Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 13:40:36 CDT
 <WORDS-L%UGA.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
From:         "Natalie Maynor" <maynor%RA.MSSTATE.EDU@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
Subject: Re: "nothing wrong"

> Natalie's position seems to be the following:
>
> 1 She is making no statement about "cultural change", but only
>   about "language change", (which results from "culture change").

Right.

> 2 There is nothing wrong about language so changing if it has
>   changed to meet the needs of people. Here "nothing wrong" is
>   meant in a "practical sense".

Right.

> 3 This statement belongs to (socio)linguistics.

I'm not sure what you mean by "belongs to."  The statement (or at least
the meaning, perhaps stated in a more appropriate style) would not be
out of place in a linguistics book.  Neither would it be out of place
in other books or discussions.  I wouldn't call it the property of
(socio)linguistics.

> I have finally come to the conclusion that (2) doesn't mean anything
> at all, except for saying that "practical" in this context means what
> it means in other contexts. So the statement definitely has nothing to
> do with linguistics, but belongs to a dictionary. Hence, statement (3)
> is false.

I don't agree that the statement "doesn't mean anything at all."  I do
agree that "practical" in this context means what it means in other
contexts.  I don't agree that the statement "definitely has nothing to
do with linguistics."  What belongs to a dictionary?  The definition
of "practical"?  If so, I agree.  As for (3), see my comments above.
I don't think I have said that this topic belongs to linguistics in
the sense of being confined to linguistics.

> So it's only statement (1) which we must consider. I find it difficult
> to see what a phrase like "change in language following from change in
> culture" actually means.

It means that some language change reflects cultural change.  (Some
language change seems to just happen, unrelated to any cultural change
that can be pointed to as a catylist -- e.g., the Great Vowel Shift.)

> Natalie said somewhere that (approx) "You can
> say that language is part of culture. That's not the point here, though."
> But that's exactly the point. How is "culture influencing language" to
> be interpreted if they are inextricably linked ?

Huh?  Is your question how can the larger term (culture) be said to
influence one of its components (language)?  I think I can answer that,
or at least give some decent analogies.  But it might be easier to
change my wording and say that other components of a culture often
influence language of that culture.

> to ask whether "cultural relativism" and its counterpart in linguistics
> belong to philosophy or the subjects themselves. My opinion is that they
> are philosophical assumptions made before the science itself is practised.

That's ok with me.

> So the debate is only about whether these assumptions "belong" to the
> subject. Although we can define the subject to include them, it does sound
> strange to call them "sociological truths". Hence I side with Torkel.

I don't remember what the other side of this is (i.e., you're siding with
Torkel -- what's the other side?).  Are you saying that calling something
a "sociological truth" means that it cannot belong to any other field?
I don't agree.

> I also want to point out a feature of this whole thread which struck me,
> and that is: repeated *explication* of (2). That was totally irrelevant.
> I daresay that Torkel knows what (2) means, and that it implies that "a
> system of grunts which is useful is useful". What he wants is not a
> repetition of that, but why it follows from linguistics.

We were discussing language, right?  Linguistics is the science of
language.  I don't see where the problem is.
   --Natalie (maynor@ra.msstate.edu)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU