LINGUIST List 16.909

Fri Mar 25 2005

Disc: Re: 16.894, Abolishing Fund Drive

Editor for this issue: Naomi Fox <>

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at


        1.    Aubrey Nunes, Re:16.894, Abolishing Fund Drive Once and For All
        2.    Jeffrey Kaplan, Re: 16.894, Abolishing Fund Drive Once and For All

Message 1: Re:16.894, Abolishing Fund Drive Once and For All

Date: 25-Mar-2005
From: Aubrey Nunes <>
Subject: Re:16.894, Abolishing Fund Drive Once and For All

Dear Editor and fellow subscribers,

An important part of this wonderful institution is precisely that it is free at
point of use to those who need it and mostly can't afford to pay for it.

Publishers are not so badly represented among the contributors, though there are
gaps. But from the employing institutions there are only 21 names. In relation
to job advertisements, there is an obvious scale - as a percentage of first
annual salary. I can hear moans. But the institutional solution is surely to
trim the display advertisements in the largely privately-owned, paper-based
academic media ­ none with the focus and penetration of LL.

There is a marketing question to be asked: of those with a job in
linguistics,how many first heard about it on LL? On a suitably adjusted figure
it would be possible to base a fee structure which would be excellent value for
institutions, and hopefully solve at least most of the crisis.

The list of contributors contains the names of five centres of linguistic
excellence in Britain. But there are gaps - including one which recently
advertised a job on LL. And the rest of linguistic academe looks more stingy,
especially in North America. Seeing in the honorable list the name of the LL
editor who helped me join, I have to chip in myself. But I think those in a
position to determine institutional allocations of advertising expenditure
should play their part too.

This is a kind of obvious idea. And you've considered it, of course. I have no
idea what you see as the down side, But it seems to me that whatever the
downside is, it is nowhere near as bad as any of the other options.

Aubrey Nunes,

Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics

Message 2: Re: 16.894, Abolishing Fund Drive Once and For All

Date: 25-Mar-2005
From: Jeffrey Kaplan <>
Subject: Re: 16.894, Abolishing Fund Drive Once and For All

--How about a merger between LinguistList and the Linguistic Society of
America, with a portion of (slightly increased) LSA dues going to fund
Linguist List? LinguistList already carries out some functions typical of
leading organizations of fields of study, and its core function of
information sharing is an appropriate such function. If there is concern
about LinguistList's independence, I would hope that a suitable
arrangement be negotiated. Maybe?

--Alternatively, under a less U.S.-centric model, negotiate funding, via
slightly raised dues, from various national or even focused linguistic
organizations: the Linguistic Association of Great Britain, the American
Association for Applied Linguistics, the Association for Computational
Linguistics, etc.

--An approach of this sort would be like a tax (albeit a flat one): everybody
pays, and LinguistList would not have to depend on idiosyncratic
generosity. It would free Linguist List, and us, from NPR-like fund drives,
which are, as you say, a mild irritation even when efforts are made to make
them fun. (I must say the LinguistList fundraisers are the best of the class.)
The trick would be to hammer out the relationships with the other
organizations. Could it be done?

Jeff Kaplan

For previous messages in this discussion, see:

Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics

Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue