Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen
linguistlist.org>
Anthea Gupta writes: > >Just to say that we need to remember that languages are constructs. >There are no languages. Only people performing language and people >creating abstract notions of language. > I just love it! The postmodernist view of language! I've stuck it up on the noticeboard outside my office. Lance Eccles Lance Eccles Department of Asian Languages Macquarie University NSW 2109 Australia fax +61 2 9797 0003 ph +61 2 9850 7023 lance.ecclesMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuemq.edu.au http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au/~leccles
To briefly respond to Anthea Fraser: The correspondent Anthea Fraser (avoiding any gender assumption on the basis of first name!) stated "Languages are constructs." So there need be no regret at the loss of such a construct, any more than for a bicycle. First, I strongly agree that languages are "constructs," but they are *social* constructions. There is no such thing as a "language" unless it is socially constructed and given a name (whether by insiders or outsiders is a further interesting question). Such a construct is an essential part of the common activity of constructing a people. Second, I strongly disagree with the conclusion: I regret when a *people* dies, even if the individuals continue living (speaking another language, amalgamated into another culture). That regret may sound like (and be) sort of unscientific sympathy for the inevitable. But to equate a language which is constructed by, and constructs, a people, with a bicycle is beyond belief. Nonetheless, I think the Ahthea Fraser's comment was helpful; it made me, at least, think again about what we mean by "language" as a social construct. And why languages and cultures should not be destroyed, precisely as constructs. All the best. Hilaire Paul ValiquetteMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue