The End of Linguistics

[John McCreery]

At 10:04 AM +0800 01.3.27, Kerim Friedman wrote:>

> In making this argument I did not set out to prove that linguistics is a
>science, only that the argument that he made for proving it was not a science
>was false.

That is precisely where you made your mistake. If you read carefully, you
will discover that Halpern does not argue that linguistics is not a science;
he argues that it isn't likely to become one. He could be wrong, but these
are different propositions. You were arguing against a straw man.

As I wrote before, but will rephrase now, if you wish to address his actual
statements you can either

(1) demonstrate that the convergence he does not see is underway
(2) redefine "science" in a way that makes the lack of convergence
irrelevant, or
(3) deny any interest in science whatsoever--which seems to be Celso's
current tack.

If there's a (4), I don't see it. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

P.S. Among the self-righteous posturings that make up the bulk of this
thread, there have been some glimmerings of recognition that linguistics is
by no means alone in being exposed to the kind of attack that Halpern
launches. The problem is endemic to most of what we are pleased to call the
humanities and the social sciences--where, arguably, current disciplinary
boundaries are to reality what national boundaries in Africa are to the
distribution of tribes. If you want to know why, I recommend Robert Murphy
(1971), to which Allen Chun has just put me on by citing Murphy at length in
"From Text to Context: How Anthropology Makes Its Subject", Cultural
Anthropology, Vol. 15, No. 4, November, 2000, pp. 570-595.


Cheers,



John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd.
Tel +81-45-314-9324
Fax +81-45-316-4409
email mccreery at gol.com

"Making Symbols is Our Business"