Search results – LINGUIST

39 matches.
Item #DateTimeRecs Subject
00049891/09/1310:311782.504 Responses
00056491/09/2709:16912.567 Einstein
00060791/10/0714:381942.610 Washing, Whorf and Whenever
00062991/10/0911:361592.632 Whorf
00065491/10/1419:262012.657 Whorf
00066891/10/1700:483202.671 Whorf Part 2
00127992/05/0609:381183.383 Intuitions, Bibliography, Bible
00169492/10/1910:361183.796 Summary: *dog* as sexist language
00216793/04/0211:282384.241 Chicago Linguistic Society 1993: Schedule
00249393/07/2607:493054.562 Sum: Gender Markedness
00341894/03/2809:324435.370 Last posting: Mainstream linguistics
00364594/05/2412:141305.606 Sound symbolism
00381794/06/3008:411675.768 Pinker's book and linguist bashing
00389194/07/2507:381045.844 Qs: Bank of English, Relativism, Nostratic, Latin expressions
00431894/11/0923:231865.1265 Linguistics as "science"
00445894/12/0713:501785.1401 Sum: Snow
00465695/01/2113:581576.87 Qs: Linguistic relativism, GB penpals, Confs '95, Child lang
00557395/07/2012:271756.994, Qs: Citation index, Ling relativity, Voiced sentence, if-clause
00572895/08/2216:162876.1149, Disc: Sapir-Whorf and what to tell students these days
00584595/09/1917:171396.1270, Sum: Einstein and Saussure
00601695/10/1709:172106.1439, Disc: Prescriptivism
00604195/10/2012:373506.1465, Disc: Language/Dialect
00657396/02/0808:441757.206, Disc: Linguistics & Millennium, Re: vol-7-102
00677496/03/1918:092137.408, Calls: English & Islam, Ling anthropology
00690596/04/1210:193107.538, Sum: Reading after Whorf's "Language, Mind and Reality"
00707396/05/1611:024147.706, Disc: Ungrammatical Sentences
00766196/09/1810:532727.1300, Calls: Foreign langs, Cognitive ling
00787296/10/2616:411547.1513, Disc: Natural language
00823197/01/1713:105028.39, Sum: Myths in linguistics
00827897/01/2309:331288.86, Disc: Ebonics
00828697/01/2319:452098.94, Books: Pragmatics, Child lg Acquisition
00859297/03/1821:296428.396, Calls: Informatics, Humboldt/Whorf, Lang acq
00864497/04/0119:002278.448, Calls: German ling, Humboldt and Whorf
00877097/04/2210:491188.566, TOC: Anthropological Linguistics
00883997/04/3012:502008.635, Books: History of Linguistics
00905597/06/1002:21718.851, TOC: International Journal of Bilingualism
00917397/07/0101:581118.969, Qs: Brown/Levinson, Optimality, MA Programs
00979497/11/0600:462848.1589, Calls: Australian Linguistics Institute (ALI'98)
01008298/01/1119:404419.41, Calls: Australian Ling Institute, Finite State NLP
Item #498 (13 Sep 1991 10:31) - 2.504 Responses
 >From: ctlntt@violet.berkeley.edu
>Subject: Re: Linguistic Novels, Films/467

their own homes, prima facie we may suppose that someone
who publishes their linguistic research is a linguist.
Another interpretation of "-ist" would
might say that a linguist is someone who, like a professor,
is paid to do linguistics.

The recent discussion reminds me that a colleague of mine was asked once
by a student in Introduction to Linguistics if the fact that all French
nouns are masculine or feminine is the reason French is called a Romance

The relativity of Linguistic Intuitions: The Effect of
Repetition on Grammaticality Judgments

J. of Psycholinguistic Research, 17, 1988, 1-17

>> unexamined memory as the other replies. Dissertation on the rise and
>> spread of ((meta)socio)linguistic myths, anyone?
>> Thanks again.

Item #564 (27 Sep 1991 09:16) - 2.567 Einstein
The anecdote about Einstein getting the idea of relativity from
linguistics is reported in "The Sound Shape of Language" by
Roman Jakobson and Linda Waugh, p. 17. Einstein lodged with
who worked on Swiss German, developed a concept called "situational
relativity" in his dissertation.

far, I think it has been assumed that it was the widespread acceptance of
Einstein's Theory of Relativity which influenced similar observations in
linguistics (to wit: the "Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis"). For example, at the
Wilhelms-Universitaet Muenster, I studied with Helmut Gipper, whose office
sported an oversized poster of Einstein and who formulated an explicit
link between the principle of relativity in theoretical physics and a
similar principle in linguistics (Helmut Gipper, _Gibt es ein sprachliches
Relativitaetsprinzip?: Untersuchungen zur Sapir-Whorf-Hypothese_, Fischer

Now what if the hints on Einstein's contacts with linguistics can be con-
densed to allow the speculation that the influence was exactly the other
way around, namely, that there was some sort of principle of relativity in
linguistics first before Einstein came up with a similar one in physics?
Anyone who looks at Einstein's letter exchanges, writings, biographies will

Item #607 (7 Oct 1991 14:38) - 2.610 Washing, Whorf and Whenever
>Subject: Whorf and linguistic relativism
Michael Kac says:
The exceptions to this are correlated with politics, with some people
(usually 'left') considering linguistic relativism to be racist.
However, even these people are inconsistent, since the arguments about

b) the field of semiotics is heavily dependent on assuming linguistic
relativism, and most educated people are more exposed to literary
criticism than linguistic theory.

c) the continuing identification of political issues with the linguistic
relativity assumption. As such, people are continually exposed to the
assumption in daily life without it being explicitly identified as a

d) I believe certain areas of anthropological linguistics still accepts
Sapir-Whorf to some extent, especially where the researcher is in the
anthropology department rather than the linguistics dept. My source
of this is Reed Riner at U. of No. Arizona, but I think I heard

I've used the phrase 'linguistic relativity' because when actually
pinned down, many people will say that they aren't sure whether language

I think there is some considerable correlation in attitude on linguistic
relativity and language prescriptivism. In the latter area as well,
linguists tend to have a considerable disagreement with the

Item #629 (9 Oct 1991 11:36) - 2.632 Whorf
 From: Allan C. Wechsler <ACW@YUKON.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: 2.610 Whorfian relativism

From: Allan C. Wechsler <ACW@YUKON.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: 2.610 Whorfian relativism

In the fifties, Brown and Lenneburg did some research on color-naming
that is relevant to the history of linguistic "Whorfian" relativism.
This is described in an article (by Brown?) in tribute to Eric

The reason why linguistic anthropologists "still" believe in some
version of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (SWH) is not that they know
particular in society and culture. This contrasts with the avowed
universalism extant in most linguistic paradigms. Having been
"brought up" in the latter paradigm, to then move to some version
"weekend linguist"--Geoffrey Pullum in _NLLT_). It is telling, for
example, that in my linguistic training at two institutions I was
never required to read a single original text by Whorf. To a

John Lucy ("Whorf's view of the linguistic mediation of thought,"
in _Semiotic Mediation_, ed. by Elizabeth Mertz & Richard
This posting is already too long, but I'd like to point to Alan
Rumsey's (1990) paper, "Wording, Meaning, and Linguistic Ideology,"
_American Anthropologist_ 92:346-361, for an excellent discussion
BASIC COLOR TERMS (University of California Press, 1969), is a
classic in anthropological linguistics, and they have gone on to
produce more evidence over the years, published in various papers

