Misrepresenting others' views

[Larry Trask]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

ECOLING at aol.com writes:

> Larry Trask continues to avoid the basic statement of the paradox,
> to muddy the waters with red herrings.
>
> And he continues to knowingly misrepresent others' views.

No; I do not.

Lloyd, I take very considerable offense at being accused of deliberate
misrepresentation.  This, to my mind, is just about the gravest charge that can
be laid against any scholar.

When taking issue with you or anybody else, I take the greatest care to present
your case as accurately as I can.  In your case, that has proved difficult,
because not infrequently I find that your words make little or no sense to me.
But I have never knowingly misrepresented you, and I think you should be
ashamed of yourself for asserting such a thing.

> No one has said that linguists do not normally think at all of any factors
> beyond mutual intelligibility.  So attributing it to one's opponents in a
> discussion is a serious misrepresentation.  (Nor has anyone said they
> do not normally think of other factors when creating a serious definition.
> They may choose a definition which does not incorporate every detail
> of which they are fully aware.)
> This misrepresentation is however consistent with
> what Larry Trask repeatedly does.  (See further below.)

Lloyd, look at your earlier postings.  You have repeatedly brandished mutual
intelligibility as the sole or principal criterion used by linguists.  You have
called this a "highly technical definition", to be contrasted with other
possible definitions.  You have suggested strongly that the man in the street
normally uses a much wider range of criteria in identifying languages than do
linguists.  And you have constantly cited a passage from Lyle Campbell's book,
extracted it out of its context, and brandished it explicitly as though it were
Campbell's own attempt at a universal definition -- which it is not.  Moreover,
you have done this even though you have apparently not read the book, and even
though you apparently do not understand what Campbell is trying to do, or why.
Several respondents, including me, have pulled you up sharply on the list for
this piece of misbehavior.

And you are accusing me of deliberate misrepresentation?

> Saying that many linguists commonly use a definition of distinct
> languages referring in some way to "mutual intelligibility"
> in no way implies that they are in any sense unaware of other factors
> which would enter into a refined definition.

Then why did you never admit this in your several postings?

You kept calling mutual intelligibility a "highly technical definition".
Now we are to understand that, by this phrase, you meant something that falls
considerably short of a "refined definition" -- whatever that might be.
Is that it?

See what I mean when I tell you I have trouble understanding what you write?

> Nor do they or we need to be lectured about mutual intelligibility
> being a gradient phenomenon (70% or etc.) as Larry Trask does.
> We are all quite aware of that, thank you very much.

Then why did you show no awareness of it while claiming that mutual
intelligibility was a highly technical definition and the one normally used by
linguists?

> NOR does it imply that such a simple definition is used only for children
> nor that it is "not a serious definition", as Trask has attempted to argue.

Nonsense.  I have said no such thing.  You are putting words into my mouth.

What I have said is this:

Mutual intelligibility is not the sole or usual criterion invoked by linguists
for identifying language boundaries.  It is only one of many.  It is not even a
very good criterion, but it is the one we must fall back on, as best we can,
when nothing else is available.

Find me a passage in one of my earlier postings in which I assert that mutual
intelligibility is suitable only for children.  And find me a passage in which
I assert, in so many words (you have used quotation marks) that mutual
intelligibility is "not a serious criterion".  Do it quickly.

If you can't do it, would you like to ponder the force of your phrase
"knowingly misrepresent[ing] others' views"? ;-)

> Lyle Campbell (whom Larry Trask professes to admire) uses exactly
> that definition in his book *American Indian Languages*
> which many consider a definitive reference work on the current
> status of knowledge of genetic relations in this field.

I think Lloyd's use of Campbell's book has already been dealt with more than
adequately.

> These are all red herrings.  Trask simply refuses to deal with
> the paradox raised.  He clearly does not like the obvious conclusion.

Sorry, but I have seen no paradox.  As I have pointed out several times,
publicly and privately, if you insist on claiming that "same language" and
"different language" constitute coherent, principled and definable notions,
then you will only fall into confusion and absurdity.  As indeed I believe
Lloyd has done here.

> As pointed out previously, the conclusion almost certainly stands
> EVEN IF one changes the definition to suit him, AS LONG AS
> the definition of "same" vs. "different" language does not preclude
> that some dialects of a language can change substantially so that
> (under one's favorite definition) they count as a distinct language,
> while other dialects can in the same time span change so little that
> one is more comfortable treating them as still the same language.
> The only way to avoid this appears (so far) to be a definition which
> circularly prevents the paradox by  defining ANY CHANGE HOWEVER
> SMALL as meaning we no longer have the "same language".
> This certainly does violence to any normal definition of
> same vs. different language (see also the next paragraph).

There is no "normal definition".  The relation "is the same language as" cannot
be given rigorous content.

> (Of course, saying there is no such thing as same vs. different
> language also evades it.  But that is a perversion of the English
> language, and a denial of normal usage among both linguists
> and lay people.

Aha!  Exactly.  Lloyd is taking his understanding of "normal usage" among both
linguists and laymen, and he's trying to reify it into something with rigorous
content, so that he can deduce consequences by rigorous logic.  Can't be done,
Lloyd.

> In a most recent message, Trask affirms this is his
> position, but then fails to admit that he should not have pretended
> to be answering the paradox with his many other red herrings,
> which appear relevant to the statement of the paradox only if one DOES
> admit that the notions of same vs. different language mean something.
> Because without that, the statement of the paradox means nothing
> and so should not be under discussion at all.)

Lloyd, this last sentence sums up my position magnificently.
That's just what I've been trying to say.

> On Trask's continued attmempts to discredit others:

Gee whiz, Lloyd -- you've really got it in for me, haven't you?
While you're at it, would you also like to blame me for corrupting the nation's
youth, a la Pat Ryan, or for the Reichstag fire?  ;-)

>>> Unless of course the writer literally means as he writes
>>> that mutual intelligibility is "one of many factors which may help to
>>> determine whether varieties are best regarded as two languages
>>> or as a single language".  Note the "one of", in which case the
>>> response should have been not "NO, WRONG", but
>>> "YES, WITH ADDITIONAL SPECIFICATIONS".

[LT]

>> Eh?  I say it's one of many factors, and you complain that I am overlooking
>> other factors?  What does this mean?

> Mr. Trask should have asked first, if he did not know what it means.

So your obscurity is my fault, because I failed to ask you for clarification
before replying to your public posting?  I see.  Anything else you'd like to
lay on my shoulders before we continue?

Actually, I couldn't have burned the Reichstag, because my mother had only just
turned 15 at the time, and she wouldn't even meet my father for another seven
years.  As for corrupting the nation's youth, well, most of the youth I recall
attempting to corrupt already seemed to know more about it than I did. ;-)

> As I have pointed out to him elsewhere, it means that he should not always
> try to find fault with the expressions of others' views, by saying they are
> wrong, then giving his own version which includes their views as part.  That
> is both rude and not entirely honest (at least I would consider myself
> dishonest if I did that).  Rather he should agree with his interlocutors as
> far as he can, and say he accepts their views as a PART of his own when he in
> fact does (as in this case he clearly did), and say that he needs to add some
> refinements or modifications before he can agree fully.
> It's an attitude and politeness problem, and also one of misrepresentation.

No, Lloyd.

The problem here is that, insofar as I can understand your position at all, I
disagree with it *fundamentally*.  Your entire case appears to me to rest upon
postulates which I reject as false or incoherent.  That's what I've been trying
to say.

> As to other misrepresentations, Trask in the list paraphrased here
> implies he disagrees with others of us on a long list of items.

> Trask says he does *not* believe that mutual intelligibility is *the*
> criterion
>      for setting up language boundaries.
> He says he does *not* believe that it is the primary or sole criterion
>      used by linguists in general.
> He says he does *not* believe that it constitutes a "serious technical
> definition".

> He says he does *not* believe that it can be applied in a principled way.

> He says he does *not* believe that the man in the street has a better
>      conception of language boundaries than professional linguists do.
> He says he does  *not* believe that individual languages just exist
>      as discrete entities "out there".
> He says he does *not* believe that the question "Are A and B the
>      same language or different languages?" is generally meaningful
>      or capable of being answered in a principled way.
> He says he does *not* believe that a language can remain unchanged over time.

> And Trask says he is afraid that this cumulation of disagreements
>      doesn't seem to leave him many points of contact with me.

> As has been apparent from his many communications, Mr. Trask
>      repeatedly tries to paint others as having the views listed above,
>      and similar ones.

> Every one of these is a misrepresentation, and Mr. Trask has been
> repeatedly informed of this fact.  So it is a deliberate misrepresentation.

Interesting.

Lloyd cites a series of beliefs which he imputes to me -- correctly, as it
happens, though I'm not at all sure that I've made all these points on the
list.

He now states the following: "Every one of these is a misrepresentation".

Lloyd, tell me: how the hell can my own assertions of my own beliefs constitute
a set of misrepresentations?

This discussion is becoming surreal.

Oops.  Gotta go, or my wife will have my ass.  Back later, if and when I have
the time.

Larry Trask
COGS
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QH
UK

larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk