Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 7 974 Linguistics: Teaching and Interdisciplinary Relations Francis P. Dinneen, S.J. Editor Georgetown University School of Languages and Linguistics Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 7 974 Linguistics: Teaching and Interdisciplinary Relations Francis P. Dinneen, S.J. Editor Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C. 20057 BIBLIOGRAPHIC NOTICE Since this series has been variously, and confusingly, cited as: Georgetown University Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, Reports of the Annual Round Table Meetings on Linguistics and Language Study, etc., begin- ing with the 1973 volume, the title of the series was changed. The new title of the series includes the year of a Round Table and omits both the monograph number and the meeting number, thus: Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1974, with the regular abbreviation GURT 1974. Full bibliographical references should show the form: Kuhlwein, W. 1973. Some social implications of language study. In: Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Lin- guistics 1973. Edited by Kurt R. Jankowsky. Washington, D. C, Georgetown University Press. 19-24. Copyright©1974 by Georgetown University. All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 58-31607 ISBN 0-87840-109-1 CONTENTS WELCOMING REMARKS David P. Harris Associate Dean, School of Languages and Linguistics v INTRODUCTION Francis P. Dinneen, S. J. Chairman, Georgetown University Round Table 1974 ix FIRST SESSION: THE ELEMENTARY TEXT Chairman: Rudolph Troike, Center for Applied Linguistics Victoria A. Fromkin Elementary texts: Or, explaining the explanation 1 H. A. Gleason, Jr. A successful textbook 15 Ronald W. Langacker Some not obviously non-obvious remarks on introductions to linguistics 23 R. H. Robins The elementary text 33 SECOND SESSION: TEACHING LINGUISTICS Chairman: Robert Lado, Georgetown University Ralph W. Fasold Teaching linguistics by a personalized system of instruction 43 iv / CONTENTS Robin Lakoff Pluralism in linguistics 59 David M. Perlmutter On teaching syntactic argumentation 83 THIRD SESSION: LINGUISTICS AND OTHER DISCIPLINES Chairman: Gerhad Nickel, University of Stuttgart Bruce Fraser The state of the applied linguist 93 George Lakoff Humanistic linguistics 103 John W. Oiler, Jr. Towards a supradisciplinary graduate degree program in the language sciences 119 Joel Sherzer On linguistics from other disciplines: A perspective from anthropology 131 FOURTH SESSION: LINGUISTICS AND THE FUTURE Chairman: R. Ross Macdonald, Georgetown University Roger W. Shuy Breaking into and out of linguistics 143 David G. Hays Linguistics as a focus for intellectual integration 165 M. A. K. Halliday The context of linguistics 179 WELCOMING REMARKS DAVID P. HARRIS, Associate Dean, School of Languages and Linguistics, Georgetown University It is with great pleasure that I welcome you, on behalf of George- town University and its School of Languages and Linguistics, to this, the Twenty-fifth Annual Georgetown University Round Table. Dean Alatis deeply regretted not being able to extend his greetings person- ally, but University business required him to be absent at this time. The theme of this year's program, 'Linguistics: Teaching and Interdisciplinary Relations', affords us an opportunity to consider a number of vital and timely questions: How, in a period of unprece- dented activity in the field, may we increase our effectiveness in communicating linguistic knowledge to our students; how may we bring about a more fruitful interchange of ideas with other disciplines; and how may we better prepare ourselves for the challenges of an immediate future which promises to be so unlike the era of the past several decades ? Such considerations seem particularly appropriate for our 1974 meeting, coming as it does at a critical time in United States higher education as well as at a historic point in the history of the Georgetown University Round Table. I need not take the time, I am sure, to describe the problems which external conditions have imposed upon our discipline. We have all seen documentation in abundance, including the Linguistic Society's recent Manpower Survey. And undoubtedly in the sessions of the next two days we shall return to the subject many times. Rather, I would like to devote a few moments to a backward glance at the Round Table itself, which this year celebrates its silver anniversary. The first of these programs was held in April 1950. Unfortunately, no detailed record of that initial meeting was kept—a deficiency soon noted and corrected, the first proceedings being published for the pro- gram of 1951. Then, as now, the