DOCSLIB.ORG

ED332504.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ED332504.Pdf DOCUMENT RESUME ED 332 504 FL 018 885 AUTHOR Davison, Alice, Ed.; Eckert, Penelope, Ed. TITLE Women in the Linguistics Profession: The Cornell Lectures. Conference on Women in Linguistics (Ithaca, New York, June 1989). INSTITUTION Linguirtic Society of America, Washington, D.C. SPONS AGENCY National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. PUB DATE 90 CONTRACT NSF-88-00534 NOTE 268p.; Produced by the Committee on the Status of Women in Linguistics. PUB TYPE Collected Works - General (020) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC11 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Administrator Attitudes; *Cultural Isolation; Deans; Doctoral Dissertations; *Employment Patterns; English Departments; *Females; Graduate Study; Higher Education; :,;tellectual Disciplines; *Linguistics; Mentors; Scnolarship; *Sex Bias; F.exual Harassment; Tenure; Trend Analysis; *Women Fulty; Work Environment ABSTRACT Papers on women in linguistics are presented in five groups. An introductory section contains: "Feminist Linguistics:A Whirlwind Tour"; "Women in Linguistics: The Legacy of Institutionalization"; "Reflections on Women in Linguistics";and "The Structure of the Field and Its Consequences forWomen." Papers on trends and data include: "The Status of Women in Linguistics"; "The Representation of Women in Linguistics, 1989"; and"Women in Linguistics: Recent Trends." A section on problems and theirsources includes: "How Dick and Jane Got Tenure: Women and UniversityCulture 1989"; "Success and Failure: Expectations andAttributions"; "Personal and Professional Networks"; "Sexual Harassmentand the University Community"; and "Two Cultures of Communication."Essays on finding and giving support include: "Gender Valuesand Success in Academia"; "First Generation Mentors"; and "He Was HerMentor, She Was His Muse: Women as Mentors, New Pioneers."A section addressing stages in a woman's career contains: "The DissertationYear"; "A Dean's Perspective on Women in Academe"; "FromGraduate School to Tenure"; "Living on the Margin: Pros and Cons ofBeing Linguists in an English Department"; and "Independent and Isolated Scholars: Report on a Group Discussion." (MSE) *********************************************************************** * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best thatcan be made * * from the original document. * *******:*************************************************************** The Cornell Lectures Women in the Linguistics Profession Editors Alice Davison Penelope Eckert Published by The Committee on the Status of Women in Linguistics of the Linguistic Society of America 1325 18th Street NW Suite 211 Washington DC 20036-6501 1990 Copyright for each paper in this vo' ume rests with the author. - r Contents Page Acknowledgments vi Foreword vii Alice Davison Part 1 Introduction Feminist Linguistics: A Whirlwind Tour 2 Some Useful Bibliography 12 Sally McConnell-Ginet Women and Linguistics: The Legacy of Institutionalization 23 Paula A. Treichler Reflections on Women in Linguistics 33 Amy Sheldon The Structure of the Field and its 43 Consequences for Women Frederick J. Newmeyer Part 2 Women in Linguistics: the Numbers The Status of Women in Linguistics 55 Patti Jo Price The Representation of Women in Linguistics, 1989 72 Alice Davison, Walter Cichocki, David Silva Women in Linguistics: Recent Trends 89 Dorothy Disterheft iv Part 3 Problems and their Sources How Dick and Jane Got Tenure: Womenand 112 University Culture1989 Paula A. Treichler Success and Failure: Expectations and 129 Attributions Virginia Valian Personal and Professional Networks 142 Penelope Eckert Sexual Harassment 155 and the University Community Molly Hite Two Cultures of Communicltion 164 Louanna Furbee Part 4 Finding and Giving Support Gender Values and Success in Academia 183 Craige Roberts First Generation Mentors 196 Margaret Speas He Was Her Mentor, She Was His Muse: Women as Mentors, New Pioneers 208 Amy Sheldon Part 5 Places in a Woman'sCareer The Dissertation Year 224 Margarita Sufier A Dean's Perspectiveon Women in Academe 231 Francine Frank From Graduate Schoolto Tenure 239 Carlota S. Smith Living on the Marg;n: Prosand Cons 245 of Being Linguists in an English Department Edwin Battistella andArnie Lobeck Independent and IsolatedScholars: 251 Report on a Group Discussion Susan Kesner Bland Epilogue 254 Conference Participants vi Acknowledgments This volume originated in a conference on women in linguistics, organized by Alice Davison at Cornell University in June of 1989, along with co-organizers SallyMcConnell-Ginet, Amy Sheldon and Paula Treichler. Thanks are due to a wide range of people and organizations for their generous contributions to the conference, and to the production of this volume. The conference was sponsored by the Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics and the Women's Studies Program at Cornell, the Commitee on the Status of Women of the Linguistic Society of America, and the National Science Foundation's Visiting Professorships for Women program. The conference was funded by the National Science Aundation as part of a visiting professorship which Alice Davison held for the calendar year 1989 in the Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics, Cornell University (NSF grant 88-00534). The cost of publication of this volume was contributed by the LSA Committee on the Status of Women. The Institute for Research on Learning in Palo Alto, California, generously provided computer facilities ane support for the creation of camera-ready copy for t,1,' publication.We especially thank Tina Marquez ;tad Steve Oliphant at IRL for software and hardixare support, and Ivan Sag for help with the copy-editing. Both editors owe a particular debt of gratitude to Sally McConell-Ginet for her generous and warm support of this project from beginning to end. vii A Foreword to the Conferen, with Some Afterthoughts Alice Davison University of lowa In the introductory session of the conference, I gave some background to the conference: why it had come about and what it was intended to do. Here I give a somewhat condensed version of what I said then, overlaid with some afterthoughts about things I now see more clearly in retrospect. Now that the conference has actually occurred, I have had a chance to think over the papers which were given and the effect they had, on me and perhaps on the other people who heard them. I hope a conference like this was inevitable: a conference with invited speakers who could help to articulate a broad and general agenda for women in linguistics. Yet it was a long time coming about, even with the very interesting and useful panels organized at the annual LSA meetings by the Committee on the Status of Women. A conference like this is unprecedented, in that it was not constituted along the traditional lines of a linguistics conference, with short papers on analyses of data within some accepted body of assumptions about language. In proposing the conference, I had in mind both a positive model and a negative model. Francine Frank organized a panel at the 1982 LSA meeting in San Diego, at which six currently active linguists presented biographies of six prominent women in linguistics of the 50s and 60s. They were active professionallywhentheproportionof women in linguistics was much smaller than it is now, yet the quite varied patterns of their professional lives were not unlike what women face now, and it was the specific details of their careers which made an impact on the audience in 1982. For example, it came as quite a surpriseto me that someone as well-known and well-regarded as Mary Haas did not have a permanent job until very late in her career, and had survived for a long time on funds from research grants. The often startling realities and less than perfect circumstances surrounding the careers of women who had achieved distinction in their fields allows women in these times to find some connections and models whereprofessional models are still scarce, and isolation or feelings ofbeing outside the norm are still common. This was the positive model which I wanted to extend to the presentday. Paula Treichler's narrative of Dick and Jane gives a contemporary example of the shape of a woman's career. In the early days of the LSA Committee on theStatus of Women, there were open meetings at which problems facing women in linguistics were meant to be discussed. These discussions often took on the air of grievance sessions, of recitalsof terrible things which had happened to various women. The grievances wereindeed real jobs were lost, tenure was not granted, very painful compromises were made between professional goals and family responsibilities. The participants were left feeling very upset and angry, but with noclear idea of what the basic problems were, or where to start in their solution. Since then, much thinking has been done on various fronts, within the women's movement, inverious academic disciplines where very interesting work is done on gender, languageand academia, and in scientific fields, where the low representation of women continues to be a matter of very deep concern.(This is one of the motivations behind the NSF Visiting Professorshipsfor Women program, for which I wrote the proposal.) I wanted to address some of the basic issues aboutthe pressures causing attritionof women in linguistics, in a format which would include or at least not exclude a range of differentviews of women in linguistic withouz, imposing a particular one on the wholeconference. ix One possibleexplanationfor why somesortof independent or grass-roots association of women did not
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Why Is Language Typology Possible?
    Why is language typology possible? Martin Haspelmath 1 Languages are incomparable Each language has its own system. Each language has its own categories. Each language is a world of its own. 2 Or are all languages like Latin? nominative the book genitive of the book dative to the book accusative the book ablative from the book 3 Or are all languages like English? 4 How could languages be compared? If languages are so different: What could be possible tertia comparationis (= entities that are identical across comparanda and thus permit comparison)? 5 Three approaches • Indeed, language typology is impossible (non- aprioristic structuralism) • Typology is possible based on cross-linguistic categories (aprioristic generativism) • Typology is possible without cross-linguistic categories (non-aprioristic typology) 6 Non-aprioristic structuralism: Franz Boas (1858-1942) The categories chosen for description in the Handbook “depend entirely on the inner form of each language...” Boas, Franz. 1911. Introduction to The Handbook of American Indian Languages. 7 Non-aprioristic structuralism: Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) “dans la langue il n’y a que des différences...” (In a language there are only differences) i.e. all categories are determined by the ways in which they differ from other categories, and each language has different ways of cutting up the sound space and the meaning space de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1915. Cours de linguistique générale. 8 Example: Datives across languages cf. Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison 9 Example: Datives across languages 10 Example: Datives across languages 11 Non-aprioristic structuralism: Peter H. Matthews (University of Cambridge) Matthews 1997:199: "To ask whether a language 'has' some category is...to ask a fairly sophisticated question..
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae: Bruce P. Hayes
    Curriculum Vitae: Bruce P. Hayes Address: Department of Linguistics, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/ Telephone: (310) 825-9507 (office) (310) 825-0634 (Linguistics Dept.) Education: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1976-1980, Ph.D., Linguistics Harvard University, 1973-1976, B.A. cum laude, Linguistics and Applied Mathematics Employment Distinguished Professor, Dept. of Linguistics, UCLA, 2012- history: Professor, Dept. of Linguistics, UCLA, 1989- Associate Professor, Dept. of Linguistics, UCLA, 1985-1989 Assistant Professor, Dept. of Linguistics, UCLA, 1981-1985 Lecturer, Dept. of Linguistics, Yale University, 1980-1981 UCLA Linguistics 1 “Introduction to Language” courses Linguistics 20 “Introduction to Linguistics” taught: Linguistics 88B “Linguistics and Verse Structure” Linguistics 103 “Introduction to General Phonetics” Linguistics 120A “Phonology I” Linguistics 191 “Metrics” Linguistics 200A “Phonological Theory I” Linguistics 201 “Phonological Theory II” Linguistics 205 “Morphology” Linguistics 210 “Field Methods” (with Paul Schachter) Linguistics 251 “The Phonology of Syllables and Stress” Linguistics 251 “CV Phonology” Linguistics 251 “The Metrical Theory of Stress” Linguistics 251 “Lexical Phonology” Linguistics 251 “Segment Structure” Linguistics 251 “The Syntax-Phonology Interface” Linguistics 251 “Phonetic Rules” Linguistics 251 “Intonation” Linguistics 251 “Metrics” Linguistics 251 “Phonetically-Driven Optimality-Theoretic Phonology”
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Functionalist Linguistics: Usage-Based Explanations of Language Structure
    MARTIN HASPELMATH, 15 July 1. Functionalist linguistics: usage-based explanations of language structure 1. What is functionalism? prototypical representatives of "functionalism" in my sense: general: Greenberg 1966, Croft 1990, Paul 1880/1920 syntax: Givón 1984-90, Hawkins 1994, Croft 2001 morphology: Bybee 1985 phonology: Lindblom 1986, Bybee 2001 non-prototypical representatives: Foley & Van Valin 1984, Langacker 1987-91, Dik 1997 fundamental question: Why is language structure the way it is? not: How can language be acquired despite the poverty of the stimulus? primary answer: Language structure (= competence) is the way it is because it reflects constraints on language use (= performance). typically this means: because it is adapted to the needs of language users main problem: H ow can language structure "reflect" language use? There must be an evolutionary/adaptive process, perhaps involving variation and selection. 2. Two examples (A) Vowel systems: The great majority of languages have "triangular" vowel systems as in (1a) or (1b). "Horizontal" or "vertical" systems as in (2a-b) are logically perfectly possible, but unattested. (1) a. [i] [u] b. [i] [u] [a] [e] [o] [a] (2) a. [i] [I] [u] b. [I] [´] [a] This reflects a phonetic constraint on language use: Vowels should be easily distinguishable, and phonetic research has shown that [i], [u], and [a] are the three extremes in the available vowel space (e.g. Lindblom 1986). 1 (B) Implicit infinitival subjects: In many languages, the subject of certain types of complement clauses can be left unexpressed only when it is coreferential with a matrix argument: (3) a. Roberti wants [Øi/*j to arrive in time].
    [Show full text]
  • Expert Judgment on Markers to Deter Inadvertent Human Intrusion Into the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
    SANDIA REPORT SAND92–1382 ● UC–721 Unlimited Release Printed November 1993 Expert Judgment on Markers to Deter Inadvertent Human Intrusion into the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Kathleen M. Trauth, Stephen C. Hera, Robert V. Guzowsti Prepared by Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 and Livermore, California 94550 for the United Statea Department of Energy under Contract DE-ACO&94AL85000 ______ . ., ,, ,, Issuedby SandiaNationalLaboratories,operatedfortheUnitedStates DepartmentofEnergyby SandiaCorporation. NOTICE Thisreportwaspreparedasanaccountofworksponsoredbyan agencyoftheUnitedStatesGovernment.NeithertheUnitedStatesGovern- ment noranyagencythereof,noranyoftheiremployees,noranyoftheir contractors,subcontractors,ortheiremployees,makesanywarranty,express orimplied,orassumesanylegalliabilityorresponsibilityfortheaccuracy, completeness,or usefulnessof any information,apparatusproduct,or processdisclosed,orrepresentsthatitsusewouldnotinfringeprivately ownedrights.Referencehereintoanyspecificcommercialproduct,process,or serviceby tradename,trademark,manufacturer,or otherwise,doesnot necessarilyconstituteorimplyitaendorsement,recommendation,orfavoring by the UnitedStatesGovernment,any agencythereofor any of their contractorsorsubcontractors.The viewsand opinionsexpressedhereindo notnecessarilystateorreflectthoseoftheUnitedStatesGovernment,any agencythereoforanyoftheircontractors. PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica.Thisreporthasbeenreproduced directlyfromthebestavailablecopy. AvailabletoDOE andDOE contractorsfrom OfficeofScientificandTechnicalInformation
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction1
    1. Introduction1 Jeff Good University at Buffalo 1 Diachrony, synchrony, explanation, and universals Certain grammatical patterns are found again and again in the languages of the world. Some of these patterns recur so frequently that they are given the label “universal”. Explaining the source of such patterns is clearly an important goal of linguistics, but how to go about doing this is not obvious. Problems range from the terminological (what sort of patterns should we consider universal?) to the methodological (what kind of explanation will we accept as sufficient?) to the theoretical (what role does a universal grammar have in shaping recurrent patterns? what role do functional considerations play?). How one answers one of these questions will affect how one answers the others. Can probabilistic generalizations be considered universals? If so, then we need explanations predicting probabilistic patterns. Are we looking for proximate explanations (for example, “language A shows pattern X because it inherited it from its parent language”) or ultimate ones (for example, “language A shows pattern X because only this pattern is permitted by Universal Grammar”)? Will we assume there is no such thing as Universal Grammar? Then, of course, we cannot appeal to it for any sort of explanation. Will we assume there is such a thing? Then, what is its precise structure?2 The papers in this volume are concerned, in one way or another, with both the general problem of explaining recurrent grammatical patterns and the more particular problem of trying to understand what the relationship is between these patterns and language change. Since languages are simultaneously products of history and entities existing at particular times, it seems clear that both diachrony and synchrony have a role to play in explaining the existence of 1 “universals”, but where the division of labor lies between the two is contentious.
