Summary Details
| Query: |
Six Laws of Language and Linguistics in Draft
|
|
| Author: | Alexander Gross | |
| Submitter Email: | click here to access email | |
| Linguistic LingField(s): |
General Linguistics
Linguistic Theories |
|
| Summary: |
Regarding disc:
http://www.sfs.nphil.uni-tuebingen.de/linguist/issues/16/16-2986.html Thank you for posting ''Six Laws on Language and Linguistics in Draft Form.'' Once more I am encouraged by reactions from my colleagues, as summarized in what follows. My website host informs me that as a result of your posting some 525 Linguistlist subscribers have found their way to my first LACUS presentation ''Is Evidence Based Linguistics the Solution? Is Voodoo Linguistics the Problem?'' since I posted here, many of them visiting more than once. And during the same period of time about half that number also made it to my second piece ''A Workshop in Evidence Based Linguistics.'' Of private replies I have so far received six, all but one of them favorable to the notions presented, and I am of course grateful to the six of you who responded. They include a Russian linguist who at first informed me that I was merely reiterating what many others had said before but then on visiting my website became so enthuisastic that he has offered to have the pieces published in Russia. A German linguist suggested some slight stylistic changes, and I will include them in the next version. Three other linguists offered generalized praise and encouragement, noting that a critical stance towards much in mainstream linguistics is definitely in order. The only unfavorable comment came from a colleague who does not believe that the theory of Evolution is valid. So far no one has responded on the Discussion forum, but perhaps there are some reasons for this. The six laws are rather all-embracing and perhaps leave not too much to disagree with, and a detailed response would call for professional experience in the fields of physiology, diagnosis, cartography, practical translation work, and translation studies, while the training many linguists have received often centers on logic, philosophy, psychology, and mathematics. And since the sixth law states that the basic structural principle underlying language is not grammar but rather a relatively error-prone, quick and dirty matching operation among sounds, meanings, contexts, and collocations encountered by our developing brains, this would mean a shift in the primary subject matter being studied by linguists. These operations are eminently suitable for computer analysis, which could over time produce many new insights into how we truly use language and suggest strategems for improving many language-related processes. I certainly apologize if any of this appears overstated, as it is not my goal to upset current standards in linguistics. But basic laws and measuring units have proven their worth as the foundation for many other sciences, and I suspect this must become true of our field as well if linguistics is ever to come closer to being a science. This does not mean that these laws are perfect in their present form, and once again, I welcome any further comments you may have. The first piece is at: http://languag2.home.sprynet.com/f/evidence.htm the second at: http://languag2.home.sprynet.com/f/evishop.htm They can also both be accessed from the Linguistics menu of my main website at: http://language.home.sprynet.com/ And the six laws are here on the Linguistlist discussion forum. All the very best! Alexander Gross |
|
| LL Issue: | 16.3359 | |
| Date Posted: | 22-Nov-2005 | |
| Original Query: | Read original query | |
|
Back |
||
|
|
||
|
Sums main page
|
||
|
About LINGUIST
|
Contact Us
|
Report Broken Link
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents. |
|
