[Lingtyp] languages of scholarship

[Hartmut Haberland]

May I refer to a book by Linus Salö, 2017. The Sociolinguistics of Academic Publishing. Language and the Practices of Homo Academicus. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. I haven’t checked the book again, and maybe I am oversimplifying, but what I remember is Linus’ point that publications in English have less to do with real internationalization but with competition within a country about which universities are ‘most international’. Hartmut



-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> På vegne af Martin Haspelmath
Sendt: 26. juni 2020 20:58
Til: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
Emne: Re: [Lingtyp] languages of scholarship



It seems that there are two groups of people: the "defeatists" who realize that English/Globish has won, and the "romantics" who cherish linguistic diversity also when it comes to linguistics writings.



I belong to the defeatists, also because I know that I owe my own career to my early switch to English (my 1993 dissertation on indefinite pronouns was the first linguistics dissertation written in English in Germany, and it helped me get a good job; nowadays few people write in German about general linguistics).



So, sad as it is: Just as speakers of Sáliba or Japhug do not get good jobs without knowing another big language as well, linguists will hardly get good jobs unless they write in a big language. It's wonderful to hear about linguistics dissertations written in Quechua (http://www.openculture.com/2019/10/peruvian-scholar-writes-defends-the-first-thesis-written-in-quechua.html),

but can this be much more than a symbolic act?



Instead of talking about the languages we write in, we should perhaps talk about the way academia is organized. Why is it the case that people who write in small languages have fewer chances to get good jobs? What is it that discourages ambitious Latvian linguists from writing in Latvian?



Why do I read in reviews that "X has published in excellent journals", and why is it that journals highlight their "impact factors"? Since this is a typology list: Why doesn't ALT object to De Gruyter's listing LT's impact factor (https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals/lity/lity-overview.xml), even though impact factors are widely thought to be damaging to science?



So if we are serious about our wish to support small languages, even in linguistics writings, we should perhaps think about moving away from De Gruyter and setting up a linguistics journal that is open to many other languages. Maybe with our prestige as ALT, we can make a real difference. (It seems unlikely, but it may be worth trying.)



Best,

Martin



--

Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at shh.mpg.de<mailto:haspelmath at shh.mpg.de>) Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History

Kahlaische Strasse 10

D-07745 Jena

&

Leipzig University

Institut fuer Anglistik

IPF 141199

D-04081 Leipzig



_______________________________________________

Lingtyp mailing list

Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>

http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20200626/2726fe36/attachment.htm>