Editor for this issue: <>
The "long-rangers" reconstructing proto-everything have been quite effective in their public relations. Articles in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN have been rather starry-eyed, it seems to me. Debunking will require a similar amount of effort, but won't be effective unless the journalistic community is persuaded that critics are motivated by the search for truth rather than by empire-building considerations. One problem, I think, is that mainstream linguistics has set aside, for practical reasons, some questions of interest to folks on the street. The number of people theorizing historical problems is relatively small, and they can probably not be expected to do much outreach in addition to persuading their colleagues that diachronic phenomena are worth more attention (I'm thinking of e.g. Elan Dresher and David Lightfoot). Since the folks on the street remain interested in historical questions, somebody's going to cater to them. Scientific journalists no doubt see in all of this an opportunity to recycle their formulas for articles on "theories of everything" in physics, and might not easily be persuaded to abandon such an attractive prospect. No doubt the journalists also see themselves as defenders of lonely geniuses against an unsympathetic "establishment" that "said it couldn't be done." Tough problem! -- RickMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
In response to Alexis Manaster Ramer: I am not a linguist (though I am interested in various aspects of linguistics) but I am generally very concerned about the representation of things in the media, in particular the representation of "expert" knowledge. I am aware of similar travesties in the representation of technological development and scientific knowledge (areas that concern me professionally) and share your frustration and concern about the effects -- and motives -- of such misrepresentation. One question that comes to mind in reading your message is what interests are served by the representation of diverse languages as originating from a single source? The interests I have in mind need not be crassly obvious -- for example, linked in a straightforward way to producers' economic or personal involvements -- or even completely conscious. Instead, especially in the case of the press, they may be more murkily linked to global trends and agendas and express themselves through producers' intuitions about what will sell. I find it interesting to ask, for example, what sort of picture of human diversity, and human nature, is implicit in the representation of a ProtoWorld and our emergence from it. What sort of comparison among post-Proto World languages is proposed? What makes the idea of a ProtoWorld appealing and "sexy" (marketable) in our current world economic and social situation? These may not be the right questions for this particular documentary but understanding more about what underlies these sorts of one-sided reports might be helpful in combatting them. (I say all this without actually having studied, and formed a position on, the question of the monogenesis of the world's languages. Regardless of the credibility of the relevant theories, I think it's important that we be watchful of the representation of scientific knowledge and practice in the media and press for more sophisticated reporting on both controversies and "settled" understandings.) On the more pragmatic side, I should think that if a significant number of respected linguists wrote letters protesting this misrepresentation and sent them to the show's producers, the head of programming, and the office of the president at the BBC, it would have some effect. Editorials in relevant newspapers or literary magazines might be helpful too. As in all such matters, organization and concerted action (so difficult to manage) count. Susan Newman Xerox Palo Alto Research Center and University of California at BerkeleyMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue