The End of Linguistics

[John McCreery]

At 5:19 PM -0500 3/25/2001, David Samuels wrote:
> As long as we're piling on, can we note that the notion that collecting
> grammars and lexicons of disappearing languages isn't really in any way
> "anthropological"?
>
>

Here in Yokohama, sample size has now reached five. The following,
cross-posted from anthro-L, remains, I believe, pertinent.

------

At 10:01 AM -0800 3/25/2001, Ed Farrell wrote:
> Ron Kephart wrote, in response to a quote from a recent Mark Halpern
> article:
>
> >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"!).
>
> Why don't you give us a better answer.  John McCreery's Halpern quote
> was essentially a laundry list (not an exhaustive one) of activity
> linguists engage in, along with an assertion that this activity is not
> unified by a comprehensive theory of language.  What are your comments
> addressing?  Is his laundry list wrong?  Is his assertion wrong? Are
> both wrong?  If his assertion is wrong, what is the comprehensive
> theory he has missed?
>


Thanks, Ed.

FYI. As of this moment, I have had three replies to this particular
provocation. All have begun with the same sort of ad hominem blow-off,
accusing Halpern of ignorance and/or poor style. One respondent then ends
with a sniff--asserting that the death of this or that field is a common
thing in academia and will not disturb his equanimity. Alvarez waves the red
herring of "dialectical," which is my mis-typing and has nothing to do with
Halpern and then says something snippy about a unified object of study as a
prerequisite for science, apparently assuming that some undefined set of
insiders will "get" his meaning. As you point out, Ron makes counterclaims,
"does not understand..." but since these are all negations, they have
nothing positive to say about the field to which he owes his allegiance. But
in this crowd that makes his reply as substantial as they get.

If I do not take Halpern's title too seriously, it is because of the grain
of truth in my first respondent's response. The social anthropologist in me
recognizes full well that disciplines are tribes, social organizations with
dedicated members, mechanisms for recruitment and succession, allies and
sources of support--and so the likelihood of the whole business falling
apart because of a single outsider's insult is low.  Still, like you, I am
disappointed that our friends react with answers as easily dismissed as they
would like Halpern's remarks to be.

And one more thing: Alas, even you, dear friend, speak of "John McCreery's
Halpern," despite the explicit disclaimer of endorsement with which I
prefaced the quote. That John McCreery does or does not support what Halpern
says is, I think, of no great consequence. That Halpern is published in The
American Scholar and thus read by a good many members of the clerisy who may
never read any linguistics at all and that these may include a fair number
of provosts or deans is, I suspect, of greater significance.

-----








John McCreery
c/o The Word Works
15-13-202 Miyagaya
Nishi-ku, Yokahama
JAPAN 220-0006

Tel +81-45-314-9324
Fax +81-45-316-4409
e-mail mccreery at gol.com

"Making Symbols is Our Business"