Item #654 (14 Oct 1991 19:26) - 2.657 Whorf
THE DISCUSSION ON WHORF AND LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY SHOWS AGAIN HOW
DIFFICULT IT IS TO DEMONSTRATE CAUSALITY EMPIRICALLY. HISTORICALLY,
AS I KNOW (NOT VERY FAR) THE EARLY ATTEMPTS TO TEST THE HYPOTHESIS (AS
IT EVOLVED) FOCUSED ON LINGUISTIC INFLUENCE ON THE PERCEPTION AND CATE-
GORIZATION OF ONE'S PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT (COLORS, SHAPES, BASIC TYPES,
COGNITIVE PROCESSING, PERHAPS IT NEVER WAS REALLY REASONABLE TO EXPECT
LINGUISTIC CATEGORIES TO AFFECT SUCH COGNITIVE CATEGORIES MUCH.
HOWEVER, ONCE WE GO BEYOND CONCRETE CATEGORIES TO ABSTRACT CATEGORIES,
SIONS OF CONCRETE CATEGORIZATIONS TO ABSTRACT ONES. OF COURSE, SUCH
CULTURAL ABSTRACTIONS ARE PASSED ALONG LINGUISTICALLY ANYWAY, AND SO TO
TALK ABOUT CAUSALITY MAY BE CIRCULAR, BUT THE HYPOTHESIS SHOULD STILL
I have been struck by the somewhat narrow focus of the discussion about
Whorf and linguistic relativity. Perhaps my personal recollections will
broaden the discussion! As an undergraduate in the late 50s and early 60s it
was commonplace, I'm sure, to read not only about linguistic relativity but
some of Whorf's own writings. I first encountered Whorf in an intro social
widely used. We also used the Saporta reader in an undergraduate
psycholinguistics class. The Saporta volume also contains excerpts from
Whorf and some papers by Lenneberg, Greenberg, Vygotsky, Roger Brown
veiws are developed in Brown (1967) and in some papers by Aarsleff
(1982). Similarly the interest in relativity within psychology and linguistics
at the same time is not surprising given the parallel behaviorist climate in
follows from the propositions that "a scientific theory is a language" and
"linguistic relativity is true."
What is most irksome to me even today in discussions of relativity is
the continued emphasis on the morpheme (the fabled numbers of "words"
for camel, snow, etc.) without recognition that the functional linguistic
referential structure is the phrase or clause.. While there may be interesting

Brown, R. L. (1967). Wilhelm Von Humboldt's Conception of Linguistic
Relativity . The Hague: Mouton.


Saporta, S. (1960) (Ed) Psycholinguistics : A book or readings. HOlt Rinehart

precisely the opposite causality: People find they need to distinguish
more colors because of material, nonlinguistic reasons, and then
devise the necessary linguistic means to formalize the distinctions.

Item #668 (17 Oct 1991 00:00) - 2.671 Whorf Part 2
I want to outline the views of Sapir and of Whorf on linguistic and
cultural relativism as I understand them and survey some of what has
been done with these ideas, both as deriving explicitly from their

Sapir's strongest relativity statement was a brief note titled
"Conceptual Categories of Prinitive Languages," an abstract of a paper
Whorf may have been a Theosophist. His philosophical interests
attracted him to Sapir and to linguistics, and his fascination with the
"hidden metaphysics" of languages remained always the central thing for
him, for which the tools of linguistics were subordinate means. From
the point of view of an emerging profession, then, he was quite
leave in 1937-38. His intention was to "excite [students'] interest in
the linguistic approach as a way of developing understanding of the
ideology of other peoples" (letter to Spier). He would focus on "a
experience into a consistent and readily communicable universe of ideas
through the medium of linguistic patterns" (to Carroll; both quoted in
Darnell 1990:381).

Whorf developed his ideas about linguistic relativity during Sapir's
illness and elaborated it after his death, so Sapir never had a chance
I. Structural differences between language systems will, in general, be
paralleled by nonlinguistic cognitive differences, of an unspecified
sort, in the native speakers of the two languages.
Castillo, and Morely 1966. This line of research seeks a correlation
between a linguistic variable (codability and communication accuracy) and a
nonlinguistic cognitive variable (memorability) within a single language,
and is thus a weak form of I.
After initial claims of success in finding a positive correlation between
the memorability of a color and its value on a linguistic variable, Rosch
showed that both memorability and the combined variable of of codability
and accuracy of communication is determined universally by focality or
perceptual salience. The assumption that the linguistic variables of
codability and communication accuracy differ across languages (III again)
was falsified by this research, and therefore any correlation between
memorability and a linguistic variable was not relevant to the hypothesis.
Lucy and Shweder determined that the problem of focality or salience was an
and work in social categories. To this must be added work of more
obviously linguistic nature, such as projection of prehistoric cultures
from reconstructed protolanguages, Studies of the bases of prejudice, of

The fields of ethnolinguistics and sociolinguistics, themselves
extremely broad and diversified (and themselves polarized rather as the

The perhaps contentiously named field of cognitive linguistics has a
strong constructivist bent. Work in psycholinguistics in general often
has clear bearing, though the direction of interest (and funding) to
linguistic universals has tended to obscure investigation of linguistic
idiosyncrasies that might correlate with cognitive differences.
(phonemes, contrasts, distinctions) and displaying characteristic
polarization effects at the boundaries. A culturally/linguistically
determined contrast can be repeated, a difference requiring perceptual
Kay and Kempton interpret these findings as disconfirming what they call
radical linguistic determinism, in which "human beings . . . are very
much at the mercy of the particular language" (Sapir, quoted

Item #1279 (6 May 1992 09:38) - 3.383 Intuitions, Bibliography, Bible
 Wonderland
Linguistics
632-7775
Though not about linguists, a study published in the Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research (17.1:1-17), by Hiroshi Nagata (The
Relativity of Linguistic Intuition: The Effect of Repetition on
Grammaticality Judgements), concludes that "linguistic intuitions
as revealed in grammaticality judgements are not absolute, but relative

Item #1694 (19 Oct 1992 10:36) - 3.796 Summary: *dog* as sexist language
 wanton enumeration of possibly important, more or less relevant, social
mechanisms? Certainly a scientific explanation of a sociolinguistic
phenomenon will first enumerate many possibly relevant mechanisms, then
seeking action against the auto dealer). But the two have not agreed on
any statement of sociolinguistic value.

posessor of a copy of/ the universal grammar. Perhaps such attempted unities
are underwritten by an innatist linguistics only within a rather narrow
context of formal syntactic operations. In practice, however, this
anti-empirical, example-driven methodology seems to have pervaded
many studies of semantic and sociolinguistic issues. Is the study being
discussed here (i.e., the survey of atitudes toward the billboard)
To be fair, I add a historical not. Many gender-based studies of
linguistic usage seem to
rely on some variant or other of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic
relativity, that is, that our choice of language actively influences and
molds our thinking about objects and people. The history of anthropological
data correspond directly with ambiguities in relations of power. A number
of conversations in LINGUIST have discussed ``linguistic activism'', that is,
the testimony of linguists in courtrooms concerning the meaning and impact of

Item #2167 (2 Apr 1993 11:28) - 4.241 Chicago Linguistic Society 1993: Schedule
 From: The Linguist List <linguist@tamsun.tamu.edu>
Subject: 4.241 Chicago Linguistic Society 1993: Schedule


Subject: 4.241 Chicago Linguistic Society 1993: Schedule

Date: Thu, 1 Apr 93 16:40:48 CST
From: Chicago Linguistic Society <cls@sapir.uchicago.edu>
Subject: CLS 29: Schedule
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 93 16:40:48 CST
From: Chicago Linguistic Society <cls@sapir.uchicago.edu>
Subject: CLS 29: Schedule
A file containing housing, transportation, registration information and a
full schedule for the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic
Society is available on the Listserv. If you wish to get this file, send

THE CHICAGO LINGUISTIC SOCIETY
TWENTY-NINTH REGIONAL MEETING
10:00 Heike Behrens The Relationship between Conceptual
Max Planck Institute for and Linguistic Development: The Early
Psycholinguistics Encoding of Past Reference by German
Children
Class, and Affixation
2:30 Mutsumi Imai & Dedre Gentner Linguistic Relativity vs. Universal
Northwestern University Ontology: Cross-Linguistic Studies
of the Object/Substance Distinction

Item #2493 (26 Jul 1993 07:49) - 4.562 Sum: Gender Markedness
 Maybe you've had experiences like the following: a couple of years ago,
I was teaching an introductory linguistics course for the first time (as
an AI). We had been discussing sexism in language, and some female

In conjunction with linguistic theories of cultural relativism and
determinism, feminist theories of language, especially those of liberal

Terese Thonus <TTHONUS@ucs.indiana.edu> casts linguistic doubt on
the proposal:
gender is so ingrained and rarely linked to "real" gender at all. I suppose
I would ask someone like Arnold Zwicky or someone in historical linguistics
or history of particular languages if this sort of thing has ever been done
-- which would be male, necessarily. A female lycanthrope must be a "wifwolf"
(or "wowolf"). (The last two words are mine own: let me nip linguistic rumor
in the bud). The fact that it changed away from the werman/woman dichotomy

Item #3418 (28 Mar 1994 09:32) - 5.370 Last posting: Mainstream linguistics
 From: The Linguist List <linguist@tamsun.tamu.edu>
Subject: 5.370 Last posting: Mainstream linguistics


Subject: 5.370 Last posting: Mainstream linguistics

From: "Richard L. Goerwitz" <goer@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: 5.537 Mainstream Linguistics

From: Elissa Feit <feit@cs.Buffalo.EDU>
Subject: Re: 5.537 Mainstream Linguistics

From: dalford@s1.csuhayward.edu (Dan Alford)
Subject: Mainstream, and Linguistics as Science

From: Anjum Saleemi <ELLAPS@NUSVM.bitnet>
Subject: Re: 5.537 Mainstream Linguistics

From: an995@freenet.carleton.ca (Paul Deane)
Subject: Mainstream Linguistics

cutting it off--except for messages which compare "mainstream"
and "non-mainstream" approaches to data or specific linguistic
questions. As one of our correspondents pointed out, very little
of this kind of comparison ever finds its way into linguistic
discussions; and so we wish to promote it. But perhaps the
"sociolinguistics" of the discipline has now been sufficiently aired.