general purpose of the meetings was vi / WELCOMING REMARKS 'to provide a forum in which those working in the language field can discuss problems of mutual interest' (GURT 1951:vii). More interest- ing, in the light of subsequent history, was the announced specific aim, 'to bring together what may be called the more traditional language teachers and representatives of the newer school of scientific linguis- tics, especially descriptive linguistics' (GURT 1951:vii). We are fortunate to have the program of the first Round Table, which comprised four sessions and a luncheon meeting. The titles of the 1950 presentations and panel discussions are illuminating (GURT 1951:82-83): 'Wartime Experience in Language Teaching—Results and Their Application'. Speaker: Henry Grattan Doyle. 'Introductory Course to the Study of Languages—Nature, Contents, and Scheduling of Such a Course'. Speaker: George L. Trager. 'The Spoken Language Approach—Aids to Recalling'. Speaker: George A. Kennedy. 'Report on Approaches to Problems of Language Teaching Methods on the Pacific Coast'. Speaker: Howard L. Nostrand. 'Preparation of Material for Use with Technical Aids'. Panelists: Leon Dostert, John De Francis, Carleton Hodge, George A. Kennedy. 'Problems of Methods in Teaching Latin'. Panelists: Henry Hoenigswald and Berthold Ullman. A comparison of this year's Round Table Program with that of 1950 reveals, one striking similarity and a significant point of difference— both, I think, equally welcome. In 1974, as in 1950, one sees an emphasis on the improvement of classroom teaching. But what one finds in this year's program but not in that of 1950 is a concern with the need to consider linguistics in a much broader educational and vocational context. In part this new emphasis is surely a response to the changing external conditions I alluded to earlier. But I feel hope- ful that it also reflects the coming-of-age of our discipline. The School of Languages and Linguistics takes pride in its 25 years of sponsorship of these meetings and extends its thanks to all of you who have come to participate in, and help us celebrate, this anniver- sary Round Table. vii / WELCOMING REMARKS REFERENCE De Francis, John, ed. 1951. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1951. Washington, D. C, George- town University Press. INTRODUCTION In the not too distant past, it was one of the goals of those who called themselves 'linguists' to define the object of their study in such a way that it would be clear that they had a unique and demonstrably autonomous field. It was comparatively easy to distinguish themselves from the prescriptive norms of 'traditional grammar', and to demon- strate that they had no need of such disciplines as psychology, or semantics. But the very thoroughness with which they developed this autonomous, descriptive approach soon suggested that it would now be possible to gain new insights into the actual use of language by re- incorporating concepts and data from those fields which had previously been declared irrelevant for the study of linguistics. The volumes of the Georgetown University Round Tables have chronicled many signifi- cant steps in this process, and this, the twenty-fifth Round Table, pre- sents a view of current interests that, in many ways, almost seems to do away with the concept of an autonomous linguistics. Whether this process is progress or regression is disputed. Autonomy should entail clarity. But this clarity can be bought at the price of neglecting demonstrably relevant factors. Only if we had an Omniscient Linguistics could we judge the degree to which a particular approach comes closer to the ideal. We do not have, and do not ap- pear to be rapidly approaching such a desirable state of affairs. But one might consider that it is the task of the linguist to account for all those factors which either cause or prevent describable linguistic activity. In a purely descriptive approach, such a requirement was clearly out of place. Once psychological considerations are reintro- duced, some form of explanatory presentation becomes more natural. Recent work in sociolinguistics also indicates that a purely cognitive explanation of language use is manifestly insufficient. Doubtless, other disciplines will shortly demonstrate that linguists must take their find- ings into account, as well. One of the principal reasons for the particular makeup of the twenty- fifth Round Table was the imminence of the publication of the Report ix x / INTRODUCTION by the Linguistic Society of America on the danger of overproducing Ph. D. 's in Linguistics, when the future employment opportunities appear to be dwindling. One possible solution was seen in more inter- disciplinary