A question for Fritz
A. Katz
amnfn at well.com
Sun Oct 24 19:31:23 UTC 2010
Sid Caesar?
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Dan I. Slobin wrote:
> Well, the Gene Searchinger story isn't quite that clear cut, since I did
> appear in the series and Gene and I had good discussions about language,
> thought, and culture.
> As I recall, it was George Miller who put Gene onto the task and gave him the
> first list of people to contact. And though Gene used some of my material,
> he juxtaposed me
> with Jerry Fodor in a way that suggested a continuity that wasn't there. But
> Gene was also interested in anthropology and neurology, leaving a rather
> muddled and spotty
> collection of vignettes. If you look at the list of people in the films,
> you'll certainly see a slant towards Chomsky et al, but other directions too:
> Noam Chomsky, Frederick Newmeyer, Howard Lasnik, George Carlin, Lila
> Gleitman, George A. Miller, Mark Aronoff, Judith Klavans, Alvin Liberman,
> Lewis Thomas, Jeff Leer, Roy Byrd, Suzette Haden Elgin, Russell Baker, Dan I.
> Slobin, Stephen Jay Gould, Jerry Fodor, David McNeill, Michael Carter, Henry
> Kucera, Thomas Sebeok, Steven Pinker, Peter Sells, Kathryn Hirsh-Pasek,
> Roberta Golinkoff, Jill de Villiers, Susan Carey, Ellen Markman, John Lynch,
> Ursula Bellugi, Terence Langendoen, Michael Robinson, Bobby Dews, Deborah
> Tannen, Paul Ekman, Peter Marler, Ivan Sag, Philip Lieberman, Morris Halle,
> Peter Ladefoged, Sid Caesar, Kim Oller, Rebecca Eilers, Jane Robinson,
> Darlene Orr, Nomonde Ngubo, Mazisi Kunene
>
> Dan Slobin
>
> At 10:25 AM 10/24/2010, Brian MacWhinney wrote:
>> By now, Fritz clearly has enough for his brief commentary. Everything
>> mentioned on this issue so far is accurate, according to my knowledge, but
>> let me add a few more wrinkles.
>>
>> 1. Regarding cultural anthropology, I always teach my students in
>> Crosscultural Psychology that Linguistics had an enormous influence on the
>> development of both Structural Anthropology and the subsequent Cognitive
>> Anthropology. The influence on structuralism was through views such as
>> Goodenough and others who likened kinship systems to the distinctive
>> feature systems of Prague School phonology. Systems of binary distinctions
>> were at the heart of Herb Simon's EPAM model of thinking and memory. Both
>> Jakobson and Simon thought that the mind could be viewed as a digital
>> computer and so binary features were crucial. Later, with the rise of
>> transformation generative grammar, the emphasis shifted to rules of grammar
>> as models for rules of culture. The major flourishing of this was in the
>> 1970s, a bit later than the 1960s noted earlier. Personally, I thought
>> this stuff was fascinating. My understanding is that the demise of this
>> linguistics cum psychology in cultural anthropology was due not to failures
>> in linguistics, but to the rise of deconstructivism in ethnography.
>>
>> 2. Alex is roughly right about Searchinger. Gene spoke to me on the phone
>> about my interests and I explained that I focused on language learning and
>> emergence. He said "thanks" but that this was not what he was trying to
>> develop in this series. Liz Bates and Catherine Snow had the same
>> experience.
>>
>> 3. The situation with regard to physics and biology is a bit complex.
>> Often, people in those areas simply assume that Chomsky speaks for
>> linguistics and use his framework for testing of their ideas about system
>> functioning. I often get such papers for review and they do not show any
>> lack of respect for linguistics, just a tendency to not understand the
>> range of variation of analyses within linguistics. Often the analyses they
>> offer in applying ideas from genetic diffusion or statistical physics
>> (Nicolaidis et al.) are more compatible with these alternative views.
>>
>> 4. The major area that has been left undiscussed and which in my mind is
>> the potentially most important is computation. Here, there is the famous
>> claim by IBM that every time they fire a linguist they improve their
>> grammar checker. I guess that counts as lack of respect. On the other
>> hand, the basic linkage of generative theory to formal grammars back in the
>> 1950s was a big deal. In automata theory classes and textbooks, students
>> still learn about the Chomsky hierarchy, although much recent work suggests
>> that other characterizations are more effective for resolving issues in
>> grammar induction. More recently, the emphasis on data-mining of the web
>> as a bag of words seems to have hit a bit of a wall and researchers are
>> showing increasing interest in and respect for linguistic analysis. And
>> there is the issue of computational resources for endangered and
>> under-documented languages. Here, people like Lori Levin and colleagues
>> are finding that computational linguists trained only in the use of HMM and
>> SVM are unable to understand the challenges of real linguistic structure.
>> So, there are important areas here involving a beginning of interest in
>> reintroducing linguistics.
>>
>> 5. Finally, I wish that I could refer to Conversation Analysis as a part
>> of linguistics. I know that I can't really get away with this, although
>> personally I think it is a part. In any case, I see a lot of interest and
>> respect for CA from areas as diverse as marketing, sociology, politics,
>> aphasiology, and so on.
>>
>> -- Brian MacWhinney
>
>
> ******************************************************************************************************************************************
> Dan I. Slobin, Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics, University
> of California, Berkeley
> address: email:
> slobin at berkeley.edu
> 2323 Rose St. phone (home): 1-510-848-1769
> Berkeley, CA 94708, USA
> <http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html>http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html
> ******************************************************************************************************************************************
>
>
More information about the Funknet
mailing list