The End of Linguistics

[Robert Inglis]

Dear List-members:

Not to quibble, but what are Halpern's qualifications, anyways, for making
such a ruckus? He's just a cocky little rooster trying to scare up some
attention in the hen-house.

Linguistics and other 'soft' sciences are only limited by the technology of
the experimental techniques used to confirm their theories.  Because we
cannot YET explore the human brain in a revealing-enough intimacy, we cannot
advance into the realm of a proper science, such as physics.

But such an innovation is simply a matter of time; given that the human
genome has recently been mapped, and that technology is coming more and more
to externalize human thought, it will be quite probably a matter of a few
years before linguistics really takes off.  To dismiss, at this juncture,
the whole discipline is laughably myopic of Mr. Halpern. To me, it is just
as ridiculous as if, just before the Renaissance, an  academic in the 'dark
ages' solemnly predicted the "End of Science".

~ Robert Inglis ~


>From: Ronald Kephart <rkephart at unf.edu>
>To: Anthro-L <anthro-l at listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu>,
>EASIANTH at LISTSERV.TEMPLE.EDU, linganth at cc.rochester.edu
>Subject: Re: The End of Linguistics
>Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 11:25:07 -0800
>
>John McCreery sends us some stuff from Michael Halpern's "The End of
>Linguistics," (The American Scholar Winter, 2001, p. 13-26). John
>then asks:
>
>>How would you answer these charges?
>
>My short answer would be "nonsense." Halpern does not, apparently,
>understand the goals of modern linguistics; does not understand much
>about the nature of language; and does not understand the difference
>between language and communication. And, as Celso pointed out, he
>confused "dialectal" with "dialectical," a fatal error for someone
>writing about language (there's an appropriate place for Jesse's
>"sic"!).
>
>But let me focus on one part of Halpern's "indictment":
>
>>"A lesser but still serious problem linguists face is one that
>>besets all the human sciences: they are studying creatures who are
>>increasingly aware of being studied...
>
>This, of course, is true of all studies of living things; humans
>aren't special in this regard. And in some areas greater attention
>needs to be paid to this than in others, but it depends on what
>you're interested in. When I'm questioning consultants on structures
>in Creole English I have to be sure that they know what I'm
>interested in, I have to establish a context. Otherwise, they may
>give me what they think is the standard English form that they think
>I want (I used "they think" twice because sometimes what they *think*
>is the standard form is also interesting!). But whatever they do,
>they're going to do it thru language; and we can still learn
>something about linguistic behavior from them.
>
>If people are aware of the fact that we're studying their digestive
>system, maybe they'd eat differently. But, they're not likely to
>start eating rocks. Halpern doesn't scare me.
>
>Ronald Kephart
>English & Foreign Languages
>University of North Florida

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.