more on Slavic linguist(ic)s

[Keith Goeringer]

I certainly have never advocated training Slavic linguists in linguistics
departments ONLY -- as Loren mentioned earlier, I agree that many (though
obviously not all) linguists who work in Slavic (in distinction to Slavic
linguists...) tend to treat the languages as sources of data, rather than
as living entities.  But the fact remains that, recently at any rate, there
seems to be a tendency for departments to hire linguists who work in Slavic
rather than Slavic linguists -- this is not a condemnation, simply an
observation.  Which would lead me to assume that those hiring in such depart-
ments have a different point of view from that mentioned by David Birnbaum
as regards Slavic linguistics as a science and/or a profession.  The pre-
vailing "attitude," at least for now (as he points out), seems to indicate
a preference for hiring linguistics-department-trained linguists.

Thus, it is not unreasonable to wonder why this is so.  Obviously, the
linguists who have been hired are good linguists -- this goes without
saying.  There must be something in their training or scholarship that
made them stick out from the Slavic linguists (who I assume were applying
for the same jobs, as a rule).  The most likely answer is a more rigorous
training in theoretical, "hard", linguistics.  When I applied to grad
school (knowing that I wanted to do linguistics), I did not even consider
applying to linguistics departments, because my primary training was in
the _languages_, not in linguistics per se.  I can imagine cases of the
opposite happening -- a student wanting to do Slavic linguistics, but
perhaps feeling that s/he is not sufficiently fluent in, say, Russian --
and so opts for the linguistics department instead.

I have had experiences similar to Loren's when talking to linguists who
work in Slavic -- their focus is often on synchronic syntax, and their
training in historical aspects (phonology, morphology, etc.) has been less
in-depth.  In my department, at least, emphasis is on these last topics.
Even if one takes a course on some aspect of modern syntax, one is stuck
reading general sources -- we are simply lacking, by and large, the back-
ground in current theoretical frameworks.  (And God knows, it's not because
people in the department are not familiar with them!)  To give a somewhat
unpleasant admission, my dissertation deals with syntax and semantics --
two fields with which I was almost completely unfamiliar on a theoretical
level, even after being advanced to candidacy.  To an extent, this is due
to my own inclinations prior to exams...but mainly, it is due to having
little flexibility in elective coursework OUTSIDE of the department, due
to departmental requirements.  I decided upon my topic partly because I
knew that, otherwise, I might never get around to looking into these areas.
Hopefully, I'll come out of the dissertation process knowing a good deal
more about syntax and semantics than I would have if I'd stuck with his-
torical phonology or something.

Whew.  Sorry for running on like that, but I (and I think also Loren, and
probably others in similar positions) feel that this is an issue that
deserves more consideration.  I am sure that the pendulum will, as Prof
Birnbaum said, eventually swing the other way, in favor of Slavic linguists
(or perhaps a 50/50 split?), but what conditions the swing?  Is is a
natural swing, or can it be externally influenced?  If the hiring depart-
ments prefer applicants with a solid grounding in current syntactic theory,
perhaps departments (as I'm sure some already do) should introduce this
element into their required courses -- even if it means taking classes in
the linguistics department.  (Most Slavic linguists do take courses in
linguistics departments anyway -- I'm referring to taking a course in
syntactic theory *specifically*.)

Keith Goeringer
keg at violet.berkeley.edu