LINGUIST List 3.134

Tue 11 Feb 1992

Disc: Linguistics and Popular Press

Editor for this issue: <>

Directory

  • Geoffrey Russom, Re: 3.126 Proto-World
  • Joe Salmons, Proto-World
  • , Re: 3.126 Proto-World
  • Logical Language Group, Popular Views/Linguistics Education

    Message 1: Re: 3.126 Proto-World

    Date: Mon, 10 Feb 92 08:25:42 ESRe: 3.126 Proto-World
    From: Geoffrey Russom <EL403015brownvm.brown.edu>
    Subject: Re: 3.126 Proto-World


    Some responses on this topic sympathize with SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN'S choice of Proto-World and allied topics on the grounds that GB theory is inherently non-interesting to the GAP (Great American Public). This attitude is unjustifiable. SA publishes plenty of stuff on non-sexy topics like number theory. Although the articles may be "watered down," they are not represented as something other than what they are, and do often accurately represent the research interests of the field in general. Part of the problem seems to be a desire among some linguists to dump on "mainstream" (Chomskeyan) linguistics when the opportunity for a cheap shot (or cheap dump) arises. Perhaps the journalists are responding in part to a concept of "heroic resistance" cultivated energentically by the Chomsky-baiters for about three decades now.

    -- Rick

    Message 2: Proto-World

     Date: Mon, 10 Feb 92 9:28:07 ESTProto-World
    From: Joe Salmons <salmonsmace.cc.purdue.edu>
    Subject: Proto-World


    Just when we were getting over this issue... Der Spiegel has an article in its latest edition called "Schnalzlaute im Paradies" ('clicks in paradise') dealing with the origins of humankind, in particular Cavalli-Sforza's theory. It is clearly the most bizarre of the numerous articles they've brought in recent years on topics in this area. It assumes, among other things, 'Nostratic, the common proto-language of all Asiatic and European peoples...' and notes in passing 'three competing theories' of language origin, including the 'bow-wow theory' and the 'oooh! theory'. Since no linguist is mentioned, it is unclear where this information (?) came from.

    Message 3: Re: 3.126 Proto-World

    Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1992 16:53 MSTRe: 3.126 Proto-World
    From: <CAROLGCC.UTAH.EDU>
    Subject: Re: 3.126 Proto-World


    This is essentially a reply to Lyle Campbell's question about how to get the media to report the "real stuff".

    I don't know how to get the media to do this, since they must report things people will read. But what's more important is to get out the real stuff, in as many media as possible.

    There are exciting and challenging and even "sexy" developments in modern linguistics: Petitto's (and colleagues') findings on manual babbling in deaf children (could have gotten a lot more attention in the press -- accompanied by an accessible essay on the significance of such findings for human cognition); the LINGUISTIC significance of the claim that autistic children have normal language; ditto for apparently similar facts with respect to Downs' Syndrome kids; current intensive and productive interactions between linguists and workers in other areas on thorny problems in cognition, etc. etc.

    I'm not saying that the authors of the scientific papers need also to write a popularized version of such work. But things like this ARE interesting to the general public; we DO have interesting things to say (and teach).

    I suppose if linguists are going to spend any time writing about the state of linguistics as it enters the 21st century, they'd be doing double duty (with teaching and research, etc.) which probably noone wants to take on. I know I'm saying "someone's gotta do it", but I'm also saying "sorry, it's not gonna be me".

    Carol Georgopoulos

    Message 4: Popular Views/Linguistics Education

     Date: Fri, 7 Feb 92 17:52:12 -05Popular Views/Linguistics Education
    From: Logical Language Group <lojbabgrebyn.com>
    Subject: Popular Views/Linguistics Education


    Michael Newman <MNEHCCUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes: >I think Andrew Carnie made a good point. I think that perhaps the >popular science press ignores what we consider the central issues of >linguistics because these problems just aren't sexy to those outside the >discipline. This may (or it may not) be related to the fact that during >academic financial crises it seems all too frequent for linguistics >departments to get closed, and that unlike the case of what happens in >Europe, in the US, courses in linguistics are not considered a central >part of most university majors which deal with language, such as foreign >languages, English or Communications. Why?

    I'm sure that the two situations are related. And I'm sure that linguists other than the historical linguists seldom make an effort to promote their ideas outside the discipline.

    For example, I would say that a central dogma of linguistics nowadays is that language prescriptivism is wrong, bad, and other pejoratives. But both English and foreign language classes have ignored this rather successfully, and the average person still expects the dictionary or style guide to tell him what language should be, not what it >IS<.

    I'm going to speculate on the US education system question:

    In the case of non-linguistic language majors, half are concerned with literature and hence care not a whit for the theoretical underpinnings of language in general - they want to know how the language in use is different from English, not how it is the same, else why not study the literature in translation. Linguistics as practiced in the US is not particularly more relevant to them than it is to other academic disciplines.

    For other language majors it is probably a lack of time and staff. A one-semester course in linguistics cannot go very deep into the linguistic aspects of any one language, and thus you would need a follow-on course that would teach the application of linguistic theory to each language being studied. Who will teach the teachers - the professor of Russian languages who hasn't taken a linguistics course can't teach the linguistic analysis of Russian? Most universities can't support a linguistics department staff that could provide such specialized service courses.

    Of course, the concern of other language related disciplines is not competence, but performance, and the orientation of linguistics-as-taught if not as practiced would have to switch more strongly in that direction.

    I personally think that an introductory linguistics course would be a good general education requirement for all majors, if the course was suitably tailored to teach what all students should know about language. But I think the real problem has to be solved at a much lower level, to teach basic linguistic principles as part of an other-culture awareness curriculum at elementary school levels, and linguistics of ones native language in conjunction with or replacement of some of the prescriptivist teaching that pervades elementary and high school 'grammar' classes. ---- lojbab = Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 lojbabgrebyn.com