However, we don't believe that the original "sociolinguistic"
discussion was _in principle_ out of place on LINGUIST.
We're committed to discussing every subfield of linguistics;
and the historiography of the field is, in fact, a research
From: "Richard L. Goerwitz" <goer@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: 5.537 Mainstream Linguistics

>[Li] suggests that while "generalizations are important....a distinction
>needs to be made between 'linguistic generalizations' and 'what is
>important in GB/PYP/formal etc. linguistics." Not sure what this means.
>A generalization stated as an hypothesis or 'principle' in any thoery
>language data as evidence) to support such a generalization. If the evidence
>is faulty then the so-called generalization is not a linguistic generaliz.
>but a spurious one and must be rejected.
From: Elissa Feit <feit@cs.Buffalo.EDU>
Subject: Re: 5.537 Mainstream Linguistics

mainstream have been saying all along that they are not mainstream
and that mainstream is defined by Chomskyan linguistics.

Allow me a much different definition: mainstream linguistics is any
linguistics that treats syntax as a separate module and then, IF
then, assigns a semantics to that module's output. ("How else could you
From: dalford@s1.csuhayward.edu (Dan Alford)
Subject: Mainstream, and Linguistics as Science

opens the door to a possible new discussion: Can/Should
Linguistics Be Called A 'Science'?

principle to be either valid or invalid; it can only lead (eventually)
to useful or non-useful results. Einstein's principle of relativity
led to useful results; Whorf's analogous principle of linguistic
relativity -- who knows? Linguistic 'scientists' never took it
seriously as a principle. (Then again, physicists never called
cannot ignore the very carefully built-in distinctions of
scientific terminology. But if linguistics is trying to be a
science, is it trying to be a 19th-century science or a
meaning" (Whorf), or towards its only scientific alternative,
a linguistic model which recognizes a semantic *system
associated with* language rather than a semantic *level of*
dropping all pretense of studying meaning? If so, we will surely
see the current dismal trend continue -- linguistics departments
around the country closing their doors forever as a result of the
From: Anjum Saleemi <ELLAPS@NUSVM.bitnet>
Subject: Re: 5.537 Mainstream Linguistics

occur on a fair basis in various fields, in particulcar in
linguistics? What does "fair" mean in this context? Who in the
field should define these basis, or should they be allowed to
From: an995@freenet.carleton.ca (Paul Deane)
Subject: Mainstream Linguistics


The context for this quote is the issue, "what is a linguistic generalization."
Fromkin claims, specifically, that there is no difference between a "real
linguistic generalization" and a theory-internal hypothesis: all general-
izations, she argues, are equal and must be supported from the evidence.

(i) What is an appropriate scientific standard for linguistics?
(ii) What is the status of "formalization" relative to that standard?
(iii) What is the relation between "linguistic generalizations" con-
sidered in the abstract, and their concrete realization in

I hope we can all agree that the basic standard for linguistic theory is
that we must (a) describe the linguistic facts--e.g., in syntax, we must
describe how words combine into phrases and sentences, correctly noting
_
--the relation between "real" linguistic generalizations
and generalizations within a formal framework--
relations. (By "pretheoretically", of course, I mean what a trained linguist
of any school would appreciate as a valid linguistic generalization).

it interesting that Raphael Salkie perceives George Lakoff as having moved
out of linguistics "to an adjacent field." While Lakoff's research emphasis
has certainly shifted from syntax to lexical semantics, why does Salkie
perceive this as moving out of LINGUISTICS?

Item #3645 (24 May 1994 12:14) - 5.606 Sound symbolism
 Thus, Klang association is a topic which has become crucial for
some on-going world-class leading-edge discussions of linguistic
relativity today. American Sign Language, from what I understand,
also shares verb-orientation and sensory symbolism. So perhaps
our introductory linguistics textbooks of the future will reflect
that arbitrariness, once thought to be universal, was in the 1990s
imposed on other languages of the world by the Western European
linguistic mindset -- such as the noun notion of God NOT shared by
Native Americans, the subject of a recent talk I gave to the

Item #3817 (30 Jun 1994 08:41) - 5.768 Pinker's book and linguist bashing
 and ad-hominem arguments. We are introduced on p. 57 to "the famous
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic determinism" (how DOES a principle
of linguistic relativity become a hypothesis of linguistic determinism?)
-- followed immediately by scorn for anyone who finds something of
-- but what accounts for the perennial appeal of the hypothesis itself,
rather than Whorf's actual principle of linguistic relativity, to professional
linguists, psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists?). And then the
similar finite form used in passive constructions), he can't resist using
the exact same form on p. 59: The linguistic determinism hypothesis IS
CLOSELY LINKED [caps mine] to the names Edward Sapir and Benjamin
promulgated the strawman Determinism argument in the first place. While
Whorf did formulate a PRINCIPLE of linguistic relativity (LTR pp. 215, 221),
neither he nor Sapir ever formulated the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis they are
so indelibly linked to in some people's minds. Who is Pinker fighting here
when even Whorf and Whorfians agree that linguistic determinism is
wrong? Pinker, like most Whorf critics, doesn't understand that Whorf
have been telling us about this for almost a century, that our particular
cultural notion of time is a linguistic construct! Is Pinker taking on
quantum physics now?

Item #3891 (25 Jul 1994 07:38) - 5.844 Qs: Bank of English, Relativism, Nostratic, Latin expressions
 From: The Linguist List <linguist@tamsun.tamu.edu>
Subject: 5.844 Qs: Bank of English, Relativism, Nostratic,
Latin expressions

Subject: 5.844 Qs: Bank of English, Relativism, Nostratic, Latin expressions

From: "Tamara S. Al-Kasey" <talkasey+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: ling relativism:info needed

From: "Tamara S. Al-Kasey" <talkasey+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: ling relativism:info needed

Since there is discussion about linguistic relativism, I will put in my
plea in case some random associations might jog readers' memories:

Item #4318 (9 Nov 1994 23:23) - 5.1265 Linguistics as "science"
 From: The Linguist List <linguist@tamsun.tamu.edu>
Subject: 5.1265 Linguistics as "science"


Subject: 5.1265 Linguistics as "science"

I accept the editors' recent challenge for resuming last year's thread
(which I missed, before subscribing) on whether linguistics is/should
be considered a science -- by which I am assuming everyone means
Newtonian *science* rather than the Quantum/Relativity science
which has been current during this century. [N1].
I'm confident this is not the sole reason for most linguists' claim that
linguistics is a *science*. But for those few for whom it is: saying it's
*rigorous* is sufficient to describe that side of our work.
Is any linguist ready to give up meaning (including the systemic
meaning of structure) in order to be *scientific*? Is linguistics not at
least as much art as science? Can anyone provide me a good reason for
categorizing linguistics as science in the context of these remarks?
Isn't there something more INCLUSIVE we can aim toward? But

Actually, linguistics is the best potential candidate for such a new,
meaning-full model of science. Other disciplines have been watching
approach, which goes beyond modern structuralism [N4]. Like the
complementarity principle in physics, form and meaning in linguistics
are complementary (not polar) opposites, both necessary for the total

Whorf took one step, in transforming Einstein's relativity principle
from the more limited geometry focus to the larger focus of human
language in general, which he called the linguistic relativity principle.
[N7]

That physics has in this century been dealing with deep linguistic
questions has unfortunately been lost on most linguists. And the

And linguistics departments are closing as the rest of academe
ruthlessly renders its own self-serving judgement: linguistics is
becoming irrelevant, a "pseudo-science", in the late 20th-century.
Please understand: I am in no way against the *scientific* mode of
linguistics -- it is uniquely appropriate to studying form. It is not,
however, appropriate to studying meaning, for obvious reasons. The
disciplines will so admire that in the 21st century they will start
claiming to be *linguistic* as a way of claiming ultimate rigor in their
search for truth.

[N5] including such pre-Relativity/Quantum *scientific* vocabulary
as 'cause' and 'determine' (especially when linked, as in monocausal
[N6] per current Chaos Theory in mathematics, for those who like to
use mathematics in their linguistics theories.

on the 'comes around' experiential phenomena -- was a term within the
system of Sanskrit linguistics meaning 'direct object of verb' [James
Ryan, Sanskrit & philosophy scholar, personal communication then

Item #4458 (7 Dec 1994 13:50) - 5.1401 Sum: Snow
 honestly testable in some concrete way, you are usually dealing with
psychology, and psychology is far enough from linguistics that any results
are easy for linguistic ideology to ignore. Even though a number of
experiments have been done - tests involving conceptualization of color,
not merely about Eskimo and English having different vocabulary for snow.
His most elaborate examples of linguistic relativism involved Hopi
conceptions of time and space and enormous grammatical principles of
with? Merely the repetition of old tales, merely philosophical dispute;
and these are not linguistics.


* "A Linguistic Consideration of Thinking in Primitive Communities", in
John B. Carrol, ed., _Language, Though, and Reality: Selected Writings of
lexis and "normal" conceptualization--while so difficult to study--is
one of those areas where linguistics enjoys immediate broad interest
for its findings (but no, I'm not going to consider other explanations

Item #4656 (21 Jan 1995 13:58) - 6.87 Qs: Linguistic relativism, GB penpals, Confs '95, Child lang
 From: The Linguist List <linguist@tam2000.tamu.edu>
Subject: 6.87 Qs: Linguistic relativism, GB penpals, Confs '95, Child lang


Subject: 6.87 Qs: Linguistic relativism, GB penpals, Confs '95, Child lang

I need current references on the issue of
linguistic relativism or linguistic relativity.
This is for a chapter for the Handbook of
Bethan Daultrey, e-mail: bethan@ollamh.ucd.ie
Dept. of Linguistics
U.C.D.,
George Aaron Broadwell, g.broadwell@albany.edu
Anthropology; Linguistics and Cognitive Science,
SUNY-Albany, Albany, NY 12222 | 518-442-4711

Item #5573 (20 Jul 1995 12:27) - 6.994, Qs: Citation index, Ling relativity, Voiced sentence, if-clause
 From: The Linguist List <linguist@tam2000.tamu.edu>
Subject: 6.994, Qs: Citation index, Ling relativity, Voiced sentence,
if-clause

Subject: 6.994, Qs: Citation index, Ling relativity, Voiced sentence, if-clause

From: radtsch@uni-muenster.de
Subject: Q:Linguistic Relativity

My name is Michael Cysouw and I just started a PhD-project on the
department of linguistics in Nijmegen (Holland) with Leon Stassen and
Pieter Seuren.

Query: Linguistic Cross-Referenced Citation Index

Why isn't there any linguistic Citation Index which is cross-referenced,
just like there exists for biology and physics for instance? This index

I think such an index would be invaluable for linguistic research. Does
anybody know about plans to construct one, or about how to set up such an
From: radtsch@uni-muenster.de
Subject: Q:Linguistic Relativity

Hi, everybody!
I have been working on a second thesis devoted to the problem of Linguistic
Relativity in Germany (Leo Weisgerber and his school) and would be very
interested to find out, whether there are linguists elaborating upon this

Item #5728 (22 Aug 1995 16:16) - 6.1149, Disc: Sapir-Whorf and what to tell students these days
 in Language Files. I.e., it's difficult to even judge what's going on
with Whorf unless you are simultaneously conversant with linguistics,
American Indian languages, and at least the insights of modern physics.
First, the conclusion that is appropriate is that, as I showed in "The
Demise of the Whorf Hypothesis" (Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1978?),
what Whorf said has little or generally no relation whatever to the
call it in his two or three references? He called it the "principle of
linguistic relativity" or the "linguistic relativity principle". My own
reading of Whorf never finds the word "hypothesis" at all. So -- right

Next: what does Whorf's "linguistic relativity principle" have to do, if
anything, with Einstein's "relativity principle" (which I covered in my
also BLS, 1980?, paper, "Is Whorf's Relativity Einstein's Relativity?").
Ah, now we've gotten to the crux of it -- much against Pinker's stand
domain from mathematics to natural human language; hence: the truly aptly
named "principle of linguistic relativity" as Whorf himself named it.

particular time/tense system of SAE is pretty much peculiar to Western
European languages -- hence a linguistic/cultural ontology of "time" as
we know and practice it, and not the supposed universal we have so fondly
Side note: for one who reads Whorf closely, he makes five or ten times
more universalist statements than relativity statements in his writings,
yet he is seen (and reviled in a Chomskyan universalist attitude) as the
being some deranged crackpot, he was merely literate: Whorf was one of
the few interdisciplinary thinkers between physics and linguistics in
this century; 3) Whorf's relativity principle had something important to
do with Einstein's; and 4) Whorf was a universalist as well as a
If I may be so bold, alluding to your posting that "no one has disproved
Whorf's mild version of linguistic relativity (let's leave ling.
determinism aside, or the stronger version.)", even the mild version
wasn't his! Trace back like I did and you will find that Whorf espoused
neither strong nor weak versions of determinism, and relativity has
nothing to do with determinism when you see it from the physics viewpoint
Hypothesis literature has been primarily to throw up a smokescreen around
his ideas so that people, including grad students in linguistics,
psychology, anthropology and sociology, won't read him in the original
grammar of ancient Sanskrit, where it was used earliest as the
linguistics term for 'direct object'!!), but has never really gotten with
the program this century to replace binary/dualistic thinking with
Whorf heard the call, way back then, and may yet prove to have been an
entire century ahead of his time in linguistics. Even though we can think
in systems for phonology and grammar, we have a tough time doing it for

Item #5845 (19 Sep 1995 17:17) - 6.1270, Sum: Einstein and Saussure
 Dear Linguists, not long ago a friend asked me whether I had heard or seen
anything linking Albert Einstein's theory of Relativity with his
ruminations on Saussure while strolling through a museum in Paris, I
lived in a house with Jost Winteler, a Swiss linguist who believed in
linguistic relativity and whose thesis concerned the dialect of his own
canton. Jakobson suggested that Winteler's interest in linguistic
relativity may have contributed to Einstein's theory of physical
relativity.
- -----------
Anthropology, Roman Jakobson opened his remarks with comments on the
concept of relativity in two books published in 1916, one by Einstein
[General Theory of Relativity, D. Oliver] and the other Saussure's _Cours_.
He continued with a discussion of Saussure's "differential elements" as the
"elementary quanta" of phonemes. The paper first appeared as 'Pattern in
Linguistics', pp. 310-314 in _An Appraisal of Anthropology Today_, ed. by
Sol Tax, et al. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953; it is
According to Jakobson, Winteler was a brilliant linguist who fell into
obscurity when his early works were not happily received by the linguistic
community of the time. Jakobson cites Trubetzkoy on this point: "In a
"Winteler remained true to the principle of 'configurational
relativity' (Relativit der Verltnisse) that had been disclosed in
his dissertation with special reference to the sound pattern of
but only in their relation to all other sound units of the given
language and to the linguistic functions assigned to them in such a
manifold." 1972:75
interested. I feel that these references are all interesting and well
worth reading for anyone interested in Einstein and linguistics. --Douglas
Oliver

Jakobson, Roman. 1971. "Pattern in Linguistics: (Contribution to debates
with anthropologists). In Roman Jakobson: Selected Writings, vol. 2, pp.

Item #6016 (17 Oct 1995 09:17) - 6.1439, Disc: Prescriptivism
 As long as _pre_scription is based on accurate _de_scription, it is a
welcome part of applied linguistics. The objection to "prescriptivism"
is that premature prescription can get in the way of descriptive accuracy.
even there I might be wrong. But Jacques Guy and I clearly seem to
agree that prescriptivism as it is talked about in linguistic circles
is a straw man. Over the weekend, I looked at some recent prescriptive
with linguists (usually) to see if they get the reference to
linguistic relativity and dialect fragmentation -- they never do.

Item #6041 (20 Oct 1995 12:37) - 6.1465, Disc: Language/Dialect
 I agree with many of the general statements made by Hualde regarding the
relationship between neighboring linguistic varieties. These arguments
(about Italian/dialects, Flemish/Netherlander, etc.) are probably known to
the Italian dialects, and so on. But Hualde contradicts himself when,
after defending the relativity of defining linguistic boundaries, states
that

1) "Strictly linguistic" dimension. How can a given linguistic variety be
grammatically described in the simplest, most economical terms? Can the
the issue. It is interesting that just a few years ago officially
approved textbooks mentioned or even emphasized the Gal-Port. linguistic
and cultural unity (Luzia Domi'nguez Seco. 1992. Na construc,a~o do galego

2) Sociolinguistic dimension. I disagree with Hualde that linguists
should consider a language to be just what "most speakers" think the
do you want your own language? Well, here it is. The three communities
share something important: their respective cultural and linguistic
domains go beyond the boundaries of the Kingdom of Spain. The fundamental
difference is that, while in the case of the Basque Country and Catalonia
the linguistic and cultural centers have always been *inside* the Spanish
state, Galiza is actually a sort of unwanted excrecency of the Portuguese
linguistic domain within Spanish territory. Furthermore, Galiza is not
Catalunya, or the Basque Country -- it is a small country, still scarcely
well-informed assessment of the situation, as it comes from a person who
has been seriously involved with the Galizan cultural and linguistic world
(I appreciate, Kathleen, your first message where you also recognize the
need for a debate here in Galiza). Linguistically speaking, the result
may be the full dialectalization of 'Galician' again -- through spelling,
Celso Alvarez-Caccamo
Departamento de Linguistica Geral e Teoria da Literatura
Universidade da Corunha, Galiza - Spain
I liked very much the message by J.I Hualde concerning the galician
situation. I agree with his point of view about separating linguistic
issues from a social-political perspective.

From a linguistic point of view, nobody can impose absolute
arguments in order to consider Galician as either an independent language
follows that Galicia must grow a private culture, which politicians and
linguistics should to define by means of necessary and sufficient
conditions. In this manner, nobody is interested in politics, cultural
life nor linguistic problems of Portugal. Rather Galicians are hurrying to
create a private cosmos where legitimate theirs private ambitions.
stablished languages. It is not necessary to conceive Galicia as a trench
within which politicians and linguistics figth against two foreing
communities (Spain and Portugal), in order to appropriate a bit of field,

Item #6573 (8 Feb 1996 08:44) - 7.206, Disc: Linguistics & Millennium, Re: vol-7-102
 From: The Linguist List <linguist@tam2000.tamu.edu>
Subject: 7.206, Disc: Linguistics & Millennium, Re: vol-7-102


Subject: 7.206, Disc: Linguistics & Millennium, Re: vol-7-102

From: dalford@s1.csuhayward.edu (Dan Moonhawk Alford)
Subject: Disc: Linguistics & Millennium

From: dalford@s1.csuhayward.edu (Dan Moonhawk Alford)
Subject: Disc: Linguistics & Millennium

I want to commend Dr. Nerlich for a great summary on Linguistics and the
Millennium. And I am, as usual, truly disturbed by some of my
there'!), but physics upped the ante on what 'real science' is during
this past century with its relativity and quantum insights. The insights
were about what 'reality' is, which linguistics is supposed to have at
least a faint idea about when we describe the relationship of language to
It seems everyone thinks 'real science' is 'more rigor,' as if
linguistics has been deficient in that area recently! Unwittingly, all
those who call for linguistics being more 'scientific' are indeed usually
using the word as an academic knee-jerk buzzword meaning merely 'quite
'logical', etc. Nobody seems to understand the incredibly pioneering
stance that linguistics is in the position to provide in modern academe!

many long discussions, that if physics had to deal with meaning the way
linguistics does, it could no longer be a 'real science.' Is THIS what we
are aching to become? This way lies madness and those who want even MORE
HAS to deal with meaning, called in its parlance 'the quantum realm.' My
combined experience in linguistics, Native America and modern physics
over the past 25 years each allows me to make the following equation:
As 'meaning' is the complementary truth to 'structure' in
linguistics, those are called 'quantum' vs 'old' or 'Newtonian' truths in
physics, and the 'realm of spirit' as complementarily opposed to the
changing definition of reality: no description of reality, including
linguistic reality, is complete without full particle, wave, field, and
quantum descriptions of the phenomena in question. A few lone voices in
the history of linguistics so far have tried to tell the discipline --
Whorf, Pike, Lamb: they have been treated badly. I am this generation's
d) Where European languages tend to focus on the 'particle'
aspects of the world, this century's linguistics has shown the
possibility that other human beings, specifically many Native American
all along.
For instance, linguistic relativity was an idea well
conceptualized and discussed in German linguistics in the 1800s before
Einstein appropriated it in simplified form for physics and mathematical
languages, and then Whorf reestablished it in linguistics for human
languages with Einsteinian rephrasing in order to make it more rigorous,

g) I'm not sure that others who are calling for linguistics to be
more 'scientific' mean what I understand 'scientific' to mean, which
So I enthusiastically join my voice with all of those who are calling for
the profession of linguistics becoming more 'scientific', but my voice
means it in the 20th/21st Century sense, as opposed to a further
My 'radical' alternative calls for nothing less than a return to
human-centered linguistics that is relevant to BOTH academe and humanity:
one that collects rather than makes up data; that delights in working
4-16). My working title incorporates the Mikmaq word for speech, "'Popping
Wind' and Post-Colonial Linguistics", and I will articulate my view of what
a 21st Century Linguistics could look like which blends our historic rigor
and ancient aboriginal teachings in a complementary way within the context

Item #6774 (19 Mar 1996 18:09) - 7.408, Calls: English & Islam, Ling anthropology
 This international conference hopes to explore both the historical and
contemporary manifestations of these linguistic, literary, and
intercultural connections, to provide a platform for exchanging ideas,
theory and criticism to English-language literature; Islamic
perspectives on linguistic theory and the Muslim scholar's
contribution to this field; the teaching of English language and
Annual Meeting of the AAA, submitted to the Society for
Linguistic Anthropology.

During the 1980s and 1990s, cognitive and cognitive
linguistic approaches have argued for emotional relativism in
which emotions are not regarded as mere feeling states, but

Item #6905 (12 Apr 1996 10:19) - 7.538, Sum: Reading after Whorf's "Language, Mind and Reality"
 summer (references below) , including "A Hidden Cycle in the History
of Linguistics" and "God is not a noun in Native America"and,

Benjamin Whorf seriously -- provide an informal validation of the
principle of linguistic relativity by the agreement that Native
American languages (specifically Algonquian languages were discussed
Alford, Dan Moonhawk. "The Demise of Whorf Hypothesis. Proceedings
of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society,
Feb. 1978: 485-499.

Alford, Dan Moonhawk, "Is Whorf's Relativity Einstein's Relativity?",
Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics
Society Feb. 1981, 13-26.

Alford, Dan Moonhawk, Stealing the Fire, A Linguistic Overview of
This Century's Advances in Physics, given AAA/SAC March 25, 1996.

Bloom, Alfred H. The linguistic shaping of thought: A study in the
impact of language on thinking in China and the west. Lawrence

Fasold, Ralph. The Sociolinguistics of Society. Oxford: Blackwell,
1984.
Hill, Jane H. 1988. "Language, culture, and world-view." In
Frederick J. Newmeyer, ed., Linguistics: The Cambridge survey, Volume
IV: Language: The socio-cultural context, pp. 14-36. Cambridge:

Kess, J. F. Psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 1992.

Lee, Penny "New work on the linguistic relativity question", in
Historiographia Linguistica , 1994, 20,1.


Levinson, J.J. und Gumperz , S.C. (Eds.) Rethinking Linguistic
Relativity OR Linguistic relativity reconsidered (no one seemed to
have the the exact title).

Linn, M. and Miller-Cleary, Linda, "Applied Linguistics for Teachers"
, 1994.
Longacre, Robert E. "Review of Language and Reality, by Wilbur
M. Urban and Four Articles on Metalinguistics, by Benjamin Lee Whorf."
Language 32, (1956): 298-308.
Lucy, J. A.: Language diversity and thought - A reformulation of the
linguistic relativity hypothesis, Cambridge:University Press, 1992

Lucy, J. A. and Richard A. Shweder. "Whorf and His Critics:
Linguistics and Nonlinguistic Influence on Color Memory." American
Anthropologist 81 (1979): 581-615.

Macnamara, John. "Linguistic Relativity Revisited." in The Influence
of Language on Culture and Thought. Ed. Cooper, Robert L. and Bernard

Malmkjaer, Kirsten, The Linguistics Encyclopedia.

Ekkehardt Malotki , Hopi Time: A Linguistic Analysis of the Temporal
concepts in the Hopi Language Mouton, 1983.

McNeil, N. B. "Color and color terminology." Journal of Linguistics
8 (1972), 21-33.

McNeil, N.B. Psycholinguistics: A New Approach. New York: Harper &
Row, Publishers, 1987.

Meiland, Jack W. and Michael Krausz., eds. Relativism. University of
Notre Dame Press, 1982.

Newmeyer, Frederick J. The politics of linguistics. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1986.

Penn, Julia M. Linguistic Relativity versus Innate Ideas. The Hague:
Mouton & Co, N. V., Publishers, 1972.

Rosch, Eleanor. "Linguistic relativity", in A. Silverstein, ed., Human
communication: Theoretical explorations, Lawrence Erlbaum, 95-121,

Rumsey, A. "Wording, Meaning, and Linguistic Ideology." American
Anthropologist , 92 , (1990): 346-361.

Sampson, Geoffrey. Schools of Linguistics. London: Hutchinson, 1980.


Slobin, D. I. Psycholinguistics. Scott, Foresman and Company, 1971.

Steinberg, Danny D. Psycholinguistics: Language, Mind and Word. New
York: Longman, 1982.

Tailor, John R. Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: Claredon Press,
1989.

-, CURRENT TRENDS IN LINGUISTICS, Vol. 13, Part 2 (1975)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Item #7073 (16 May 1996 11:02) - 7.706, Disc: Ungrammatical Sentences
Linguistics has nothing to do with the reference in Fregean sense. For
linguistics, "morning star" and "evening star" have two different
referents. For logic, these two expressions have one and the same
referent. One must not confuse the linguistic concept of the referent
with the logical one. The linguistic concept of meaning implies the
concept of the linguistic referent. Any morpheme has a referent
according to formula M : R. What is meaning? Meaning is a presentation

My linguistic theory, Applicative Universal Grammar (AUG), uses a
sophisticated mathematical formalism based on Combinatory Logic. But
>the distinction between syntactic and semantic (un)acceptability.
>Many of the examples used in linguistic texts and papers reflect this
>problem. Both the starred and the unstarred examples seem awkward
data with the subject matter of a science. The subject matter of
linguistics is the semantic system of language as a theoretical
construct. Grammar as a theoretical construct is an abstraction
resulting from a conceptual analysis of linguistic data. The subject
matter of linguistics is an object obtained by abstraction from
differences between idiolects. There are as many idiolects of Russian
as the zoological concept of the dog is an abstraction from all dogs
of the world. Under a clearly defined subject matter of linguistics,
the distinction between grammatical and lexical meanings does not
>A quick comment on Shaumyan's posting. His position, or at least his
>tree of language, seems to me to threaten a replay of the "linguistics
>wars" between Generative and Interpretive Semantics described in

My position in no way threatens a replay of the "linguistic wars"
between Generative and Interpretative Semantics. Here is why.

Every linguistic unit is a combination of a class of meanings with a
class of phonic segments (or markers based on phonic segments).
the notion of form as used in various formal theories that dominate
the current linguistic scene. Saussure's concept of language as form
means an entity emerging through an intimate interaction of sound and
important consequences of the Relevance Principle is that it provides
a semiotic base for the Linguistic Relativity Principle, formulated by
Whorf. The semiotic approach to the Linguistic Relativity Principle
leads to a seemingly paradoxical conclusion that linguistic relativity
and linguistic invariance presuppose and complement each other. The
relativity principle applies to relativity itself. Relativity is
relative. The complementarity of linguistic invariance and linguistic
relativity has a counterpart in physics. The concept of invariance is
central to Einstein's theory of relativity. Einstein's theory of
relativity is concerned with finding out things that remain invariant
under transformations of coordinate systems. Applicative Universal
Grammar treats language universals as invariant under the transitions
from one relative linguistic system to another. Further argumentation
in support of the complementarity of linguistic relativity and
linguistic invariance one can find in Shaumyan 1980; 1987.

Now, I think, it is clear why my position does not threaten a replay
of linguistic wars between Generative and Interpretive Semantics. In a
nutshell, the difference between Interpretive and Generative Semantics
contrast, Generative Semantics practices a reckless analysis of the
meaning of linguistic expressions disregarding the structure of the
sound shapes of linguistic expressions. Both Interpretative and
Generative Semantics have paid little attention to the conceptual
analysis of linguistic data to clearly define the assumptions
justifying their research methods. Rather they have been interested in
Under the Relevance Principle, neither Interpretive nor Generative
Semantics is acceptable. Any linguistic theory which recklessly
neglects the conceptual analysis of constraints determined by the
Shaumyan, S. (1980). "Semantics, The Philosophy of Science, and
Mr. Sampson". In FORUM LINGUISTICUM, Volume V, Number 1. pp. 66-83.
Published by Jupiter Press for Linguistic Association of Canada and
States. Adam Makkai, Editor, P.O.B. 101. Lake Bluff,
Sebastian Shaumyan 119 Whittier Road
Professor Emeritus of Linguistics New Haven, CT 06515, U.S.A.
Yale University (203) 397-1814

Item #7661 (18 Sep 1996 10:53) - 7.1300, Calls: Foreign langs, Cognitive ling
 From: iclc97@wim.let.vu.nl (ICLC'97 Local Organizers)
Subject: Call: INTERNATIONAL COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS CONFERENCE (ICLC'97)

conference will include sessions devoted to theoretical and
descriptive linguistics, sociolinguistics, and applied linguistics,
including special sessions this year on theory and practice related to
From: iclc97@wim.let.vu.nl (ICLC'97 Local Organizers)
Subject: Call: INTERNATIONAL COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS CONFERENCE (ICLC'97)


5th INTERNATIONAL COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS CONFERENCE
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, July 14 - 19, 1997

The 1997 conference of the International Cognitive Linguistics
Association (ICLA) will be hosted by the Faculteit der Letteren of
as prototypicality, metaphor, mental imagery, and cognitive models)
- the functional principles of linguistic organization (such as
iconicity and naturalness)
khorie@intcul.tohoku.ac.jp, fax: +81-22-217-7842)
Computer Models in Cognitive Linguistics (organizer: David Powers, The
Flinders University of South Australia; David.Powers@flinders.edu.au)
Storage versus computation of polysemous meanings
(organizers: David Tuggy, Summer Institute of Linguistics, and
Theo Janssen, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; contact:
David_Tuggy@sil.org)
Cognitive linguistic approaches to signed language research
(organizer: Sherman Wilcox, University of New Mexico;
fax +44-1223-335062)
Cognitive Linguistic Relativity: On the Centenary of Benjamin Whorf's
Birth (organizer: Caitlin Hines, San Francisco State University;
chines@sfsu.edu)
The linguistic realization of causality (organizers: Ted Sanders and
Arie Verhagen, Utrecht University; contact: Ted.Sanders@let.ruu.nl;

Pedagogy: Cognitive Linguistics in the Curriculum (organizer: Lewis
Sego, Indiana State University, ejlpseg@root.indstate.edu; fax:

Item #7872 (26 Oct 1996 16:41) - 7.1513, Disc: Natural language
 I'm glad this was brought up, since this was Einstein's basic
LINGUISTIC point in his principle of relativity (which was not lost on
Whorf).
don't know we know yet! But the underlying structuralism of quantum
physics and linguistics are cut from the same early 20th-century cloth
that came out of Humboldtian education in Europe.

Item #8231 (17 Jan 1997 13:10) - 8.39, Sum: Myths in linguistics
 From: linguist@linguistlist.org
Subject: 8.39, Sum: Myths in linguistics


Subject: 8.39, Sum: Myths in linguistics

From: feargal murphy <MURPC88@macollamh.ucd.ie>
Subject: sum - myths in linguistics

From: feargal murphy <MURPC88@macollamh.ucd.ie>
Subject: sum - myths in linguistics

Feargal Murphy,
Dept of Linguistics,
Unviersity College Dublin.
'Arbitariness of form and meaning' (Saussure, eg 1959:67) has
developed into a linguistic myth that says we should not bother
to look at language in terms of relationships between form and

This should be obvious to all! The biggest myth in linguistics:
UG!!

2: Archibald Hills article in Dell Hymes Anthrop Linguistics
volume on Cherokee is a beautiful thing, debunking a myth about

Of course, the most pervasive myth in current linguistics is the
WHORF HYPOTHESIS MYTH that assumes that Whorf, possibly in
at all, but especially one that dealt in any way with
determinism. Whorf did write a "principle of linguistic
relativity," which he named as such, which was a qualitative
rewrite of the language (of geometries) question which Einstein
linguist Jost Winteler, a Humboldtian-trained linguist
interested in what we now call relativity.

In all cases, relativity is always about how every language is
biased in its own way, and how when you change your language,
you change your understanding of the 'world'. Linguists tend to
think that what happened when linguistic relativity got to
modern physics has nothing to do with linguistics anymore (who
has the time to learn another field that's so complex!), and
universalists currently in power hadn't taken a rather binary
approach that sees relativity as some kind of enemy to their
cause instead of a complementary approach that values relativity
and universalism as equal and co-existing teachers about human

I've collected some information about linguistics-related myths
on my web page: http://pantheon.yale.edu/~greensp. There is a
FEARGAL MURPHY
Dept of Linguistics
University College Dublin

Item #8278 (23 Jan 1997 09:33) - 8.86, Disc: Ebonics
 <allegro@thecia.net>, analogies (or analyses) from other countries
with linguistic diversity have been lacking in the Ebonics postings.
America is relatively new to such controversy. What do the
experienced linguistic planners think about this debate: a flash in
the pan? a recognizable step toward linguistic diversity? paternalism
masquerading as linguistics? I'd like to know....

I'm still confused about something. Given the tough time Whorf has had for
over half a century around the word 'principle (of linguistic
relativity)', what exactly are African Language Systems 'principles'? Are
they something like what we otherwise call 'rules' or 'laws'? Linguistics
just doesn't have a great track record in dealing with 'principles,' even
between African Americans and the "standard" society is SPECIAL, and also
that discussion of this point is relevant to the linguistic issues
involved. -- Benji

Item #8286 (23 Jan 1997 19:45) - 8.94, Books: Pragmatics, Child lg Acquisition
 By Word of Mouth.
Metaphor, Metonymy and Linguistic Action in a Cognitive Perspective.
Louis GOOSSENS, Paul PAUWELS, Brygida RUDZKA-OSTYN, Anne-Marie
This volume contains seven synchronic and diachronic empirical
investigations into the expression and conceptualization of linguistic
action in English, focusing on figurative extensions.
The following issues are explored: Source domains, and their relation to the
complexities of linguistic action as a target domain; The role of
axiological parameter, the experiential grounding of metaphors expressing
Verbal irony is described in its various realizations and thus placed
within linguistics and pragmatics. From the point of view of an analyzing
observer, Barbe provides an eclectic approach to irony in context, a study
between semantic, grammatical, and pragmatic roles in English and French;
Charles Li, Ancestor-descendant and cultural-linguistic relativity; Toshio
Ohiro, Remarks on suspended clauses: A contribution to Japanese
The study of child language and, in particular, child syntax is a
growing area of linguistic research, yet methodological issues often
take a back seat to the findings and conclusions of specific studies
Blackwel lst (Blackwell Publishers)
cornell lst (Cornell University Linguistics Dept.)
erlbaum lst (Lawrence Erlbaum)
kluwer lst (Kluwer Academic Publishers)
mitwpl lst (MIT Working papers in Linguistics)
pacific lst (Pacific Linguistics Publications)
sil lst (Summer Institute of Linguistics)
glsa lst (U. of Massachusetts Graduate Linguistics Association)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Item #8592 (18 Mar 1997 21:29) - 8.396, Calls: Informatics, Humboldt/Whorf, Lang acq
 The purpose of the symposium is to arrive at a new interpretation of
Humboldt's and Whorf's ideas on linguistic relativity in the light of
recent insights into linguistic conceptualization. Although papers on
the writings by Humboldt and Whorf are also highly welcome, the focus
language.
Not only in theoretical linguistics, but also in the
description of the lexicon and grammar of single languages, new
language, culture and thought. This equally holds for most
interdisciplinary fields such as anthropological linguistics, language
acquisition, psycholinguistics, creole linguistics, sociolinguistics,
and theolinguistics.
We invite researchers from all those fields to contribute to
This conference creates a stage for a discussion on new perspectives
on Minimalism and its relation to other areas in linguistics. The
emphasis of the conference will be on the contribution of acquisition
research to theoretical linguistics.

New Perspective on Language Acquisition
Linguistics Department
University of Massachusetts

Item #8644 (1 Apr 1997 19:00) - 8.448, Calls: German ling, Humboldt and Whorf
 From: "Dafydd Gibbon" <gibbon@spectrum.uni-bielefeld.de>
Subject: German Linguistics Society Meeting March 1998

From: "Dafydd Gibbon" <gibbon@spectrum.uni-bielefeld.de>
Subject: German Linguistics Society Meeting March 1998


German Linguistics Society: CALL FOR WORKSHOP PROPOSALS

The German Linguistics Society invites proposals for Workshops at its
next Annual Conference, 4th - 6th March 1998, in Halle (Saale),
The purpose of the symposium is to arrive at a new
interpretation of Humboldt's and Whorf's ideas on linguistic
relativity in the light of recent insights into linguistic
conceptualization. Although papers on the writings by Humboldt and
precursors of research into cognition and language.
Not only in theoretical linguistics, but also in the
description of the lexicon and grammar of single languages, new
language, culture and thought. This equally holds for most
interdisciplinary fields such as anthropological linguistics, language
acquisition, psycholinguistics, creole linguistics, sociolinguistics,
and theolinguistics.
We invite researchers from all those fields to contribute to

Item #8770 (22 Apr 1997 10:49) - 8.566, TOC: Anthropological Linguistics
 From: linguist@linguistlist.org
Subject: 8.566, TOC: Anthropological Linguistics


Subject: 8.566, TOC: Anthropological Linguistics


**ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS, Volume 39, Number 1 (Spring 1997)**


Rafinesque's Linguistic Activity, VILEN V. BELYI


Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (John J. Gumperz and Stephen C.
Levinson, editors), REGNA DARNELL

Explorations in Indian Sociolinguistics (Rajendra Singh, Probal
Dasgupta, and Jayant K. Lele, editors), RAKESH M. BHATT
should be in U.S. funds by check or postal money order made
payable to *Anthropological Linguistics*. Visa and MasterCard
are also accepted.
Subscriptions and inquires should be sent to: Anthropological
Linguistics, Student Building 130(C), Indiana University,
Bloomington, IN 47405 USA; fax: (812) 855-7529; e-mail:

Item #8839 (30 Apr 1997 12:50) - 8.635, Books: History of Linguistics
 From: linguist@linguistlist.org
Subject: 8.635, Books: History of Linguistics


Subject: 8.635, Books: History of Linguistics


HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS:

