Re: The things one finds

Ed Heil wrote:

> For better or for worse, since the 1950s, the vast majority of
> mainstream academic linguists have had far better things to do than
> muck about in the jungle or on the islands or in the tundra, learning
> obscure languages before they die.  They've had a much more
> interesting and profitable time inventing ever more abstruse
> mathematically based theories of English (but presumably also
> universal) grammar, and carefully insulating those theories from
> assaults by actual data *coughCHOMSKYcough*.
I detect a little malicious stereotyping here.  Speaking as one of
the "mainstream academic linguists" to whom you refer, I have to
say I'm getting pretty tired of reading these kinds of accusations on
this list.  I've spent the last six years gathering data on Malagasy
and trying to make sense of the word order and verbal morphology.
I have a colleague here at UCLA who just finished a lengthy dissertation
on the syntax of San Lucas Quiavini Zapotec, and another colleague
who's gearing up for a major study of Macuiltanguis Zapotec.  Both
of them have collected and published an immense amount of useful
data on previously undescribed languages.  And all three of us work
within a generative (or, as you would say, 'Chomskyan') framework.
Our own Dirk Elzinga, another linguist working in the generativist
tradition, is hard at work on a study of Gosiute Shoshone phonology,
also based on original fieldwork.  And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
The claim that the "vast majority" of generative linguists work only on
English, are obsessed with theory, and never go out into the field to
gather new data, is just plain false.  Whatever legitimate criticisms you
might have about generative theory and methodology, you can't accuse
us of not respecting the importance of data.  To do so is nothing less
than an insult.

I'm sorry if I appear to be ranting.  Usually I just keep my mouth
shut when people on this list slam generative linguists, and accuse
us of having our heads in the clouds and not doing 'real' science.
I know I shouldn't take these offhand remarks personally, but
sometimes I can't help it.  I'll shut up now.

(Simmering, and hoping people will go back to talking about
conlang-related stuff...)

Matt.