Editor for this issue: <>
I don't think David Gil's observation regarding the fears of non-mainstream linguists is particularly surprising. Isn't this a normal sociological effect? Marginal, non-mainstream members of a community are ashamed of their status and try to hide it whenever possible--this seems to be very common in all kinds of communities. (The fact that non-mainstream linguists have fewer job chances can be seen from the fact that many job announcements now include descriptions such as "formal syntax", "formal semantics", etc. What do you do if you belong to the non-negligible minority of linguists who happen to believe that mainstream formal approaches to linguistics are misguided? (e.g. if you think that the fuzzy approaches to grammar that were highlighted in a recent LINGUIST posting are on the right track) By contrast, I haven't seen a job announcement for fuzzy syntax or cognitive semantics yet.) What I find more interesting is the question why there should be such a mainstream-periphery division in linguistics at all. Does it exist in all fields? Or is this specific to linguistics? A priori, a field could be divided sociologically in all sorts of ways -- there could be two major and equally respected schools (as in American party politics), or there could be numerous small schools, with none of them having a clear leading role (as in the present Russian parliament). In fact, linguistics seems to be organized in the way Mexican politics is. Why? Martin HaspelmathMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue