Grounding Linguistics in Two Major Modalities 
 
Although I've been reading works on linguistics for almost sixty years, 
this is the first time during fifty of those years that I have once again 
begun to feel slightly optimistic about the future of our field. I found 
Alex Kravchenko's two recent contributions here most welcome, as well as 
recent messages pointing both to Dalrymple's article and to Codrescu's NPR 
interview. 
 
May I offer what may be my own latest contribution to this trend, if indeed 
it be one. It is something I just completed as part of a recently received 
commission and represents my best attempt so far to bring together and 
synthesize the three major passions of my life: Linguistics, Theatre, and 
Translation. You'll find it at: 
 
http://language.home.sprynet.com/theatdex/weiss2.htm#ling 
 
This URL should take you to the portion of the piece dealing with 
Linguistics, but some of you might also want to scroll backwards and see 
the sections on theatre and translation as well. It seems to me that 
linguistics today is so airy and disembodied from most real language 
phenomena that it can only profit from additional grounding in two such 
powerful and coequal linguistic modalities as translation and theatre. 
Further evidence for this statement can be found in the text and references 
of the article itself. 
 
I find it hard to imagine how some of our colleagues may be reacting to 
this recent spate of criticism, and I can't help wondering if some of those 
who are not steadfastly ignoring it may not be, after five decades in the 
arms of Van Winkle's Narcolepsy, coming abruptly awake and rubbing their 
eyes in utter disbelief, as they mutter: ''You mean, it's not just grammar 
after all...?'' 
 
In any case, I look forward to whatever your comments and criticisms may 
prove to be. 
 
All the best to linguists everywhere! 
 
alex 
 
------------------------------ 
References: 
 
Andrei Codrescu: The Human Art of Translation, NPR, December 14, 2006, 
audible online at: 
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6626808 
 
Theodore Dalrymple, The Gift of Language, City Journal, Autumn, 2006, 
available online at: 
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6626808

Alexander Kravchenko responds to 'An Intelligent Man's Answer to Linguistic 
Truisms' by writing that ''...I back Dalrymple on every count and find 
Pinker 'guilty as charged'.'' Dalrymple may well make some good points, and 
Pinker has certainly made some bad ones, but it is absurd to suggest that 
Dalrymple is right ''on every count.'' 
 
Let's take perhaps the most obvious example of Dalrymple misrepresenting 
Pinker's, and Linguistics', position. Dalrymple writes that ''[i]t is 
utterly implausible to suggest that imitation of parents (or other social 
contacts) has nothing whatever to do with the acquisition of language. I 
hesitate to mention so obvious a consideration, but Chinese parents tend to 
have Chinese-speaking children, and Portuguese parents Portuguese-speaking 
ones.'' 
 
It has been a while since I read The Language Instinct, but if I remember 
correctly, Pinker never claims that imitation has nothing whatever to do 
with acquisition. I certainly haven't heard it from any regular Joe 
linguist, either. 
 
Dalrymple, and by extension, Kravchenko, fails to maintain an elementary 
logical distinction here, that between necessary and sufficient conditions. 
Pinker's (and others') claim is that imitation is not sufficient for 
language acquisition. Dalrymple is representing Pinker's position as a 
claim that imitation is not necessary for language acquisition. The two are 
not equivalent. 
 
Obviously, even the most fervent generativists understand that ''Chinese 
parents tend to have Chinese-speaking children, and Portuguese parents 
Portuguese-speaking ones.'' They also understand that Chinese and 
Portuguese have quite a lot in common 'underneath' their many obvious 
differences. 
 
Perhaps Kravchenko was forgetting about this silly straw-man argument when 
he expressed his agreement with Dalrymple. Kravchenko rightly focuses on 
the issue of 'equality' between languages, as this is probably the most 
interesting issue addressed in Dalrymple's article. Many linguists go to 
great lengths to insist that no one language is any more complex, or any 
better, than another. Dalrymple and Kravchenko disagree. 
 
There is, perhaps, a real issue here, though standard linguistics, 
Dalrymple, and Kravchenko are all (understandably) reluctant to face it 
head on. In order to claim that language A is better than Language B, one 
must define what, exactly, better means. If this is, in fact, a real issue, 
then the exceedingly difficult work of defining and measuring the relative 
complexity or 'quality' of different languages should be undertaken. 
 
Kravchenko doesn't offer any substantive explanation for his dismissal of 
the linguistic equality 'myth' other than to quote Dalrymple. Dalrymple 
seems to address the problem, but in doing so he conflates eloquence and 
linguistic competence. This is based on either a misunderstanding or a 
deliberate misrepresentation of Linguistics, as is the imitation foofaraw 
discussed above. 
 
For what it's worth, David Foster Wallace wrote a much better essay 
(published in the April, 2001, issue of Harper's) that deals with some of 
these issues in a much more entertaining and well-informed manner than does 
Dalrymple. The essay can be read (as of 1/19/07, anyway) at: 
 
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html