[Lexicog] Re: arguably

[Rudolph C Troike]

Thanks to Patrick for the careful text-based exegesis of "arguably". Re
Wayne's original question, I don't think (raised negative) that I've
seen it used much in linguistic literature. But the verb is, especially
in the presentation of papers, quite common in linguistics, with the
meaning "to present an argument (a set of facts/observations/inferences
supporting/refuting a particular conclusion) for/against something", not
meaning "rancorously disputing".

The usage has undoubtedly been borrowed, as has much of recent linguistic
terminology, from philosophical/logical discourse. As a casual observation
on my part, its recent expansion in use seems to reflect a humilitarian
(or pseudo-humilitarian) turn from Chomsky's original key term in the
1950s and 1960s, "to claim", whose absence from a paper or presentation
was sure to mark it as "uninteresting" (another term borrowed by Chomsky
from logical discourse, which caused enormous misunderstandings among
logical illiterati, including most structural linguists). Although papers
do occasionally still "claim" something or other, I think that there may
be an unspoken feeling that it is a bit hubristic, and it is more
appropriate for the modern linguist raised in the shadow of the
Heisenberg principle to more modestly "argue", or even relativistically
"tell a story".

	Rudy Troike




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/HKE4lB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/