let's go

[M. J. Hardman]

I also favor interdisciplinary.  I have found OSCLG quite friendly to
anthropological linguistics, but had quite a contrary experience with the
Berkeley Women & Lg. Group.  With the scope of linguistics itself so
wide, we are maybe 'interdisciplinary' just within linguistics.


>I agree that there needs to be some discussion of whether the
>possible new organization would be interdisciplinary.  OSCLG is
>supposed to be interdisciplinary, but, in fact, the
>prevailing discipline is speech.  The Berkeley Women & Lg. Group is
>also interdisciplinary (but friendly to linguists).  I favor an
>interdisciplinary group, but I can imagine some potential problems.
>For example, if there's a conference and people are judging abstracts
>or if there's a journal and they're refereeing articles, chances are,
>some of those judging won't understand the conventions of other
>disciplines.  I recently ran into this when I sent an abstract to a
>psychologist who is running a panel I'm interested in being on.  She
>hated the abstract because she does empirical work and I don't.  In
>her opinion, the paper described wasn't really 'research' as she
>defines it..
>
>Are others of you thinking in terms of interdisciplinary?
>
>Janet Bing
>Dept. of English
>Old Dominion University
>Norfolk, VA 23529-0078
>(757) 683-4030
>FAX (757) 683-3241