Editor for this issue: <>
I thought it might be interesting to comment on something that has been happening recently with some of my queries on LINGUIST which might perhaps be of more general interest. It seems that the so-called Gricean principles are if anything TOO active, that is to say, people seem to read all kinds of things into queries in the attempt to be helpful. Having at various times been a subscriber to lists in history, computer science, and cognitive science, I must say I have never seen the kind of helpful response that every query, no matter how abstruse, seems to generate on LINGUIST. On the other hand, precisely because people are so helpful, it seems that the authors of queries (incl. certainly me) will have to be VERY precise in specifying what they want or else risk being flooded with information they cannot use. For example, in response to my queries about whether anyone has ever analyzed the Russian question marker _li_ (or similar markers in other languages) as creating discontinuity I have received tons of responses about OTHER analyses of such constructions as well as numerous responses arguing in detail that discontinuity is NOT the right analysis. However, all I ever wanted to know is whether anybody had ever proposed a discontinuous analysis, not whether it is right or whether other analyses are better. So, while I AM flooded with messages I can't really deal with, I must say I am really impressed with the response. And I guess I should add that it is particularly noteworthy, given some of the acrimony that has occasionally taken place on LINGUIST, that the responses come equally from every theoretical and ideological persuasion I can think of. Can it be that LINGUIST has succeeded where everyone else had failed, in creating a sense of linguistics as a single discipline?Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue