LINGUIST List 3.101

Mon 03 Feb 1992

Disc: Proto-World (Part 2)

Editor for this issue: <>

Directory

  • Michael Newman, Re: 3.87 Proto-World
  • "Norval Smith, RE: 3.87 Proto-World
  • Geoffrey Russom, Re: 3.87 Scientific American
  • Stavros Macrakis, Historical linguistics is `out'
  • Swann Philip, 3.87 Proto-World

    Message 1: Re: 3.87 Proto-World

    Date: Fri, 31 Jan 92 19:13:07 ESRe: 3.87 Proto-World
    From: Michael Newman <MNEHCCUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
    Subject: Re: 3.87 Proto-World


    I think Andrew Carnie made a good point. I think that perhaps the popular science press ignores what we consider the central issues of linguistics becuas e these problems just aren't sexy to those outside the discipline. This may (or it may not) be related to the fact that during academic financial crises it seems all too frequent for linguistics departments to get closed, and that unlike the case of what happens in Europe, in the US, courses in linguistics are not considered a central part of most university majors which deal with language, such as foreign languages, English or Communications. Why?

    Message 2: RE: 3.87 Proto-World

    Date: Mon, 3 Feb 92 10:18 MET
    From: "Norval Smith <NSMITHalf.let.uva.nl>
    Subject: RE: 3.87 Proto-World


    Scientific American/Proto-World

    In reply to Andrew Carnie's remark about Scientific American's publication of linguistics-related articles I by chance had within four feet a copy of Scientific American (July 1983) containing an article by Derek Bickerton on Creole Languages in which the innateness hypothesis features prominently. That said I have to admit that the choice of the occasional article that the S.A. publishes on linguistics does not inspire confidence in the editors' advisors whoever these might be.

    Norval Smith

    Message 3: Re: 3.87 Scientific American

    Date: Fri, 31 Jan 92 14:19:20 ESRe: 3.87 Scientific American
    From: Geoffrey Russom <EL403015brownvm.brown.edu>
    Subject: Re: 3.87 Scientific American


    Perhaps one problem with SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN is its sentimental attachment to good old 19th-century American positivism. I am particularly struck by a certain fondness for the word "machine," used to describe complex biological systems, human minds, etc. To me (and I think to most poeple) a "machine" is something made of macroscopic, even clunky, parts that interact in rather simple, Newtonian ways. In that sense, the "mechanical" metaphor isn't really applicable even to computers that depend on non-Newtonian properties of elementary particles. And of course it's pretty clear that we aren't going to have talking robots whose heads can be opened up to reveal wires and 12SL7 power tubes. Anybody have any insight into the persistence of the "machine" metaphor? Are we still a nation of tinkerers? Any gender issues here?

    -- Rick

    Message 4: Historical linguistics is `out'

     Date: Fri, 31 Jan 92 15:38:29 ESHistorical linguistics is `out'
    From: Stavros Macrakis <macrakisosf.org>
    Subject: Historical linguistics is `out'


    In Linguist 3.87, Andrew Carnie (acarnieAthena.MIT.EDU) says:

    ...It concerns me that [Sci.Am.] should be presenting [the ProtoWorld hypothesis] at all. The popular press seems to be under the mistaken opinion that Historical Linguistics is the mainstream in linguistic thought; ... its about time that Scientific American and its ilk start publishing articles about issues that are of interest to the majority of linguists.

    When I was an undergraduate at MIT, you had to cross-register at Harvard to study historical linguistics, evolutionary and organismic biology, and social psychology, not to mention art history. After all, the only `real' linguistics is transformational, the only `real' biology is molecular, the only `real' psychology is brain science; as for art history, .... Now if only Scientific American (and let's not forget `its ilk') could be persuaded to cover only `real' science, as defined by the `mainstream of scientific thought'.... After all, everyone knows that Scientific American is written for those mainstream scientists who want to hear what other mainstream scientists are studying.

    -s

    Message 5: 3.87 Proto-World

     Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1992 15:19:58 +3.87 Proto-World
    From: Swann Philip <swanndivsun.unige.ch>
    Subject: 3.87 Proto-World


    I'm not sure it's really fair to describe Scientific American as part of the 'popular science press' - the articles are nearly always written by the researchers who did the original work, not by journalists.

    Interestingly, the only reference to Language in the 1991 index of 'Nature' is to a discussion of Language Origins by Robert Foley (vol 353, 114-15). He refers to Cavalli-Sforza and reprints a figure from the 1988 paper. His main topic, 'though, is a fascinating paper by Nobel and Davidson (Man, 26, 223-54) on the probable date for the emergence of language in hominids (circa 40,000 years ago). If 'Nature' thinks that the discussion is worth recording, then linguists should perhaps hesitate before dismissing it as pseudo-science (people in glass houses ...).

    Philip Swann FPSE-TECFA University of Geneva