    [Show full text]
  • Optimality Theory and Language Change Randall Gess, University Of
    Bibliography: Optimality Theory and Language Change Randall Gess, University of Utah The bibliography below is a compilation in progress. Please notify the author of any additions, at [email protected]. Anttila, Arto and Young-mee Yu Cho. 1998. Variation and Change in Optimality Theory. Lingua 104: 31-56. Baerman, Matthew. 1998. The Evolution of Prosodic Constraints in Macedonian. Lingua 104: 57-78. Bermudez-Otero, Ricardo. 1996. Stress and quantity in Old and early Middle English: Evidence for an optimality-theoretic model of language change. Rutgers Optimality Archive, 136-0996. -----. 1998. Prosodic optimization: the Middle English length adjustment. English Language and Linguistics 2: 169-197. -----. 1999. Constraint interaction in language change: quantity in English and Germanic. PhD dissertation, University of Manchester. Bethin, Christina. 1998. Slavic Prosody: Language Change and Phonological Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Billings, Loren A. 1996. Sandhi phenomena and language change. Interfaces in Phonology (Studia Grammatica 41), Ursula Kleinhenz (ed.), 60-82. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Billings, Loren A. 2000. Review of Bethin (1998). Journal of Linguistics 36: 405-411. Blevins, Juliette. 1997. Rules in Optimality Theory: Two Case Studies. Derivations and Constraints in Optimality Theory, Iggy Roca (ed.), 227-260. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Boersma, Paul. 1998. Sound change in Functional Phonology. Chapter 17 of Functional Phonology: formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. Gess, Randall. 1996. Optimality Theory in the Historical Phonology of French. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington. -----. 1998a. Alignment and sonority in the syllable structure of Late Latin and Gallo-Romance. Theoretical Analyses on Romance Languages, José Lema and Esthela Treviño (eds.), 193-204.
    [Show full text]
  • Tom Ruette Looks at the Linguistic War from Fifty Years Ago, and the Situation Now a Battle Not the War
    Feature Linguistic wars Noam Chomsky in the 1960s Tom Ruette looks at The Linguistic War from fifty years ago, and the situation now A battle not the war Babel The Language Magazine | May 2014 29 Feature Linguistic wars uring the sixties “Chomsky proposed noun the shooting. Now, a quick and seventies, a reader will have noticed that fierce linguistic a psychologically the shooting of the hunters could war was fought much richer and also be a transformation of the in the United hunters are being shot. In that States over more attractive sentence, it is, quite unnervingly, Dthe position of ‘meaning’ in perspective on somebody else who is shooting at the linguistic system. Names the hunters! The shooting of the were called, voices were raised, linguistic behavior. hunters thus has two meanings: it indecent example sentences were He stated that is ambiguous. Chomsky elegantly given, and linguists assumed explained how language users invective pseudonyms and phrases can be can disambiguate the shooting of affiliations. This is the story of a elegantly derived the hunters by applying different not-so-typical academic dispute, transformations that result in the a linguistic dogfight that lasted from each other unambiguous phrases the hunters for more than ten years, fought by means of shoot and the hunters are being high up in the ivory towers of shot. The University. ‘transformations’, Relating transformations We start our story with with meaning was a central Noam Chomsky shaking and that these topic of Chomsky’s 1965 book up the linguistic field with transformations Aspects of the Theory of Syntax.
    [Show full text]
  • Slavic Generative Syntax*
    John Frederick Bailyn SUNY at Stony Brook Slavic Generative Syntax* "Language and its use have been studied from varied points of view. One approach, assumed here, takes language to be part of the natural world."1 1. Introduction The emphasis and consequences of research in generative syntax has changed dramatically in the recent past with the advent of Chomsky's 1993 "Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory", and the implications for the future of Slavic syntax are significant. Under Minimalism, perhaps for the first time in the almost 50 year history of generative syntax, the primary issue of theoretical importance concerns the motivation rather than simply the mechanics of linguistic computational processes. On this view, linguistic expressions are determined by cognitive output conditions involving the interfaces with the conceptual portion of the mind (the Logical Form interface) and the acoustic/perceptual portion (the Phonetic Form interface), and, in strongest form, nothing else. That is, all expressions result in a PF, LF representational pair, whose derivational history meets simplicity ("economy") conditions, indicating that human language may be a highly non-redundant system. If true, this would be a startling result for a biological system, and therefore a highly important hypothesis to examine critically, using careful empirical testing and analysis. The Slavic languages are thus thrust into the spotlight *This article is a revised version of the original 2000 article that appeared as part of the SlavLing 2000 project. The additional 15 pages is almost entirely a result of having tried to provide a somewhat complete bibliography of relevant work, especially outside what formal Slavists might normally be exposed to.
    [Show full text]
  • The Early Generativists' Multipronged
    DISCUSSION NOTE Getting the word out: The early generativists’ multipronged efforts to diffuse their ideas Frederick J. Newmeyer University of Washington , University of British Columbia , and Simon Fraser University This discussion note revolves around the early days of generative grammar, that is to say the late 1950s and the 1960s. A number of commentators have claimed that MIT linguists in this pe - riod formed an elitist in-group, talking only to each other by means of inaccessible ‘underground’ publications and thereby erecting a barrier between themselves and the outside world of linguis - tics. I attempt to refute such claims. We see that the early generativists used every means at their disposal at the time to diffuse their ideas: publishing single-authored books, journal articles, an - thology chapters, and technical reports; aiding the writing of textbooks; giving conference talks; teaching at LSA (Linguistic Society of America) Institutes; and hosting numerous visitors to MIT. And in particular, there was no significant ‘underground’ literature to obstruct the acceptance of the new theory.* Keywords : history of linguistics, generative grammar, MIT, Noam Chomsky, underground literature 1. Introduction . As early as 1964 a commentator had written: ‘[T]ransformational grammar has established itself as the reference point for discussion of linguistic theory … it remains the case that it has been Chomsky who has effectively opened the Ameri - can linguistic scene to its present free and fruitful discussion’ ( Hymes 1964 :25). A year later, there was talk of a ‘Chomskyan revolution’ in the field ( Bach 1965b :111–12, Levin 1965 :92, Thorne 1965 :74). 1 How did the theory of transformational-generative grammar succeed so rapidly, that is, in seven or eight years after the publication of Syn - tactic structures (Chomsky 1957 )? The most important reason by far is that a wide spectrum of the linguistic community found the theory to be either correct or on the right track (for extensive discussion, see Newmeyer 1986 :Ch.
    [Show full text]
  • Where, If Anywhere, Are Parameters? a Critical Historical Overview of Parametric Theory Frederick J
    Chapter 25 Where, if anywhere, are parameters? A critical historical overview of parametric theory Frederick J. Newmeyer University of Washington, University of British Columbia, and Simon Fraser University Since the late 1970s, crosslinguistic variation has generally been handled by means of UG- specified parameters. On the positive side, thinking of variation in terms of parameterized principles unleashed an unprecedented amount of work in comparative syntax, leading to the discovery of heretofore unknown morphosyntactic phenomena and crosslinguistic gen- eralizations pertaining to them. On the negative side, however, both macroparameters and microparameters have proven themselves to be empirically inadequate and conceptually nonminimalist. Alternatives to parameters are grounded approaches, epigenetic approaches, and reductionist approaches, the last two of which seem both empirically and conceptually quite promising. 1 Introduction The existence of crosslinguistic variation has always been problematic for syntacticians. If there is a universal grammar, one might ask, then why aren’t all languages exactly the same? In the earliest work in generative syntax, characterizing the space in which languages could differ, whether at the surface or at a deep level, was not a priority. At the time, surface differences between languages and dialects were generally attributed to language-particular rules or filters. In the late 1970s, however, a strategy was developed that allowed the simultaneous development of a rich theory of Universal Grammar (UG) along with a detailed account of the limits of crosslinguistic morphosyntactic variation. In this view, syntactic com- plexity results from the interaction of grammatical subsystems, each characterizable in terms of its own set of general principles. The central goal of syntactic theory now be- came to identify such systems and to characterize the degree to which they might vary (be “parameterized”) from language to language.
    [Show full text]
  • Private Knowledge, Public Tensions
    PRIVATE KNOWLEDGE, PUBLIC TENSIONS: THEORY COMMITMENT IN POSTWAR AMERICAN LINGUISTICS by Janet Nielsen A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology University of Toronto © Copyright by Janet Nielsen () Abstract PRIVATE KNOWLEDGE, PUBLIC TENSIONS: THEORY COMMITMENT IN POSTWAR AMERICAN LINGUISTICS Doctor of Philosophy () Janet Nielsen Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology University of Toronto Propelled by a desire to understand natural language, American linguists of the post- war period brought the tools of the era to bear on the study of syntax: computer science, mathematical graph theory, and even Cold War strategy. Three syntactic theories were enunciated, each trying to untangle the mysteries of our ability to form and use sentences. These theories interacted on a nearly daily basis, influencing and challenging each other through the s. By the end of the decade, one had established clear dominance: Noam Chomsky’s theory, developed at . Combining contemporary history of science tools with linguistics-specific concepts, this study explores the dynamics of the syntactic theory- choice debates from to . I argue that these debates can only be fully understood through a confluence of four themes: explanation, pedagogy, knowledge transmission, and lay linguistics. Together, these themes explain how linguists selected and evaluated theories, how students were trained to think about and use syntax,
    [Show full text]
  • Naahols Newsletter 56 (Fall 2013)
    Number 56 Fall 2013 NAAHoLS NEWSLETTER The North American Association for the History of the Language Sciences NAAHoLS at LSA INSIDE… The 2014 NAAHoLS annual meeting will again be held in conjunction with the Linguistic Society of 2014 Annual America, the American Dialect Society, the American Meeting to be held Name Society, the Society for the Study of the Indigenous in Minneapolis! Languages of the Americas, and the Society for Pidgin and Creole Linguistics. Plenary speakers this year include Susan Goldin-Meadow (University of Chicago), NAAHoLS 2014 Richard Larson (Stoney Brook University), and Ellen program/abstracts Kaisse (University of Washington). The meeting will take place in Minneapolis, Accommodation Minnesota, between 2-5 January, 2014. Further details and registration about the meeting are provided in this edition of the information newsletter. We are excited about this year’s schedule of presentations, and we hope to see you in Minneapolis! This year’s NAAHoLS program will take place at Recent publications the Minneapolis Hilton, during the afternoon on Friday (3 January), and all day on Saturday (4 January). 2013 Membership Dues Form The annual NAAHoLS Business Meeting will be held at 11:00 a m on Saturday (4 January). If there are any items you wish to place on the meeting agenda, please let us know in advance. For further information, contact: David Boe, Department of English, Northern Michigan University, Marquette, MI 49855; (906) 227-2677; [email protected] President Secretary/Treasurer Brian D. Joseph David Boe Department
    [Show full text]