LINGUIST List 5.1321

Sat 19 Nov 1994

Disc: Diachronica

Editor for this issue: <>


Directory

  1. , *Diachronica*

Message 1: *Diachronica*

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 94 13:16:22 ES*Diachronica*
From: <amrjupiter.cs.wayne.edu>
Subject: *Diachronica*

 Moderators' Note

In the interests of a balanced exchange of views, we publish
the following reply to a posting by Sheila Embleton, an editor of
Diachronica. Interchanges of this nature, however, are best
carried out in forums other than LINGUIST, and this will thus
be our last posting on the topic.

 *********************


I am not sure why Sheila Embleton chose to attack me on LINGUIST
but briefly *Diachronica* has accepted for publication a paper
in which I am attacked personally--and basically described as
an idiot--on the basis of remarks I made (or am alleged to
have made) during oral discussion at a conference in Ypsilanti
last year. I have repeatedly told the author of the paper as
well as the editors of *Diachronica* that I consider this a rather
dubious form of scholarship: I think people should be criticized
on the basis of published statements, not oral remarks which cannot
be checked for accuracy. Moreover, criticizing in print remarks
made at a conference during discussions is bound to have a chilling
effect on such discussions.

*Diachronica* chose to disagree, and when I asked for an opportunity
to respond to these attacks, I was told that they would not only
not accept any rebuttal from me, they would not even CONSIDER one
by me (or even a coauthored one by me and others), and that furthermore
they would not consider any submissions from me whatsoever for a
period of at least 2 years. I have no objections to journals which
have a policy of not allowing replies or which have a policy of limiting
the number of publications by the same person, but in this case no

existing policy was cited. As far as I can tell, some of the folks
at *Diachronica* just decided they don't like me anymore. Which still
does not mean that they have the right to publish stuff that comes
to close to being slanderous or, I think, to refuse people who have
been maligned in print the right to reply (however briefly).

Alexis Manaster Ramer
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue