linguistlist.org>
Editor for this issue: Scott Fults <scottlinguistlist.org>
videotron.ca>Concerning the recognition of linguistics within academia (and in the world in general), I too am often dismayed at how little even educated individuals know about our field. It also seems that linguistics has lost much prestige over the past few decades: in Quebec province for instance, linguistics used to be taught in grades 12 and 13 (the last two years of high-school) until it was abandoned from the curriculum a few years ago. It is also striking how, in the current language debate in Quebec and Canada, few linguists are ever asked about their opinions. The media usually invite writers, poets and politicians to talk about language, but never linguists. Last year I read a book by French linguist Claude Hagge, "L'homme de paroles" (Paris, Fayard, 1985), in which he gives his own explanation for the lack of recognition of our field. Here is a loose translation of a relevant excerpt (p. 295-296 in the original) : "Why is it that, over the last 25 years, linguistics has lost the prestige it once enjoyed? Why is it that it does not seem to have fulfilled its promises?... The obsession with its "scientific" status has led linguists to adopt a false rigor, for which there is no model, even in the most "rigorous" sciences. The excessive fascination with formalisms has boxed linguistics in within the confines of a technical jargon, which seems to have little to do with language as it is actually spoken. Not only have historical and social considerations been evacuated from linguistics, but speakers themselves have been reduced to an abstract concept, and words no longer have any meaning". Granted, Hagge dismisses linguistic formalism too quickly, and fails to recognize the major advances made in several areas, including syntax and language acquisition. Yet, the formalisms used in linguistics are changing so quickly and are often so complex that perhaps we have alienated ourselves from other (social) sciences. ****************************** Patrick-Andr Mather matherMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
linguistics.ucl.ac.uk>Joseph Davis's diagnosis sounds very plausible, but I think there must be more to it than that - something to do with formal structures, perhaps. In the UK I think linguists have taken the same kind of approach that Joseph describes, and yet we don't have the problem of invisibility that seems to face our colleagues in the USA. It often surprises me, in fact, how visible we are; for instance, Linguistics is one of the fifty-odd units into which all UK university research is divided for purposes of national assessment, and it has one of about eighteen `sections' in the British Academy. Maybe more UK universities have linguistics depts than in USA? Richard (= Dick) Hudson Phonetics and Linguistics, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT. +44(0)171 419 3152; fax +44(0)171 383 4108; http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dickMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
hawaii.edu>Dear All: I thought I was the only one who felt frustrated reading articles on contemporay linguistics, but it seems that there are more people out there questioning the relevance of the field. Instead of duplicating what has already been said, I would like to make a few general, though personal, remarks about linguistics. It is true that in most academic fields the emphasis is on the 'scientific' rather than 'artistic' approach. Isolating 'facts' and describing them in some assumed 'model' is acceptable, except that it does not work. Once the theoretical model in the beginning of any linguistic text is specified through diagrams and algebraic rules, what follows is again a description of mostly English sentences in more rigorous, clinically accurate language. What if English did not have WH movment? Much of what has been published in linguistic journals would have been irrelevant. Instead of focusing on 'scientific' it would be more conducive to look at 'scientific' activity as 'human' activity, thereby broadening the field rather than narrowing it.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
yahoo.com>Now I know what Dr. Frankenstein felt like. So far, all but one of the postings in reply to my question about why linguistics seems to be an invisible discipline in North America have been historical/philosophical laments about the directions linguistics has taken in the past half-century. These are some very interesting points, but my question seems to have been misconstrued. As my graduate students and my friends in LACUS can attest, I, too, have some serious doubts about the scientific status of linguistics. But that was not why I posted the original query. Linguistics exists. There are thousands of us in North America alone. Employment prospects for linguists are at least as good as those in other disciplines. I just wanted to know why academic/scholarly/governmental listings of disciplines--with the notable exception of AAAS--don't include linguistics as a discipline. I would also like to read suggestions on how we go about remedying this situation. Much as I appreciate the replies, the query was motivated by political/economic/administrative concerns. Anyway, thanks to all for some very interesting reading. CarlMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue