LINGUIST List 5.288

Sun 13 Mar 1994

Disc: Mainstream Linguistics

Editor for this issue: <>

Directory

1. Andreas Kathol, Re: 5.272 Mainstream Linguistics
2. , 'MAINSTREAM' AS MEXICAN POLITICS?

Message 1: Re: 5.272 Mainstream Linguistics

Berhard Rohrbacher writes:
> Just for the record: GB-Linguistics does not constitute the "Mainstream of
> Linguistics" - on the contrary, GB-Linguists are a minority, especially
 outside
> the US and the Netherlands. Accordingly, jobs for GBers are exceedingly rare,
> and many institutions might as well have "People working within the Principles
> and Parameters framework need not apply" sign on their doors.

I find these remarks extremely interesting in light of something that
Chomsky said in 1982 in Huybregts & v. Riemsdijk, _Chomsky on the
Generative Enterprise_, which I take the liberty of quoting from G.
Pullum's 1991 _The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax_:

"It also has to be emphasized, as you know very well, that this
framework is only taken seriously by a tiny minority in the field,
certainly in the United States" (p. 41)
"I would like to see an equivalent of GLOW ["Generative Linguistics in
the Old World", AK] in the United States, but I don't think it is ready
for it now." (p. 42)

If I interpret the above statements correctly, they seem to indicate a
common perception among practitioners of PPA/GB, namely to think of
their community as a small group of "defenders of the Faith" that is
besieged by a sea of nonbelievers. As Pullum points out, that was a
mistaken perception re. the situation in the US in the early 80s and I
would contend the same holds for Rohrbacher's assessment of the status
of PPA/GB outside of the US and Netherlands today. (Incidentally,
should we take the fact that he exempts these countries as implicitly
acknowledging that the largest market for formally oriented linguists,
i.e. the US, is now firmly in the hands of proponents of the Chomskyan
paradigm?) For the record, in Germany alone, where PPA/GB is
supposedly a minority position, quite a few positions (including
professorships) were awarded in recent years to PPA/GB linguists at
the universities of Tuebingen, Stuttgart, and Potsdam.

So, it would be very interesting to hear of one ("measly") example of
an opening for a formally oriented linguistics position in which
PPA/GB applicants have (actively or passively) been discouraged from
applying, and where from the outset preference was clearly given to
proponents of other formal approaches to grammar, such as LFG, CG, or
HPSG, among others. I've always been under the impression that part of
the reason that those theories have a relatively small active
followership is precisely because academic employment opportunities
for applicants with those credentials are truely absyssmal as compared
with those for people of the PPA/GB persuasion.

 --Andreas Kathol

Why would, Martin Haspelmath, a German linguist in his 5/255
posting use the interesting figure of speech of linguistics (Lx)
with being organised in the way Mexican politics (MP) is? The
question is, is it a good metaphor? MP, being sui generis, is
almost impossible to incapsulate in a one-page brief. But I will
try.

The ruling Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) has been in
power since the Great Depression. It has oscillated every six
years from right to center to left and back but never has trucked
with the Communists, indicating it has no political philosophy
per se. Then, how has it stayed in power for 65 years? Voter
apathy. The cadres of party faithful are picked up and wined and
dined and delivered home in PRI vehicles after voting, even
vaccinations are organised by the Party. The other smaller
parties do not have the funds to do the same. Also, the Electoral
College is made up of a majority of PRI members; so, voting
anomalies never reach the courts. This is Realpolitik! PRI's
current line is free trade while the opposition cries for either
wild capitalism or renationalisation of the banks and industy.
Who knows what will happened after 1995! Most smaller parties'
followers abandon their leaders radical positions taken during
elections and either vote for PRI or stay home. Voter apathy,
again, is the key to understanding MP. To see PRI's address and
telephone numbers in the yellow and white pages listed under
'Government Agencies' would not surprise the Mexican voter--she
knows it is the truth. The above can be documented in Jorge
Castaneda's articles in the New York Times.

Taking the above into account, one asks 'is the Lx mainstream
similarly put together?' The answer is obviously, NO! Lx may
have its "Chiapas Zapatistas" from time to time (e.g. THE
LINGUIST WARS by Randy Allen Harris, Oxford University Press now
available) but 'mainstream' linguists are not apathetic and that
is the point. They believe rightly or wrongly in the central
dogma and the "Zapatistas" neither abandon their causes and stay
home.

If Haspelmath had used the metaphor that Lx is not unlike a
monolithic, world-wide church with a pope-like figure writing
bulls for the faithful followers of Innateness it would not have
been an erroneous appraisal.

Prof. R. M. Chandler)Burns
Medical College
Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon
Monterrey, MEXICO