Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen
linguistlist.org>
Dear Linguists, Indo-European languages are known to have a strong tendency to nominalise: the speakers of such languages hunt for 'things' in their roundabout. Then people catch 'a cold' (they don't simply 'cold' as they cough or sneeze). You don't 'camera'. Instead, you take 'a picture' by 'your camera'. And right now, you are reading your messages on LINGUIST. They're not 'LINGUISTing you', nor you 'LINGUISTing' anything or anyone. Linguistic determinism presumably wants us to approach such a tendency as a part of our world view: nouns are typically more permanent and less dynamic than verbs. Then a nominalising language encourages one to view the world as more static and less transient than what it actually is. Within the field of linguistics, we've been looking for an explanation/description of 'language' (something out there, or something (again 'something') inside). Even those conversationalists among us are still more concerned with 'speech' rather than 'speaking'. If linguistics were born in a less 'noun-dominated culture'(advocates of the doctrine of linguistic determinism assure us there are some), how different would our theories of language be? Is it ever possible to have a 'verb-dominated' theory/science of language? (Just imagine how different it would be if one could translate a linguistic notion, say 'word', into a less nominalised language: perhaps 'sounds' word together in order to mean. Or perhaps the concept 'word' itself is culturally biased as we expect words to refer to 'things' outside!) More generally, is our linguistics today a 'nominalised' science of language? Are ALL linguistic 'things' necessarily 'things'? Does it make any sense to have a less nominal- ised science of language? If yes, is science universal or culture- bound? If no, does it mean some cultures are more 'science-compatible' than others? Best regards, Ahmad R. Lotfi, Chair of English Department Azad University at Khorasgan.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue