Reply to comment

Yesterday in my historical linguistics class a student was presenting additional reading.  He mentioned his interest in a certain aspect of linguistics because it is closer to his major in biology.  We all began to cough and assert that yes, linguists are scientists.  It is only recently that I became more comfortable with the title of scientist (I still feel like a poseur around 'hard scientists'.) But I realize that I too always want more data, that I need more "hard" data before I can make assumptions about language.  Sometimes I question the validity of my chosen field.  Sometimes I wonder if it's necessary at all. It's that old story of someone saying they aren't a writer, they write, or try to write.  I wonder if interdisciplinary studies would help it or muddle it beyond all measure.  In order to do statistical analysis we have to demarcate social groups and stratification.  Perhaps using feminist critical theory would allow us to find different social groupings than the typical ones, but we must also study those traditional groups as well.  The field is so young that the usual stereotypical study has not been completed.  It would be interesting to do them simultaneously...
For cross-listed courses, I remember one of my friends, an anthro major, saying that the discussion in her anthro course was stunted because most people didn't 'think like anthropologists.'  I have the same problem in my linguistics courses.  There is a sacrifice made when people who have not been trained in a certain way of thinking take an upper level class in that field.  But there are always problems with becoming mired in said way of thinking.  My syntax prof requires those that have taken multiple ling courses to bite their tongues when we are discussing something we've already learned.  Linguistics is constantly being overturned and revised.  I don't know how to end this so I'll just stop.  

I don't know how I feel about Anne placing this paper so late in the syllabus. Could it be that we've been working all semester towards this pinnacle of thought?  (I'm not trying to be sarcastic.)
Even as we discuss it here on the forum, we exchange Anne's first name for her last.  "Dalke and McCormack say this..."  I was intrigued by the language Anne and McCormack used: it was so detached, so unemotive.  I agree with Janet's assessment of the scientific quality of the essay, but do not share the discomfort of being an object of study. I also agree with Sonal that the personal is lacking.  If Anne hadn't established her personal locale somewhat in class, I would have no concept of who was writing the paper or why.