The End of Linguistics

[Christian Nelson]

John:
I'd look for a real good surgeon, given how deeply lodged in your cheek your
tongue must be to have 1) suggested no endorsement of Halpern (even below,
again!) when your unwarranted dismissal of Celso's criticism (re: One Unified
Object) could only come from a Halpern booster; 2) referred to folks on this
list as "friends" after playing such a prank on them (i.e., suggesting their
field of study, or at least a closely associated one, is full of bunk on their
own *disciplinary* list and then chastizing  responses because they aren't
sufficient for an outside audience). With regard to this last point, surely a
social anthropologist would expect back region behavior in a back region, no?
I'd think an apology is in order, if not also an exit from this back region.
Best,
Christian Nelson

John McCreery wrote:

> 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"