Editor for this issue: Jody Huellmantel <jody
linguistlist.org>
I was very surprised and deeply saddened to receive the news of James McCawley's sudden and unexpected passing. When I saw him at the LSA in LA at the beginning of January, I had no idea it would be the last time I would see him and enjoy his brilliant conversation and penetrating extemporaneous comments. After over thirty years I had come to take it for granted that if I managed to get myself to the LSA, among other meetings, he would be among the rewards that would make the meeting worthwhile for me. I regret that I will not be able to attend his memorial service in Chicago to pay my last and deepest respects for him, so I feel a great urge to immediately express my sorrow and respect through this message at least, and no doubt it will be among the simplest and least capable of many messages that will come in about him. He was a great scholar and linguist, astonishingly widely and deeply knowledgeable, honest, clear, sensitive, humourous, witty, and warm. Although I never took a class with him, I can tell from his many wonderful publications, and certainly from informal conversation with him, that he was also a great teacher. Although it is small consolation at this time, especially for those closest to him, his spirit will live on in his writings and continue to touch those who did not have the opportunity to be more personally touched by him.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Jim McCawley in memoriam I am sitting here in the quietness of morning disturbed only by the crystalline song of a cardinal, looking at the bibliography of one of the last classes I took with Jim McCawley and the Philosophy of Science, fall 97. The length of the bibliography leaves me in awe. For me, it was by far one of the most interesting and arcane classes taught by Jim, and also the one that most clearly reflected his immense knowledge of our field. That quarter, he compared linguistics with astronomy, mathematics, physics, medicine and chemistry. Jim was willing to open the doors for us to see where linguistics stood in the realm of science and how it would fare within the rigorous framework of such works as Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Feyerabend's Farewell to Reason, Popper's Conjectures and Refutations, and Objective Knowledge. He never said whether linguistics was or was not a science, perhaps one of the conclusions I was expecting to hear. He only pointed the way for us to make our own decision. But make no mistake, his silence was based on his immense knowledge. He knew that no simple answer was possible, not even after having read all the books he put on the bibliography. More amazing, and revealing of his high caliber as a linguist and philosopher, is the fact that he knew that his own theory should come under our scrutiny if his class was going to teach us something. He knew that some of us would look more closely at his theory, and decide whether it was scientific or not according to the criteria laid out in front of us. Many theories populate the linguistic realm in the USA. Some of them were born from disagreements with other theories in the early days of generative grammar, and usually their proponents are reluctant to expose them in a class where they may be criticized. Very few linguists want their theories exposed to scientific examination of that nature. But Jim was willing. In the light of his review of Feyerabend's Farewell to Reason, "the Dark Side of Reason," and his discussion of Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, one can only conclude that Jim knew very well his was only one of many theories which inhabited the linguistic universe at the end of the century. He knew that it was impossible to claim that any of them was more scientific than the others. The fact that so many exist attests to the relative value of each, with none of them able to attract the opposite factions (cf. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Through Linguistics and the Philosophy of Science, Jim McCawley wanted us to confront the true state of our discipline. The breadth of his knowledge amazes me, as well as his courage to see where he stood. I saw Jim for the last time in January in Los Angeles (LSA 99). I was at the Westin Bonaventure Hotel on the 18th floor. Across Figueroa Street the blue City Bank building rose tall and powerful into the sky. At the very top a small bird was perched on the ledge; it looked like a shadow. For some reason I compare that bird to Jim McCawley. Only he (and perhaps a few others) had what is needed to reach the heights. From there he contemplated the panorama of linguistics in the USA, and found reassuring confirmation for the path he had taken since his MIT- days. I now understand the significance of his Linguistics and the Philosophy of Science. Jim McCawley was the architect of his own life. He lived with the dramatic elegance of an original thinker. Thank you, Jim. Your joie de vivre (the first words we exchanged were related to the quality of a bottle of vino tinto espaol!), and your knowledge and understanding helped me immensely in getting my PHD. Eddy Gaytn (a Guatemalan linguist.)Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue