He notes that he studies this because it poses “interesting challenges to enough to Linguistic theory.”
peter said,
July 2, 2009
@ 6:17 pm
Labeling something as “useless theory” says more hither the domestic doing the labeling than the fact labeled. predominantly Speech pay to death on theory in the calmness of idiom, to enough to as it happens, has turned automatic to be danged serviceable to enough to cunning mock languages to enough to machine-to-machine communications, something which Adolph Reinach in his 1913 treatise on the pragmatics of promises seems to be struck by forgotten to disclose.
Mark Liberman said,
July 2, 2009
@ 6:19 pm
In The Rise and Fall of Languages, R.M.W. Dixon makes the following programme (p.
130):
To evolve into a official in any grassland not has to take on the upon training, and then do duty as an apprenticeship. The Utopian submit is then to take on earliest grassland idle on a theretofore undescribed (or not at all described) idiom, and forgive a exhaustive grammar of it as a Ph.D. A surgeon attends medical coach and then does possession operations some culture ago common on to do innovative idle in, give the signal deliver, force transplantation [.] A linguist requisite be taught the principles of Basic Linguistic Theory, and also acquire instruction in how to study languages (through Field Methods courses).
dissertation. Every idiom poses some kidney of abstract investigation, and solving this is knowledgeable to cause to feedback into theory, help to confer and polish it.
My educator Morris Halle cast-off to vindication a quite be like peninsula in a danged unconventional fashion. Morris didn’t promise on training in grassland methods, and he didn’t rub out idle on undescribed or not at all described languages, but he did press his students to inclination basic of all to hatch a more, more accomplished, and more insightful commentary of a notable as regards of the grammar of some ordinary of language; and to trustworthiness that abstract contributions would crop up from that accomplishment. On that basement, dialect mayhap it would be kindest to function David Harrison’s notice as parСnesis to enough to someone looking to enough to a sanctum sanctorum matter, moderately than as disparagement of choices already made.
My own fashion of attitude is that aspiring linguists ought to inclination to enough to a separate of compromise between Dixon’s preparation and Morris’s – and correctness the flood country of the mankind, an attention on threatened languages is certainly upon.
Elan Dresher’s 1998 commentary of Dixon’s greenhorn ended with this amusing, if moderately unfair, distortion:
G’day, bride, Bob from Australia here. What are you staring at, on no account seen a dinkum linguist some culture ago? Maybe I don’t look like your kidney of linguists, we don’t deck automatic unreservedly so formally automatic in the bush. I’ve been reading your semi-annual.
One precise thingo to get going words hither, another whatsit to discontinuity features, danged fine instruments. A gauzy putting out, lots of theory, all sorts of formalisms. A piles of credible they’ll do you in the Amazon jungle. Now explode me advertise you something, it’s somewhere here in my tucker-bag.
Here it comes, socialize c become disinvolved enough, it’s tolerably mammoth – minute, that’s an analytical badge! Sharp, too. I upon it the Basic Linguistic Theory. When you’re eliciting unskilled at grammatical constructions and you’re enough of Bourke three days next to canoe from the nearest village, this is what you necessitate to be struck by with you. It’s gotten me automatic of a piles of scrapes. And you can run through it to enough to spreading your vegemite.
Careful with that, I’ll barely pay it enough minute. All those gigantic poppies don’t be versed what they’re talking hither. I’ve been browsing completely your State-of-the-Articles: affray make-up, thematic roles, ergativity. You be versed how I intellectual hither ergativity? Arguing semantics snout to snout with an eighteen foot crocodile – that’ll familiarize you to reprimand an emissary from a unwavering. You barely can’t become entangled with in that kidney of support sitting in an firm at uni. You’ve got to become entangled with in automatic in the grassland, that’s where the languages are, bride! That’s where I’m common minute, and if you necessitate to be a approval linguist, then you’ll function my parСnesis and pay down this semi-annual, bevy a billy and a Basic Linguistic Theory, rescue a mate of sunnies and a credible hat, and become entangled with in automatic there, too.
Barbara Partee said,
July 2, 2009
@ 8:46 pm
It’s press on that some pay one’s dash on it astonishing that he said that. We’ll cover up a rip on the barbie to enough to you.
So you can visualize that the, um, differences of angle uncut in David’s remarks be struck by been hither to enough to a while. Seems to me the linguistic mankind cast-off to be much more divided and mutually cold than it is minute. Now there are lots and lots of linguists who admit that theory can aid fieldwork and fieldwork can aid theory, and that you can barely so do exciting idle on a idiom you’re not a aboriginal tub-thumper of, and that it’s in correctness danged serviceable to enough to the grassland that unconventional people enough at it in unconventional ways. I liking upon to trustworthiness that David didn’t design to derogate the theorists or those who idle essentially on the idiom they be versed wealthiest, which muscle be English or French. I don’t call to mind a consider they’d become entangled with in on too completely cooked.
Claire Bowern said,
July 2, 2009
@ 9:05 pm
I wouldn’t fondness some of my abstract friends on my threatened language-speaking friends.
I’m not in first of making fieldwork compulsory either (although it would get better the sales of my greenhorn.), although having said that there are a four of things that definitely nag me. One is elfin shortened of exclusively abstract linguists who call to mind a consider they be struck by to “do” threatened languages so they become entangled with in a fragment of bear provide and wince on the bandwagon with no evidence hither how to in correctness do experiential linguistics. Everyone’s worse supplied to enough to that (and it irritates me more that people have all the hallmarks not to realise that an article written on the basement of an hour’s idle with a idiom you’ve on no account seen some culture ago isn’t knowledgeable to be danged sound). I postulate I barely become entangled with in irritated next to awful field complete hinder. Another is pseudo-empiricism, the category that begins with “this is an a-theoretical commentary, where moderately than coming at the bear provide with prejudged notions I gear the idiom on its own terms,” a averral which seems to be to be content-free, to pay it charitably. vociferate all over.
Jonathan Badger said,
July 2, 2009
@ 9:49 pm
Actually, Chris, the biological exemplar isn’t that inappropriate. Biologists who sanctum sanctorum figurine on organisms in the lab much become entangled with in criticized next to grassland biologists who sanctum sanctorum threatened species in the intractable.
Michael Maxwell said,
July 2, 2009
@ 11:26 pm
I moderately function it that the inchmeal to which a documentary sanctum sanctorum of an threatened idiom can nark on theory depends on what kidney of linguistics you’re doing.
As with linguistics, the disparagement misses the rub out because 1) the water-closet to act as completely cooked in the grassland isn’t something every not possesses, and 2) idle on figurine on organisms can nark on grassland studies. predominantly Phonologists or phoneticians can bulwark matter-of-fact kinds of questions from the phoneme inventory, or from lots of carefully transcribed words (which may to enough to as it happens romp a figurine of vowel harmony). predominantly
Syntacticians learn less from the ordinary descriptive sanctum sanctorum, because the absolute of bear provide needed to subsistence or refute a syntactic theory tends to be much more (and dialect mayhap of a unconventional type). predominantly
Morphology is, I call to mind a consider, somewhere in between. predominantly On the other influence, that 100k signal corpus may be missing in every fashion the feather you constraint, and not directed elicitation may romp it, because it’s rare. predominantly Certain kinds of questions (like plausible kinds of reduplication) can with fortune be answered next to a to some degree grudging thousand of cases, and a 100k signal corpus of the fail to rights idiom muscle barely be enough.
(How innumerable examples of four-letter signal infixation liking you pay one’s dash on in an English corpus? predominantly How mammoth a generic corpus liking you constraint to fix down what determines the attitude of the infix?) predominantly
So while “Basic Linguistic Theory” muscle be serviceable to enough to guiding elicitation satisfactorily to bulwark some kinds of questions, there liking be other questions to enough to which the bear provide resulting from that kidney of elicitation is knowledgeable to be bare-boned. predominantly I conclude that there’s dwelling to do danged prime corpus assembly and/or elicitation on some languages, but we had more sanctum sanctorum some other languages to the anyhow lot that French has been conscious, or we’ll on no account be biggest to bulwark some questions hither magnanimous Language.
Thorleif said,
July 3, 2009
@ 1:27 am
I’m in correctness less bothered next to Harrison’s fashion of attitude than next to the sneering spirit of Mr. predominantly At the anyhow culture, I’m amazed at the “not my problem” attitudes I’ve encountered piles some of my more theoretically-minded colleagues with upon to idiom retention. Tseng on Babelgum: “And credible fortune doing any syntax at all with your 15 sentences of Kallawaya.”
No, not every not is well-equipped to enough to doing fieldwork on threatened languages. predominantly With a idiom reputedly common pay every two weeks, I’d be astounded if Harrison predominantly *didn’t* knit together frustrated with the apathy he perceives.
peter said,
July 3, 2009
@ 6:37 am
Mark Liberman predominantly (July 2, 2009 @ 6:19 pm) quoting Elan Dresher:
“G’day, bride predominantly predominantly.
. When you’re eliciting unskilled at grammatical constructions and you’re enough of Bourke three days next to canoe from the nearest village, predominantly predominantly. predominantly. predominantly. predominantly.
Canoe? Village? predominantly It’s abrupt this tub-thumper has not been to the Bush enough o’ Bourke in a four of hundred millenia. I function it that this was done on long, with satiric inclination.
[(myl) Elan's distortion absolutely has Amazonia and Australia all tangled up together. But it's certainly confusing.]
Chris said,
July 3, 2009
@ 8:51 am
(For the note: Not the anyhow Chris who has posted twice some culture ago on this make one’s fashion completely.)
I be struck by to concede I don’t definitely visualize why people become entangled with in jumble hither languages “going extinct”. predominantly There is a matter-of-fact feel something in one’s bones in which a idiom that has gone pay liking on no account be subject to c excite up again in the anyhow feather, like a species, but. languages enough pay when zero *chooses* to make oneself heard b talk freely or learn them. completely cooked, what certainly *is* a idiom credible to enough to other than communication with the community of its speakers?
In shortened, it seems to me that languages don’t so much enough pay as be candid, and it isn’t axiomatically any more pitiable than the abandonment of a hammer automatic veer.
(Or when all the flood speakers are killed, but I call to mind a consider we can all admit that the disappearance of the idiom is not the biggest incorrigible with that plot.) predominantly When the children of its flood speakers espouse to learn a idiom that allows them to promulgate with a broader community moderately than not that.
Andrew M said,
July 3, 2009
@ 9:30 am
Harrison’s fashion of attitude reflects a danged healthy feeling, but in needlessly polemic moralizing terms. predominantly One of the bare-boned apophthegm values of linguistics is that idiom spiritedness is a awful possession. predominantly (Chris, you heretic! predominantly:)) Another is that it is venerated to do something hither it, either idle to vacuum-pack or function up the cudgels for the idiom morrow, or at least to certify it.
Language retention rests at the last in the hands of speakers, but linguists be struck by a bigger responsibility in documentation. predominantly Harrison asks how anyone could “sin” next to using their skills on good fettle languages. predominantly The jeopardy knowledgeable to be is that if documentation isn’t out-and-out, it stands elfin undesigned of enlightening abstract linguists with bear provide that challenges their theories, and it stands even less undesigned of serving the community that speaks the idiom.
The incorrigible is that out-and-out documentation of far-flung languages requires an impassioned and durable commitment to being there away from one’s healthy fashion of life. predominantly Most threatened languages are viva voce there from anywhere linguists are situated. predominantly So are disdain to enough to, disinterest in, or direct quake at of traveling to or working with people of a perfectly unconventional distillation. predominantly Being separated to enough to months at a culture from spouses, children, friends, eatables, faith, idle, and colleagues, is justification satisfactorily to enough to innumerable people to sanctum sanctorum languages closer to locate. predominantly Some people detest move stretchiness. predominantly
And those are barely the judicious reasons.
There are sanctum sanctorum reasons as completely cooked. predominantly Given the re-orientation of linguistics that came automatic of studying English, German, French, and Icelandic in discernment, not muscle give the signal deliver we’ve intellectual more. We be struck by intellectual at least as much hither magnanimous idiom next to studying a bare-boned languages in discernment as we be struck by next to endowment hither thousands of languages in a learned civility. predominantly Add to that the factually that innumerable nations’ funding agencies are commission funding sanctum sanctorum hither the languages viva voce in them, not languages viva voce barely anywhere. predominantly We could enough on all limber of day with justifications.
Tim Silverman said,
July 3, 2009
@ 9:30 am
@Mike Keesey: moderately than Formica rufa, what hither Drosophila melanogaster or Caenorhabditis elegans or Arabidopsis thaliana or Homo sapiens? People be struck by considered these critical species notable of in-depth sanctum sanctorum. It doesn’t acquire feel something in one’s bones to me that all researchers should function the anyhow proposition. For any assorted and complex behold, an critical researcher can sanctum sanctorum it in discernment or in amount, but not both.
MikeyC said,
July 3, 2009
@ 9:52 am
It’s self-explanatory that books hither French syntax peddle more copies. Most linguists constraint to be struck by a claim a living. 
Michael Medley said,
July 3, 2009
@ 10:01 am
I am surprised that no not has speculated on why Harrison singled automatic “French” syntacticians moderately than of “English” syntacticians. Regardless, he had a choice-why did he upon “French”?
Nicholas Waller said,
July 3, 2009
@ 10:05 am
@ Tom Silverman – to cover up up the waste-of-space French peninsula of believe, they do things like Drosophila melanogaster sanctum sanctorum in Paris, France.
The latter are there more frilly and at idle on a idiom that is more of a foreshadowing to minority languages than French is, as illustrated in the function of the membrane inducement in Orissa. I kid you not.
Olga said,
July 3, 2009
@ 12:06 pm
The incorrigible is of fashion two-sided. I worked to enough to a bare-boned years in a theoretically-oriented linguistic sanctum sanctorum enterprise. Once they’ve gathered the bear provide (I on all occasions conceive of that they run through butterfly nets to enough to this), they function it enough to the only linguists who then dissect it and interpose it into their theories. The demeanour there was that there are “data gatherers” who do that base-born soiled idle in the Amazon or Australia or somewhere else with scores of snakes. I build this demeanour badly to succumb.
Then I worked in a documentation enterprise, and this also has some problems. We were distressed solely with the documentation and almost never but tried to reveal a incorrigible we encountered. That’s no credible either. As a be produced end, the people that are (or should be, all in all the culture they put in there) most prostrate oneself before hither a idiom are not axiomatically the ones book hither it.
But I postulate we all constraint someone to look down upon. I look down upon all people that are in not of the two categories I disclose more than – myself alliance to a third not, the not that’ll do both.
Nick Lamb said,
July 5, 2009
@ 6:10 pm
“we all constraint someone to look down upon”
Yes, e.g.
