Grad student angst and related matters

[George Fowler h(317)726-1482 o(812)855-2829]

Greetings!
     An interesting discussion going on about the goals and prospects for
Slavic linguistics students. I share all of this angst and more. Obviously
there is a great range of distribution between Slavic & general. Where would
you put Bernard Comrie, who was trained as a Slavist but has become much more
of a general linguist? My colleague Steve Franks is a good example of the kind
of outstanding synthesis of general and Slavic linguistics that can come about.
(Check out his brand new book Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax, Oxford U.
Press, 1995, for a specimen of what theory can do for descriptive problems,
<plug plug>.) He is hard to categorize; indeed, people tend to view him
differently than he views himself. I suppose the standard view, which I
fundamentally share, is that he has the orientation of a general linguist who
uses Slavic data. Moreover, although he has a split appointment in Linguistics
& Slavic here at IU, his "home base" is Linguistics. However, Steve has told me
that he views himself as primarily a Slavist who uses linguistic theory. He did
study OCS and other traditional historical topics (and has an M.A. from a
traditional Slavic Dept.). He has a lot of practical language background,
especially in Russian and Serbo-Croatian, even though he hasn't taught a
language class in my memory. Perhaps that could be the distinguishing factor?
The most typical general linguists are native speakers who work on their own
languages (Ljiljana Progovac, Katarzyna Dziwirek, etc.); there are a few who
acquire one Slavic language as a very solid second language, and become fully
committed to as the object of research (Catherine Rudin springs to mind).
Finally, there could be people who use a wide range of Slavic data for
linguistic research, but aren't heavily committed to them as a language learner
and/or never learn any of them as well as a language specialist (how about
Maria Luisa Rivero? or Tracy Holloway King?). With all these varied models, how
is a grad student to decide what to emulate? It must be a matter of personal
taste.
     One of Olga Yokoyama's points is that Slavic linguists have to make
themselves USEFUL, by demonstrating that their discipline can be of interest to
others outside the narrow field. This may mean lit faculty, by demonstrating
that linguistics can be a useful tool in the analysis of literary texts (cf.
Olga's AATSEEL talk on the Linguistic Poetics panel this year, where she
surveyed lit implications of linguistic work by her, her students, and others;
or some of the work of Paul Friedrich, the distinguished linguistic
anthropologist who teaches a great course at the U. of Chicago called something
like "Russian Grammar and Russian Poetry"). It may obviously also mean making
Slavic relevant for general linguistics (although if a student aspires to a
position in a normal Slavic Dept., there are administrative barriers to making
this a central hiring factor; Steve Franks' joint appointment is quite unusual
for a junior hire--most such arrangements evolve after one is already present).
It could also have to do with language teaching/acquisition.
     Like others, I have been really impressed with many of the very sharp
advanced grad students I have run across. I'm too close to my own students to
compare them, but there are a number of recent or near-Ph.D.'s who have really
distinguished themselves in my mind, due to AATSEEL papers, informed comment on
other talks, and private conversations. These people have a lot of talent and
are trying to break into a field which doesn't seem to offer sufficient
perspectives for their growth and development. For example, some who become
employed get jobs which don't permit teaching of anything but practical
language courses (I could name some outstanding examples, but will restrain
myself!). This is not a fate worse than death, of course, but it is so much
more helpful if one is able to teach something which is more directly related
to research interests. I think the ideal kind of teaching load would be 50/50
language/linguistics (or language/literature, for that matter), since it would
retain active teaching links simultaneously to both areas. At any rate, I
profoundly regret the wasted energy that some people invest in years and years
of graduate study, dissertation-writing, living from hand to mouth, with little
or no payoff at the end for some percentage of worthy Ph.D.'s. I certainly hope
I never have to go back onto the job market (knock on wood), because I am not
sure I could compete with some of these younger people!
     George Fowler
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
George Fowler                       GFowler at Indiana.Edu [Email]
Dept. of Slavic Languages           1-812-855-2829 [office]
Ballantine 502                      1-317-726-1482 [home]
Indiana University                  1-812-855-2624/-2608/-9906 [dept.]
Bloomington, IN  47405  USA         1-812-855-2107 [dept. fax]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~