on the epistemological nature of historical linguistics...

[Steven Schaufele]

On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, Gonzalo Rubio wrote:
 
> However, one may wonder why so many of these well-intentioned ladies and
> gentlemen share their speculations with the scientific community almost
> *only* in our field(s). Scholars working on Quantum Physics, Psychology,
> or even History, don't have to deal with this deluge of "proposals" from
> outsiders or amateurs. If I tell my father I have a new interesting
> contribution to some surgical procedure (he's a physician), he would look
> at me with a very ironic smile and say "don't you have anything better to
> do?". Within this context, one may wonder what is the true epistemological
> nature of historical linguistics.
 
Actually, i think a caveat should be issued here.  As i understand it,
scholars working in quantum physics, etc., *do* have to deal with
something like what Rubio is describing.  I seem to remember hearing/
reading a complaint to a science reporter from a major-league, Nobel-
prize-winning physicist at some Ivy League university (i can't find the
citation at the moment) that a certain amount of his daily office time
was taken up with trying to (politely) turn away letters, etc. from
cranks claiming to have discovered antigravity, or things like that.  I
wouldn't be surprised, however, if it were only Nobel prizewinners who
have to deal with this; they have the notoriety that invites that kind of
garbage.  As Geoff Pullum noted in one of his essays in The Great Eskimo
Vocabulary Hoax, there's no equivalent of the Nobel Prize in our profession.
 
On the other hand, language has a universal fascination that seems to
exceed that of mere physics.  All intelligent humans seem, at whatever
conscious or subconscious cognitive level, to have a sense that language
is a fundamental aspect of human nature.  So they're avidly curious about
it.  And relationships intrigue them; partly, of course, because of the
fallacious but easy-to-fall-into belief that linguistic relationship is
symptomatic of cultural or even biological relationship -- e.g., Hitler's
ridiculous conclusion that the English were somehow more `German' than
the French because, unlike the French, they were still speaking a
Germanic language.  So there are lots of people out there who are really
fascinated by the subject matter of comparative and historical linguis-
tics, a lot more, i daresay, than are fascinated by the mysteries of
quantum mechanics, fascinating as those nevertheless are.
 
And i think we need to encourage these people and their fascination.
Partly because, as (presumed) voters, they have some indirect control
over our research funding.  We need to take the time and energy to
cultivate their interest in our field, to explain to them why some
relationships that seem plausible on the surface really aren't, but in
such a way that they aren't discouraged but rather *en*couraged to get a
better understanding of the matter scientifically.
 
I'm certainly not saying i've found an unbeatable formula for educating
the public about historical and comparative linguistics; i suspect only a
crank could make such a claim.  But i'm working on it!  Wonder if the
information superhighway might provide a means ... I'm already doing a
series of lectures on syntactic theory over Internet ...
 
Best,
Steven
---------------------
Dr. Steven Schaufele
712 West Washington
Urbana, IL  61801
217-344-8240
fcosws at prairienet.org
http://www.prairienet.org/~fcosws/homepage.html
 
**** O syntagmata linguarum liberemini humanarum! ***
*** Nihil vestris privari nisi obicibus potestis! ***