NPR's All Things Considered: Today's Episode in the Series, "The Human Edge"

Tue Aug 10 18:27:11 UTC 2010

 I have done a fair amount of thinking and a bit of presenting on language
evolution issues (I think discussions of sign languages should be a key part
of this).  I think the world needs our ideas on this but that we haven't put
them into an easily disseminatable format yet.

How about compiling some of our ideas on language evolution?  I invite
everyone to discuss what linguistic anthropology theory can add to theories
of language evolution and we can post it on the SLA Blog and perhaps in the
Anthro Newsletter as starting points for further discussion.  I'll post
something myself as soon as I stick my head up from various things that
needed to be done yesterday.

all best,

Leila

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Alexandre Enkerli <enkerli at gmail.com>wrote:

> Sounds like the relationships between mainstream media and academics
> are a widespread issue.
> Was just listening to the latest episode of a sociology podcast
> ("Sociology Improv") and they discussed those.
> http://thesocietypages.org/improv/2010/08/06/navel-gazing/
> Their issue is actually with colleagues who refuse to answer when
> questions are slightly outside of one's field of expertise. Of course,
> the situation in sociology is quite different from ours. As Chelsea
> cogently says, we wouldn't answer questions about paleoanthropology.
> But there does seem to be a tricky thing going on when some academics
> refuse to play the media game.
>
> Language Log itself has had frequent discussions of media coverage of
> language issues. Among my favourite posts on this is "Raising
> standards — by lowering them."
> http://158.130.17.5/~myl/languagelog/archives/001961.html<http://158.130.17.5/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/001961.html>
>
> "Hard" scientists have the same problems and whole blogs are dedicated
> to this "media misrepresentation of science":
> http://www.badscience.net/
>
> In our case, I'd argue that the problem isn't just in mainstream
> media. Don't know about you but textbook chapters on language, in
> cultural anthropology or sociology, tend to make me react very
> negatively. With statements about "chimps who can be trained to use
> sign language as proficiently as two year old humans," it can be very
> difficult to teach some subjects.
> There's probably a relationship between textbook coverage and media
> coverage. Social scientists without a language background may end up
> relying on "common knowledge" which is often misleading and
> inaccurate.
>
> So, accurate representation of language issues by mainstream media
> could be a focus.
>
> The nice thing is, we're already talking about solutions.
> One point is that some linguistic anthropologists are quite
> media-savvy (can think of several of them off the top of my head,
> several of them outstanding women). It's easier to point to some
> thorough explanation which has already been published than to react to
> individual points.
>
> In fact, Language Log does a fairly good job on debunking some
> language-related stories and some SLA members have collaborated with
> them. Pointing people to specific LL posts may sound like copping out,
> but it's probably an efficient way to get people to understand some
> basic language issues.
>
> Another strategy might be to "start playing the game." As the
> Sociology Improv guys say, journalists who are told to go talk to
> somebody else when the issue is slightly out of someone's expertise
> are unlikely to come back with more relevant questions. And qualifying
> statements are likely to be edited out of an academic's answer. But
> it's still possible to provide an appropriate answer to questions
> outside of our domains. It's rather difficult and we still run the
> risk of upsetting colleagues. But it's probably a better strategy than
> sending journalists away anytime their questions aren't as relevant as
> we'd like them to be.
> Again, LL can serve as a model. They often go way out of their domains
> of expertise and we might disagree with many things they say. But they
> still do a lot to increase knowledge of language-related issues.
>
> Then there's William's well-stated point about outreach. Given the
> size and scope of the SLA, it might be quite difficult to build an
> actual outreach program which would satisfy the membership. But we can
> make a concerted effort to "put linguistic anthropology on the map."
> Part of our site's purpose is to contribute to our discipline's
> visibility. While the effects may be too subtle to notice, at this
> point, it does seem that things are improving on that front. It's a
> slow process and there are some "bumps on the road," but it does sound
> like we're getting something going.
> A useful thing, with social media, is that it's relatively easy to get
> the attention of people interested in subjects about which we know.
> For instance, a tweet about a media story or a blog response to a
> newspaper article might be seen by the original author and trigger
> some form of exchange. The tools are there so we may actually use
> them.
>
> It'd be very nice if SLA members could send us material: links to
> unfolding stories, open letters to editors, guest posts about relevant
> issues... All of these can contribute to "language awareness."
>
> Misinformation about language won't go away. But we can help increase
> the validity of some key statements about language.
>
> Actually, one place to start might be with misleading statements about
> the "Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis"...
>
> --
> Alex
> http://enkerli.com/
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 13:13, Chelsea Booth <chelsealbooth at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I raised this question to Jim and he suggested I forward it to you all:
> >
> > Why are our non-ling anth colleagues answering questions about language
> > rather than recommending us for the job? If someone (NPR or even a
> student)
> > were to ask me a question about the cranial capacity of *Australopithecus
> > afarensis*, I would never answer that question when I know there are
> other,
> > more capable, individuals available in the discipline. Perhaps we need to
> > also extend our PR to our own association?
> >
> >
> > Chelsea L. Booth
> > Ph.D. Candidate
> > Department of Anthropology
> > Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
> > 131 George Street, RAB 3rd floor
> > New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1414
> > USA
> >
> > Fax: 732.932.1564
> > Email: clbooth at rci.rutgers.edu
> > Website: chelsealbooth.weebly.com
> >
>

-- 
Leila Monaghan, PhD
Department of Anthropology
University of Wyoming
Laramie, Wyoming