LINGUIST List 5.270

Mon 07 Mar 1994

Disc: Mainstream Linguistics

Editor for this issue: <>

Directory

1. sowa, Re: 5.255 Mainstream Linguistics
2. Steven Schaufele, 'Mainstream' linguistics and jobs

Message 1: Re: 5.255 Mainstream Linguistics

Martin Haspelmath writes

> 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?

About ten years ago, I read an interview with Eugene Wigner, one of the
grand old men of physics. It was a fascinating discussion, which I regret
not having copied or at least written down the citation. As I recall, it
was in either Discover Magazine or Physics Today, about 10 years ago.

The interviewer mentioned that in physics, it was common for people to
do their most brilliant work before the age of 30, and many physicists
reach a period of "burn out" when they fail to make any significant new
contributions to the field. However, Wigner continued to publish a steady
stream of important, creative new contributions, even at a rather advanced
age when most physicists have already retired. He asked Wigner how it
was possible for him to retain that creative vitality.

Wigner replied that his new contributions were largely the application
and further development of lines of thought that he had been pursuing for
50 years or more. Whatever freshness and vitality his new papers may
have had was the result of applying old ideas to new territory where
they hadn't previously been tested. As a result of constantly looking
into new topics, he was able to find something new to say.

But the most important point that I found in Wigner's comments was his
claim that he was very careful to avoid criticizing new developments
by younger colleagues. He said that there were many new areas of physics
in which he was not an expert, and he could not properly evaluate the
new directions that the younger physicists were taking. Yet because of
his great reputation, anything negative he might say could easily be
given far more credence than it was worth.

The contrast between Wigner's attitude and Chomsky's, I believe, goes
very far towards explaining the unproductive polemics and partisanship
in linguistics today. Chomsky established his reputation by his brilliant
contributions in the 1950s and '60s. Since the early '70s, Chomsky has
continued to make important positive contributions to linguistics.
Unfortunately, his polemics and virulent attacks on younger colleagues
have had a disastrous effect on the progress of linguistics and related
areas of cognitive science.

Drawing a lesson from Wigner, I would claim that someone of Chomsky's
stature should avoid attacking or even making negative comments about
younger colleagues or their ideas. Linguistics has no shortage of young
professors who are very capable of attacking one another. Chomsky should
take the elder statesman route of making positive contributions in areas
where he is undoubtedly competent and avoiding negative attacks on
people and ideas that he does not understand (even when he thinks he does).

John Sowa

Martin Haspelmath (LINGUIST 5-255) remarks:

> (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.)

Shouldn't it be possible for a scholar to get a job in 'formal syntax' who has
a wide familiarity with formal syntactic approaches but views them critically?
 This is what i've tried to do in applying for jobs whose adverts include the
phrase 'formal syntax'. Granted, i haven't yet landed such a job, but it does
seem to me that an open-minded but critical perspective on any theoretical
field would in principle be desirable to an academic faculty.

Sincerely,
Steven
--
Dr. Steven Schaufele fcoswsnytud.hu
Room 119
Research Institute for Linguistics (Department of Theoretical Linguistics)
Hungarian Academy of Sciences (Eotvos Lorand University)
P. O. Box 19
1250 Budapest
Hungary

*** O syntagmata linguarum liberemini humanarum! ***
*** Nihil vestris privari nisi obicibus potestis! ***