Re: Universality of Interjections?

Arndt Jonasson wrote:
> martinphipps2@xxxxxxxxx writes:
> > Frankly, with so many supposed expert linguists out there who don't
> > seem able to think outside the box, I seriously wonder if your average
> > linguist text doesn't do people more harm than good!
>
> As for being inside boxes, it's probably you as a layman who are inside
> a box of limited cultural exposure, and draw universal conclusions from
> what people around you are doing. The experience summed up in good books
> (and by knowledgeable people posting here, I suppose) goes far beyond
> that box. If I'm wrong about your box being small, do tell us about it.

As it is only humans who are able to speak and write, linguistics
belongs to the science of anthropology, as does archaeology, human
genetics, political science, economics, education and psychology. In
order to think outside the box, linguists need inter-disciplinary
experience: an understanding of a region's history would help linguists
to trace the development of the local languages; a study of ethnic
geneologies would provide concrete evidence for linguists theorising
that the languages in different regions are related; an understanding
of the relative prosperity and cultural domination of certain ethnic
groups over others can help explain why some languages flourish and
some die out; and an understanding of education methods and psychology
would help people to not only understand how languages are acquired but
how they change over time, as well as provide explanations as to why
apparently unrelated languages have similar elements eg as in the case
of different languages having the word "mama" simply because it is the
most common first "word" coined by babies. I myself made the mistake
of thinking words like "eh?" to be actual words instead of realising
that they were the vocal equivalents of facial expressions, merely
expressing the emotion that the speaker is feeling rather than the
message he or she wants to get across. Being able to talk
intelligently about linguistics involves knowing far more than simply
knowing a lot about languages.

If I am wrong about the box of many people posting here regularly being
small, please tell me about it.

Martin

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A Reworking of German Language Classification
    ... You are misunderstanding what the linguists say. ... speech are to be classified as different languages or dialects of the ... such as SIL/Bob's 90% on a standard intelligibility test. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: new book on the spread of IE
    ... European LANGUAGES. ... remained a tantalizing mystery to linguists, archaeologists, and even ... Nazis seeking the roots of the Aryan race. ... for discoveries that can be done by machines in the future. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Responding to a challenge
    ... *Of course* I had in mind your advocacy of Esperanto. ... > consensus of linguists on the matters in question, but boringly so: ... opinion, ... or at least to compare across different languages. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Related languages (Re: A China-Sumer connection)
    ... it seems as though the main criteria for classifying languages ... He points out that linguists use ... similarities in vocabularies to determine relations, ... enough table, then if two languages offer regular sound correspondences, you ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: Related languages (Re: A China-Sumer connection)
    ... it seems as though the main criteria for classifying languages ... He points out that linguists use ... similarities in vocabularies to determine relations, ... enough table, then if two languages offer regular sound correspondences, you ...
    (sci.lang)