At last - a comprehensive account of the ideas of Benjamin Lee Whorf
which not only explains the nature and logic of the linguistic
relativity principle but also situates it within a larger 'theory
complex' delineated in fascinating detail. Whorf's almost unknown
connectionism. Whorf's gestaltic 'isolates' of experience and meaning,
crucial to understanding his reasoning about linguistic relativity,
are explained. A little known report written for the Yale anthropology
1830 and 1880, when they were once more relegated to the philosophical
and linguistic underground. The main stage was then occupied by a
fact-hunting historical comparative linguistics on the one hand and a
newly spiritualised philosophy on the other.
systematically. This was due in part to a new upsurge in empiricism,
positivism and later behaviourism in philosophy, linguistics and
psychology. Between 1780 and 1930 philosophers, psychologists,
most productive interests:
1. Surveys of 16th- and 17th-Century Linguistic Scholarship,
2. The Study of Universal and Individual Traits of Language,
Declinatio (SiHoLS 2). The editor's intimate familiarity with both the
extant archetype and Varro's unique linguistic theory and practice
make this volume indispensable for an understanding of LL X, one of
foremost Varro scholar of this day has successfully combined classical
philology and the history of linguistics to produce an inspired new
edition and novel translation of book ten of Varro's magnum opus.
http://www.cascadilla.com/
Cornell University Linguistics Dept:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/cornell.html
http://www.erlbaum.com/inform.htm
MIT Working papers in Linguistics:
http://broca.mit.edu/mitwpl.web/WPLs.html
U. of Massachusetts Graduate Linguistics Association:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/glsa.html
Pacific Linguistics Publications:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/pacific.html
Summer Institute of Linguistics:
http://www.sil.org/acpub/catalog/catalog.html

Item #9055 (10 Jun 1997 02:21) - 8.851, TOC: International Journal of Bilingualism
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM
Cross-Disciplinary Cross Linguistic Studies of Language Behaviour

Suzaane Romaine
J. G. Gumperz and S. C. Levinson (Eds. ): Rethinking linguistics
relativity - reviewed by Celia Roberts
J. Coady and T. Huckin (Eds.): Second language vocabulary acquisition

Item #9173 (1 Jul 1997 01:58) - 8.969, Qs: Brown/Levinson, Optimality, MA Programs
 From: "Dr. Deborah Arteaga" <darteaga@nevada.edu>
Subject: Interdisciplinary MA Programs in Linguistics


I found the following reference in Gumperz's latest book on linguistic
relativity, and I wonder if anyone has it or knows where I can get a
copy. It looks like a bear to track down...

Brown, P., and Levinson, SC (1993) Linguistic and non-linguistic
coding of spatial arrays: explorations in Mayan cognition. Working
Michael M. T. Henderson
Linguistics Department
University of Kansas
From: "Dr. Deborah Arteaga" <darteaga@nevada.edu>
Subject: Interdisciplinary MA Programs in Linguistics

Our university is in the planning stages of an interdisciplinary MA
program in Linguistics, with varying tracks. I would greatly
appreciate information about other interdisciplinary MA programs at
other universities, as well as information about linguistics
departments that began as interdisciplinary MA programs. Please

Item #9794 (6 Nov 1997 00:00) - 8.1589, Calls: Australian Linguistics Institute (ALI'98)
 From: The LINGUIST List <linguist@linguistlist.org>
Subject: 8.1589, Calls: Australian Linguistics Institute (ALI'98)
Comments: To: LINGUIST@listserv.linguistlist.org

Subject: 8.1589, Calls: Australian Linguistics Institute (ALI'98)

From: peterw@cltr.uq.edu.au (Peter White)
Subject: Australian Linguistics Institute: ALI 98

From: peterw@cltr.uq.edu.au (Peter White)
Subject: Australian Linguistics Institute: ALI 98


AUSTRALIAN LINGUISTICS INSTITUTE (ALI'98)

being offered at the ALI'98, as well as at any of the other
linguistics and applied linguistics conferences that will be held here
in Brisbane either just before or after the ALI'98.

1. RESEARCH ISSUES FOR COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS
(July 10/ Opening Plenary: July 9)
attract as many papers as possible from around Australasia and beyond
that investigate extra-linguistic cognitive processes in language and
communication, to illustrate the diversity of research interests
encompassed by the cognitive linguistics enterprise. Invited
speakers include: Wallace Chafe (who will give the Opening Plenary
February 1998. ** Please indicate if you're willing to have your
abstract considered for inclusion at the ALS (Australian Linguistics
Conference -- 3-5/7/95, U. Queensland) if it cannot be included for
accepted for the symposium may be considered for a special session on
language contact at the Australian Linguistics Society conference,
preceding ALI.
The aim of this workshop is to introduce participants to the growing
field of the applications of linguistics to legal contexts, with a
particular focus on developments in Australia.

There are a number of areas in which linguistics is focusing on either
the analysis of data from legal contexts (such as police interviews,
courtroom hearings, written statutes), or the presentation of linguistic
analysis as expert evidence in court (eg the analysis of recorded voices,
enfield@coombs.anu.edu.au -- OR
n.enfield@linguistics.unimelb.edu.au

Study of the language-culture relationship has its background in
anthropological linguistics and later in cognitive anthropology (see
review in D'Andrade 1995). Many studies have tended to focus on
resurgence of interest (Gumperz & Levinson 1996, Lucy 1992, inter alia).
While work on linguistic relativity has been concerned with the
relationship between language and *thought* (with "culture" at the
as to how they see "culture" best defined and described. This workshop
will be suitable for anyone interested in general linguistics, semantics,
anthropological linguistics, cultural and/or cognitive anthropology.

paper, please consider (in addition to the (the first 3) workshops listed
above), the linguistics and applied linguistics conferences that
piggy-back the ALI:

1. AUSTRALIAN LINGUISTICS SOCIETY Conference, (ALS'98)
3rd - 5th July, 1998

2. APPLIED LINGUISTICS ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA, (ALAA'98)
Annual Congress: 30 June - 3rd July, 1998.
CONTACT: bill_krebs@macmail.bond.edu.au
http://www.anu.edu.au/linguistics/alex/

Item #10082 (11 Jan 1998 19:40) - 9.41, Calls: Australian Ling Institute, Finite State NLP
 From: June Luchjenbroers <junel@cltr.uq.edu.au>
Subject: Australian Linguistics Institute

From: June Luchjenbroers <junel@cltr.uq.edu.au>
Subject: Australian Linguistics Institute


AUSTRALIAN LINGUISTICS INSTITUTE (ALI'98)


1. RESEARCH ISSUES FOR COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS
(July 10/ Opening Plenary: July 9)
attract as many papers as possible from around Australasia and beyond
that investigate extra-linguistic cognitive processes in language and
communication, to illustrate the diversity of research interests
encompassed by the cognitive linguistics enterprise. Invited speakers
include: Wallace Chafe (who will give the Opening Plenary (Thurs
February 1998. ** Please also indicate if you're willing to have your
abstract considered for inclusion at the ALS (Australian Linguistics
Conference -- 3-5/7/95, U. Queensland) if it cannot be included for
Those not accepted for the symposium may be considered for a special
session on language contact at the Australian Linguistics Society
conference, preceding ALI.
The aim of this workshop is to introduce participants to the growing
field of the applications of linguistics to legal contexts, with a
particular focus on developments in Australia.

There are a number of areas in which linguistics is focusing on either
the analysis of data from legal contexts (such as police interviews,
courtroom hearings, written statutes), or the presentation of
linguistic analysis as expert evidence in court (eg the analysis of
recorded voices, or of the grammatical and discourse structure of
[enfield@coombs.anu.edu.au -- OR
n.enfield@linguistics.unimelb.edu.au]

speakers. Study of the language-culture relationship has its
background in anthropological linguistics and later in cognitive
anthropology (see review in D'Andrade 1995). Many studies have tended
has enjoyed a recent resurgence of interest (Gumperz & Levinson 1996,
Lucy 1992, inter alia). While work on linguistic relativity has been
concerned with the relationship between language and *thought* (with
described. This workshop will be suitable for anyone interested in
general linguistics, semantics, anthropological linguistics, cultural
and/or cognitive anthropology.
being offered at the ALI'98, as well as at any of the other
linguistics and applied linguistics conferences that will be held here
in Brisbane either just before or after the ALI'98.
paper, please consider (in addition to the (the first 3) workshops
listed above), the linguistics and applied linguistics conferences
that piggy-back the ALI:

1. AUSTRALIAN LINGUISTICS SOCIETY Conference, (ALS'98)
3rd - 5th July, 1998

2. APPLIED LINGUISTICS ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA, (ALAA'98)
Annual Congress: 30 June - 3rd July, 1998.
CONTACT: bill_krebs@macmail.bond.edu.au
[http://www.anu.edu.au/linguistics/alex/]

EACL - European Chapter of the Association for Computational
Linguistics,
TUBITAK- Turkish Scientific and Technological Research Council(*)
**Papers accepted to the workshop will also be considered for a future
special issue of the Computational Linguistics journal.**