Editor for this issue: <>
With regard to Hoberman's comment, it would not make sense to say that linguistics is inherently imperialistic in nature, any more than it would for any other science, since linguistics is multi-faceted and has many purposes, some now well established and others continually evolving, e.g., "forensic" applications of linguistics etc. Since language is universal, applications for linguistics are universal. In my earlier comments I dwelt on diversity among languages because that's where the connection between linguistics (mainly as an aid to learning and teaching languages) and multilingual empires (= "imperialism") is easiest to see. However, I also noted that there are people who are interested in language and linguistic diversity for its own sake. I suspect that this is universal. although it may be reflected differently in different cultures. Maybe the universality of interest in language and linguistic diversity is reflected in myths about the origin of such diversity, or other kinds of "pre-linguistic" explanations. Among cultures which seem particularly ethnocentric to me, Classic Athenian culture perhaps was less encouraging to interest in other languages than most cultures (with the US perhaps close behind but also with a complex fear and insecurity about languages other than English). Nevertheless, we see from Plato's Cratylus that differences between Greek (in its various diachronic forms) and the "Barbarian" languages was put to philosophical use. If you read Cratylus, you'll see that Plato, through Socrates, was putting some value on philosophical arguments which brought in data from other languages. (Even though there's a lot of sarcasm and tongue in cheek in the whole issue as Plato treats it in Cratylus, i.e., whether the words of language are "natural" or "conventional"/are there "correct" words for ideas/concepts /things? --Plato is always a polemicist, reacting to rival schools of thought.) I would like to re-open the issue (I think it was once opened before on the list) about how different cultures "explain" language diversity, and whether there is a culture which prevents all individual members from being interested in language for its own sake. I don't think that could logically be possible -- but what do I know? In any case, this might give us some insights into the "prehistory of linguistics", and also into the still present motivations of SOME linguists to attach themselves to this aspect of OUR culture. BenjiMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue