Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 15:05:13 EDT
 <WORDS-L%UGA.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
From:         Frank <ST403231%BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: 'nothing wrong'
Comments: To: words-l@uga.cc.uga.edu

>From:         Tushar Samant <tushar@ZAPHOD.UCHICAGO.EDU>
>
>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").
>
>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".
>
>3 This statement belongs to (socio)linguistics.
>
So far, so good.  I douibt Natalie would argue with any of that.
>
>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. 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 ?
>
I don't think Natalie, or probably many other participants in the discus-
sion with the exception of Torkel, were anxious to examine *how* language
and culture are related.  Of course we *could* do that, but I would in
all likelihood stay out of such a discussion due to my ignorance of the
subject.

>As I said, of the phenomena of language changing
>into grunts and literature abolished, neither is causally the first. They
>are correlated and that's all one can say about it.
>
Here we run into a problem.  If the point of the discussion was to elucidate
how language and culture affect each other, then why abandon ship at this
juncture and say that no more can be said about the subject?
>
>
>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.
>
Here it may be useful to point out that Natalie, as a linguist, has
surely butted heads before with people who decry the decline (or decay,
or some other disparaging term) of English.  Although neither you nor
Torkel has made any statement to that effect, many, many people do, and if
she (and I, and other posters) are a little defensive about that, and as a
result spend a lot of time explicating point 2, then we will have to ask
your indulgence while we repeat what our study of linguistics has taught us.
It is something that we have had to do in the past, and we know how to do
it, so we tend to do so.

>The other irrelevant features: (1) The question of whether we can prevent
>language from degenerating, and the answer that we cannot; (2) The question
>of whether people can control their own evolution (which is almost the
>same).  Torkel was never interested in these things.
>
I would submit, though, with all respect due to both you and Torkel, that
his lack of interest in these things does not per se make them unworthy of
discussion.  But I know that I would not have much to add to a discussion
of the precise interrelation of language and culture.  Maybe other posters
feel the same way.  Just some thoughts.
>
>tushar

Frank
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)