Re: I need help explaining basic linguistic concepts to a lay person

In article <yaeBf.210384$tl.202092@pd7tw3no>,
"Heidi Graw" <heidigraw@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> ><jayne.kulikauskas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >news:1138059039.407470.137320@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> (snip)
>
> >Jayne wrote:
> > But, in this case, you clearly don't have enough background knowledge
> > to assess the relative merits of what people are saying.
>
> I can look at the justifications they are using to support their ideas.
> This gives me a "quick study" as to their thinking about whatever topic is
> at hand, especially if they're using a language that I can actually
> understand.

And therein lies the problem. Not just with Heidi, but with many
laypeople approaching linguistics. They assume that because they
speak a language, that they are inherently able to make judgments on
the merits of linguistic analysis.

This would be like a woman with no medical training arguing with her
gynecologist simply on the grounds that she is a woman and therefore
de facto qualified in female medicine and biology.

Using something, even on a daily basis, is *not* the same as studying
and understanding it academically, a reality that, for whatever
reason, a lot of people fail to grasp when it comes to linguistics.

> For example, I won't involve myself in a physics debate, nor
> will I involve myself in computer programming debates. However, if I can
> understand the lingo, I'll get involved.

And yet you were told numerous times that you did not in fact
understand the lingo, because you showed that you were confusing
technical terminology with your own idiosyncratic interpretations.

So instead of admitting that you didn't understand the lingo and that
you were quite possibly wrong, you continued arguing from your
opinions, using your own uninformed versions of the lingo! How do you
reconcile that behavior with your quoted statement above? At what
point do you draw the line between ignoring and respecting established
technical jargon?

> You'll also note that I'm not
> involving myself in some of the other threads within sci.lang. There is a
> reason for that. I know when I can involve myself and when not to.

Every professional linguist who has responded to this thread has
disagreed with much of what you said regarding language, whereas the
only person who has predominately agreed with you is a known kook
around these parts who freely tosses off epithets like "Mongoloid".

Make of that what you will.

Most reasonable people would probably conclude that you need to
rethink how you judge your own qualifications for academic topics in
which you have not gone through serious, rigorous study. Perhaps you
don't have the self-awareness you think you have.

> > In order to get a PhD one must be an authority on something.
>
> Yes, some have earned a PhD in bullsh*t, while others who have PhD's may
> indeed be considered bright and enlightened ones, experts in their fields.
> There are very precious few of those around.

It's rather presumptuous (and quite absurd, really) to disparage
educational achievements that one hasn't even tried to accomplish
oneself.

Nathan

--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: why does linguistic literature tend to be opaque?
    ... It's quite possibility a reason in isolated cases. ... nothing about the academic culture of linguistics in China. ... or even Chinese academia generally. ... of the kind of questionable academic integrity we are talking about. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: why does linguistic literature tend to be opaque?
    ... It's quite possibility a reason in isolated cases. ... they are written in Chinese. ... nothing about the academic culture of linguistics in China. ... of the kind of questionable academic integrity we are talking about. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: A New Paradigm for Language?
    ... work of Linguistics, "Forty-Four Reasons Why the Chomskyans Are Mistaken." ... And also in the bibliography for Reason # 33 of that work, ... >> to the human immune system, and not just language. ... >> from variations in how this universal grammar mechanism can operate. ...
    (sci.lang)
Loading