Ask a linguist!

[muckefuck]

As those of you who follow it well know, the linguists on languagelog do a fantastic job of critiquing the dribble that passes for linguistic reporting or analysis in mass media. It's probably simply bias engendered by familiarity, but I agree with their frequent assertion that the press does an even more ham-fisted job of covering linguistics than other scientific fields. It's a low bar, to be sure, but I like to think we're some of the lowest on it.

To their credit, though, the bloggers recognise that some of the blame must rest with the profession for doing such a deplorable job of educating the masses about how language works. One of my purposes with this blog has always been to do what little I can to try to remedy this sorry state of affairs, but I've never felt like I've been particularly successful.

For one thing, I easily come off as arrogant and condescending, which puts off questioners. Then there's the problem of striking the right balance between accuracy and readibility. It's easier for me to write for my fellow language geeks using technical jargon that bores or frightens away a wider audience.

So this is an appeal to help me improve. Do you have any nagging queries related to language and how its used? Out with them! If you're afraid of sounding naïve or misinformed, feel free to post anonymously. If I can't answer the question, I'll try to say so in few words rather than posting bullshit (another major flaw of mine). If I can, I'll try to do so as clearly and concisely as possible.

Comments

[thedeli.livejournal.com]

"... the problem of striking the right balance between accuracy and readibility."

i.e. "the Generative paradox".

[cruiser.livejournal.com]

For one thing, I easily come off as arrogant and condescending
You mean you're not? When did this happen? ;)

[richardthinks.livejournal.com]

OK, you asked for it.

What is the goal of linguistics? I realise there's probably more than one answer to that, and there may be as many as there are linguists, but I think a lot of confusion could be cleared up simply by saying what you're not trying to achieve (like, for instance, finding some sort of grandaddy language root or uber family - assuming that's not what you're after).

Also, are there any grand theories still standing in linguistics? I'm guessing nobody's concerned with Saussurian phonic distinctions these days, and now and then I hear Chomsky's name bandied around, and competence and stuff like that, but is there any current consensus in the field regarding methods, apparatus, purpose?

Finally, is linguistics a science?

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Wow, ask no small questions...

While I'm working on more comprehensive answers (responses to your subqueries could easily fill several entries each), I'll give some quickie replies: The goal of linguistics is to describe scientifically all aspects of the production and use of human language. It wasn't always so, and the search for the Ursprache did capture of the efforts of many early pioneers. But once consensus emerged that this goal was unobtainable due to the questionability of the monogenesis hypothesis (once a basic postulate, now merely one hypothesis among several) and, more important, the inherent limitations of the comparative method, this question ceased to concern mainstream linguists and became the province of cranks.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Saussurian phonic distinctions". Phonology is still very much a basic concern of linguistics and still practiced along essentially structuralist principles. (AFAICT; I know there are post-structuralist methodologies out there, but I've not read up on them and I don't tend to encountre them in the practical descriptive works I prefer to read.)

I would hazard to say that there is consensus in some areas and a quickly evolving situation in others. For instance, both mass comparison and glottochronology have been marginalised as fundamentally unsound approaches to diachronic linguistics. They tend to get a lot of play from credulous journalists who, as I say, lack the tools to evaluate linguistic work from a scientific point of view, but within the discipline they're viewed as wrong turns. On the other hand, one of the most dynamic subdisciplines is the field of psycholinguistics, and I can't find two researchers who seem to agree in all their fundamental assumptions. The whole debate over the innateness of language (a language-specific manifestation of the perennial nature vs. nurture debate) is a case in point.

As should be clear from the above comments, I firmly believe that linguistics is a science, although the "hardness" of it varies between subdisciplines. Yesterday, spookyfruit's nattering about the mathematics underlying music (the formulae for describing resonance and such) reminded me of my weeks spent mastering acoustic phonetics during my freshman year. This was straight physics--I learned more about Fourier transformations there than in any of my math classes, for Grimms' sake--but it's played a mostly incidental role in my studies since then, which have been more focused on sociolinguistics and historical linguistics. The latter blurs into philology and other humanities, but never strays so far into the nebulous realms of litcrit as to lose its grounding in data sets. At some point or another, the question, "But how is this attested?" acts as a check on any fancy hypothesis.

[richardthinks.livejournal.com]

thanks for this response - I'm thinking about it, and it hasn't scared me off, but I won't be able to devote the time needed for a better accounting for a few days. Just so you know.

Work-related!

[mollpeartree.livejournal.com]

The fiscal person over at the main library wants to know if the vendor listed on an invoice I sent over is "Vydavetelstvi a nakladatelstvi Ales Cenek, s.r.o." or just "Ales Cenek."* I just don't know! I vy... just a title and Ales Cenek a proper name, or is vy... a proper name too?

*Note: It does not really matter in the least because it's a wire transfer rather than a check so the bank numbers are the real ID here, but she asked so presumably she won't send the thing on its way until I answer.