, fall under the rubrum "dialect". There simply *cannot* be such a
thing as "standard" use of these terms (only a *casual* use) in
linguistics, since it makes a great difference to classify lects according
to "purely" linguistic criteria (as, inter alia, mutual intelligibility),
or according to political, sociological and a host of other reasons, which
go normally into people's linguistic self-awareness.

There are other terms in linguistics and elsewhere which evade a
once-and-for-all definition (like /word/, /sentence/ and others). The
reason for this is that they, like /language/ have been around *before* any
meaningful science appeared which found itself in the position to say
something about the "things" people refer to by these terms. Any science
needs its own well-defined terminology, and terms from every-day language
are all too often laden with connotations of all sorts, which make them
unsuitable for precise definitions. Two ways out: introduce new, most often
latinate, terms, or use the old ones but *say what you mean with them*.
Campbell did this, others fail to. Thus, there is no reason not to respect
C.'s usage, whereas the practice of others, who don't care, is less worthy
of respect.

St.G.

Stefan Georg
Heerstrasse 7
D-53111 Bonn
FRG
+49-228-69-13-32