[Lingtyp] On policing linguistic examples

Tue Mar 22 01:03:07 UTC 2022

Now I'm wondering about a related question. Has anyone studied the
following?

If "hit" is such a* good* example of our theories, then does that mean that
other verbs are *bad* examples of our theories? (So that our theories are
bad explanations for those other examples, in other words, bad theories.)

How much do stereotypical/prototypical examples affect how we describe and
categorize properties of languages?

This reminds me of the questions about definitions for phenomena, but from
the perspective of the data collected. It's notoriously difficult to define
"basic" concepts such as subject, object, patient, accusative, absolutive,
agent, patient, etc. (Consider for example dative subjects in some
languages.) We often rely on prototypical examples as a starting point
assumed to best represent these, but does that mean we're just skewing the
data to try to bring some order to it?

Furthermore, in principle, though I don't know how much this is actually
the case, different cultures might have different
stereotypical/prototypical actions, which might also be reflected in the
language.* The most "basic" verbs like "hit" might not be the most basic
verbs in other languages (even assuming that they're "basic" in some sense
in at least English to begin with). I think one reason we are drawn to
examples like that is because they seem to reveal cross-linguistic
similarities and clearer instantiations of categories/categorization, but
if in doing so we're skewing what those categories look like with
predetermined prototypes, that's an even bigger problem.

*See for example this paper that argues only culturally relevant
combinations of actions can be used in serial verb constructions:
Enfield, N. J. 2002. Cultural logic and syntactic productivity: Associated
posture constructions in Lao. In N. J. Enfield (ed.), Ethnosyntax:
Explorations in Culture and Grammar, 231–258. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199266500.003.0010

Daniel

On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 5:47 PM Felicity Meakins <f.meakins at uq.edu.au>
wrote:

> No you’re right, those verbs are not. But maybe I should frame this in
> terms of this comment “it is arbitrary and discriminatory to try policing
> them only with respect to one or more favored victim groups”.
>
> It is not about favouring victim groups. It is about how we construct and
> respect the people we are working with and writing about where they don’t
> have the agency in their self-presentation, we do (insider linguists
> notwithstanding of course).
>
> This comes back to verbs of violence and who are chosen to occupy the
> A-S-O roles and therefore the perpetrators, victims and pre-existing
> stereotypes.
>
> *From: *Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of
> "JOO, Ian [Student]" <ian.joo at connect.polyu.hk>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 22 March 2022 at 10:07 am
> *To: *"lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org" <
> lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Lingtyp] On policing linguistic examples
>
>
>
> Is “hug” and “carry” as transtive as “hit”, though?
> According to Hopper and Thompson (1980), one of the factors of
> transitivity is the affectedness of the patient.
> Hugging or carrying someone does not affect them as much as hitting does.
> Also “hug” is not so basic a word as “hit” is, which is in the Swadesh
> List or the Leipzig-Jakarta List.
> Of course, hitting someone is a bad thing to do. But I don’t think
> linguists should avoid certain sentences because they depict something
> morally bad.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Ian
>
> On 22. Mar 2022, 00:54 +0100, Felicity Meakins <f.meakins at uq.edu.au>,
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> We also comment on this in our field methods textbook (p. 129) and use a
> reflection from Torres Strait Islander linguist Al Harvey about this issue
> to illustrate how it can affect communities:
>
>
>
> Meakins, F., Green, J., & Turpin, M. (2018). *Understanding linguistic
> fieldwork*. London: Routledge.
>
> “One of the problems with publishing some of the sentences made up by
> linguists is that they become instantiations of culture and may perpetuate
> negative stereotypes about often already marginalised people. For example,
> grammars are full of sen- tences exemplifying transitivity using verbs that
> denote violence. ‘Hit’ is a classic transitive verb, but so is ‘hug’ or
> ‘carry’. When you construct sentences for elicita- tion, avoid topics that
> refer to violence, sex, alcohol, drugs (including smoking), child abuse or
> neglect, as these may upset people down the track. Also bear in mind that
> descendants of the speakers may read the grammar in years to come, or may
> be an audience member in a presentation using data you collected. Imagine
> that you are trying to re-construct your language and the only verb in the
> corpus is ‘hit’!
>
> *Perpetuating negative stereotypes of communities – Al Harvey*
>
> My name is Al Harvey, I am of Saibai Island descent and am currently work-
> ing on a project to preserve, document and protect the Top Western Torres
> Strait Island dialect of Kalaw Kawaw Ya (KKY).
>
> Today KKY, like many other Australian Indigenous languages, is endan-
> gered. The loss of languages is more than just the loss of spoken word. It
> has always been explained to me that languages are a reflection of a peo-
> ple’s soul and way of living in the world. Speakers and descendants of a
> language have a role to play in the preservation and maintenance of that
> language but so too do people who work with those languages, including
> linguists. It’s important that linguists are cognisant of the role they
> play in acting as a facilitator in the preservation of languages. Linguists
> also need to be aware that language data gathered is presented in a way
> that reflects the good faith in which it was given.
>
> I was at a linguistics workshop recently where the presenters offered sen-
> tences from an Aboriginal language. One of the sentences presented in the
> targeted language translated into English as ‘The man hit the woman’. For
> the purpose of the exercise it seemed to me to be an unnecessary display of
> a negative stereotype in a forum of predominately non-Indigenous linguists.
>
> Thinking of language data beyond something to be scientifically analysed
> and being cognisant that the language you’re working with comes from the
> soul of a people would surely go some way to avoiding such unnecessary
> representations.”
>
> Regards, Felicity
>
>
>
> _________________________________________
>
> Prof Felicity Meakins FASSA  |  Australian Research Council (ARC) Future
> Fellow |
>
> ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language
> <http://www.dynamicsoflanguage.edu.au/>
>
> Fellow of Academy of Social Sciences Australia
> <https://socialsciences.org.au/> (FASSA)
>
> Editor of Contact Language Library
> <https://benjamins.com/#catalog/books/coll/main> |
>
> School of Languages and Cultures | University of Queensland |
>
> Brisbane QLD 4072 | AUSTRALIA
>
> RM 434 | Gordon Greenwood Bldg (32) |
>
> ' +61 7 3365 3114 | ' +61 411 404 546 |
>
> email f.meakins at uq.edu.au |
>
> web http://researchers.uq.edu.au/researcher/547
>
>
>
> [image: Logo Description automatically generated]
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of
> Hagay Schurr <hschurr at gradcenter.cuny.edu>
> *Date:* Saturday, 19 March 2022 at 4:19 am
> *To:* "lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org" <
> lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Subject:* [Lingtyp] On policing linguistic examples
>
>
>
> Dear Sebastian,
>
>
>
> I'm only aware of the debate around LSA guidelines in the early 2000's,
> including, among others, Postal's (2003, 187) reply  :
>
>
>
> "it is arbitrary and discriminatory to try policing them only with respect
> to one or more favored victim groups, the policing code is necessarily
> incompatible with the principle of free speech, and, finally, it is in any
> event not possible to actually codify usage conditions that genuinely pick
> out all and only the offensive. Given all this, codes like the LSA
> guidelines are in part harmful and in part useless." (Postal 2003, 187).
>
>
>
> Postal's paper will lead you to some relevant publications that defends
> policing to some extent.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Hagay
>
>
>
> Postal, P. M. (2003). Policing the content of linguistic examples.
> *Language*, *79*(1), 182-188.
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of
> lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org <
> lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, March 18, 2022 12:00 PM
> *To:* lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> >
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL]Lingtyp Digest, Vol 90, Issue 21
>
>
>
> Send Lingtyp mailing list submissions to
>         lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         lingtyp-owner at listserv.linguistlist.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Lingtyp digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Reference for violence (hit,      kill) in articles in linguistics
>       needed (Sebastian Nordhoff)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2022 12:51:15 +0100
> From: Sebastian Nordhoff <sebastian.nordhoff at glottotopia.de>
> To: "lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org"
>         <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Subject: [Lingtyp] Reference for violence (hit, kill) in articles in
>         linguistics needed
> Message-ID: <7a23c27d-4cc4-e57b-37c6-ac5570a6d144 at glottotopia.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Dear all,
> I have occasionally been part in discussions where the frequent use of
> violent concepts such as 'hit' or 'kill' in linguistics is mentioned and
> sometimes criticized.
>
> I believe there is some research article providing empirical evidence
> for  linguistic articles being unnecessarily "violent", but I am unable
> to locate it. Could the list members help me?
>
> Best wishes
> Sebastian
>
> PS: I am aware that 'hit' and 'kill' have a number of semantic
> properties which make them very suitable for a number of research
> questions.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Lingtyp Digest, Vol 90, Issue 21
> ***************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.]
>
>
> *Disclaimer:*
>
> *This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
> information intended for a specific individual and purpose. If you are not
> the intended recipient, you should delete this message and notify the
> sender and The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (the University)
> immediately. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or
> the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited and may be
> unlawful.*
>
> *The University specifically denies any responsibility for the accuracy or
> quality of information obtained through University E-mail Facilities. Any
> views and opinions expressed are only those of the author(s) and do not
> necessarily represent those of the University and the University accepts no
> liability whatsoever for any losses or damages incurred or caused to any
> party as a result of the use of such information.*
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> 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/20220321/25701263/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8412 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20220321/25701263/attachment.png>