Is linguistics the ultimate field of study? Does scientific interest evolve from physics to pharmacy to psychology?
I don't know... I have a hard time believing there isn't some bias involved in a view that holds letters so far above numbers. What does the author of this blurb mean by linguistics, anyway?
What do you think?
7 comments:
I have a question:
Is there such a place as the Universal University of the Universe?
But, assuming this is a real person, in a real department, at a real university, I would say, "We are in BIG TROUBLE, if people such as this are having active input into the minds of graduate students."
In my ignorance, I had to look up half the terms:
-meta: more comprehensive, transcending
-sociology: systematic study of structure, interaction and collective behavior of organized groups of humans
-linguistics: the study of human speech
In short, as head of the department of Linguistic Meta-Sociology, her job is to speak(linguistics), with a condescending attitude(meta), about everybody not in her field(socialogy).
The writer of the article used 8 examples (hardly an overwhelming number) to prove something she shows obvious bias toward--describing their early studies as "lesser subjects"
It is my humble opinion, that people like this are the unfortunate result of too much "education." They wander around the hallowed halls, drunk with their self-proclaimed intellectual superiority, inventing new theories to justify extention of their research grants.
"Ma's" prescription: To maintain a real perspective in this world, everyone needs to clean a toilet, once in a while.
Linguistics is the ultimate thing to study because "in the beginning was the Word."
I. M. Shirley Wright here.
I'm the author of the paper you are discussing. You should visit a bit more of the Speculative Grammarian site to get an idea of the kind of papers published there. A hint: their proclaimed specialty is "the neglected field of satirical linguistics".
As you may know, sociolinguistics (William Labov's work notwithstanding) has something of a reputation as a second-class discipline within linguistics. "Dept of Linguistic Meta-Sociology" and the converse are clearly attempts at ego-boosting and self-importance building.
Similarly, linguistics as a whole, despite the egregious formalism of syntax, is well-known and well-ridiculed (by many linguists, especially) for not being very rigorous. A popular sentiment is paraphrased as "I'm a linguist, I'm trained to generalize from a single instance." Followed by an optional "Don't try this at home." So, eight examples is more than plenty--they are all real, too.
Further, if you think about it, you'll see that I am surely right.--I. M. Shirley Wright
Thank you for your personal response, Ms. (?) Wright.
I'll be frank. I'm not a linguist, and you (seemingly) are. I did find your idea interesting, which is why I posted it for discussion.
Eight examples may be enough for those inside the joke, but they hardly constitute overwhelming evidence for the rest of us, especially as we don't know the real names and histories behind the anonymity. Pardon my impertinence, but this tempts me to find examples of the opposite!
I'll be happy to look through your site more thoroughly.
I. M. Shirley Wright here, again.
Once you take a closer look at the site, you'll see that nothing there is quite what it appears to be, and very little of it is even remotely serious. Even the name I published under is part of the joke.
So, re-read the article, and try to think less and laugh more.
--IMSW
Hey Sharon! The link works great! I'll email you later about the poetry club and how everything is going, but at present I'm limited in computer time. Talk to you later!
Oops. Forgot to sign my name.
-LW
Post a Comment