I've always hated linguistics

[Tubby Isaacs]

Got a question to do on the difference between "complement" and "complementation". I'm never convinced anything in this subject exists outside of the particular paper under consideration, and it seems I'm right on this one. I can't find anything on the internet at all.

Can anyone help?

[Bruno]

I've always hated linguistics

Not that I know exactly what you're asking, but is it something like

complement : complementation :: ornament : ornamentation

?

[Bruno]

I've always hated linguistics

And now that I've looked in a dictionary I see complementation can have to do with either genes or coordinated tariffs, which, you know, I didn't know.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I've always hated linguistics

I know that. Now. I'm assuming any link with linguistics is a hoax.

Couple more questions. What are the ethical issues in studying the language of remote tribes?

And what types of language universals are there?

I hate this subject, I really do.

[Guest]

I've always hated linguistics

In answer to your first query, I would imagine it's the same ethical issues as any anthropological study. This may give you some pointers.(Or maybe it won't. It looked like the best out of the quick search I did)

I never liked linguistics much either. Good luck.

(Edit: sorry I think most of the stuff on that link regarding linguistics isn't there anymore)

[WOM]

I've always hated linguistics

What are the ethical issues in studying the language of remote tribes?

Without reading J'sta's link, I'd say it's the old 'you can't study something without having an influence upon it'. A separate language serves to isolate, which is intrinsically neither desirable nor undesirable. But your involvement, say in studying the language or seeking to translate it, violates the isolation. As an external force, the decision to violate the isolation is yours only, really. As in, whether they want you to or not. Sure, they could run you off at spear-point, but then that interaction is a new influencer.

I guess the ethical point is that you need to accept that, whatever it is you find, it is not what was there yesterday and you need to bear the responsibility of the repercussions that arise from that act.

[Anton Gramscescu]

I've always hated linguistics

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

And what types of language universals are there?

Nouns. Verbs. Vowels. Consonants.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I've always hated linguistics

Thanks for this. I'm not sure that parts of speech is what's meant by language universals. But there's some good stuff on Johanista's link, and WOM's idea can be amplified too.

[Anton Gramscescu]

I've always hated linguistics

Sorry: a language universal is an aspect of language which occurs in all languages without exceptions. There aren't many of them (and of the parts of speech, nouns and verbs are the only which are universal) - I just listed four.

[Guest]

I've always hated linguistics

I think some of the pages on that link may have expired.

Picking up on what WOM says, the only way remote tribes have been studied is for the studier to have lived amongst them and observe/interact. As well as the aspect of the "outsider" prescence "infecting" something "pure/untouched", there's also (despite the best intentions) the question of whether this is exploitation; ie using them for things that don't necessarily benefit them. (Also, for me, there's that vague whiff of colonialism; bringing "civilisation" to the "savage").

Broadening it a little, there may also be the matter of whether the language itself is being truly represented. One can try to understand it without one's own cultural, historical, sociological and linguistic reference points but the possibility remains that there will still be misunderstandings. As some people may say, you have to be from there to truly get it.

I realise these points aren't exclusive to ethics or linguistics but I hope they're of some use (or just not totally useless; I'm a bit rusty on this sort of stuff so apologies).

[Tubby Isaacs]

I've always hated linguistics

I thought about colonialism, but that seems to be a metaphor that gets out of hand a bit too easily, so I wasn't going to make too much of it. Can you expand?

[Tubby Isaacs]

I've always hated linguistics

AG, are these maybe the language universals that could be meant? The difficulty of these concepts (compared to parts of speech) fit better with the level of questions, I think:

http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb8/misc/lfb/html/text/2frame.html

[Brandenburger Toro]

I've always hated linguistics

Tubby - yes, that's a more common usage of "language universals" than AG's, in my experience. Certainly as Chomskyans/ generativists use the term. They tend to be broad structural similarities of the type described there, rather than particualr types of elements which all languages share.

(pedantically - vowels and consonants are not any part of sign languages, which are accepted by all reputable linguists as perfectly good examples of "language")

[Tubby Isaacs]

I've always hated linguistics

Hey this is going well. OK, I'll go with Toro.

Does anyone know much about Daniel Everett and his work on an Amazon tribe. Contraversial, I gather. Seems to suggest they don't obey univerals in some way.

[Brandenburger Toro]

I've always hated linguistics

I've heard of it, but not enough to be much of any help.

If he's the guy I'm thinking of, objections to his work are complicated by the fact that as well as an empirical linguist, he's also a Christian Missionary...

[Tubby Isaacs]

I've always hated linguistics

That's the chap. I can get a fair bit out of that, I think, which will beef up the colonization-type ideas.

[Guest]

I've always hated linguistics

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

I thought about colonialism, but that seems to be a metaphor that gets out of hand a bit too easily, so I wasn't going to make too much of it. Can you expand?

It was just meant as a broad aside, to be honest. I was thinking that the first serious studies of other cultures came at a time (late 19th/early 20th century?) when Britain still had its Empire etc. and so were written with a sense of supposed superiority to such "uncivilised" people. It's not something I'm an expert on really but I would imagine a lot of early ones (probably out of print now!) read like a wingco report.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I've always hated linguistics

I'm sure they're worse than that.

Can anyone do those tree diagrams? I've got the hang of them for simple sentences ie determiner, noun phrase, verb phrase etc.

But how do you do something like

although it is very good this film has some moments which are badly written.

esp the although and which bits?

[Ginger Yellow]

I've always hated linguistics

We've had a few conversations about Everett and the Piraha on here. I posted a link to one of his papers several boards ago. There are several points of controversy, mostly centred around the fact that Everett is (was?) basically the only linguist to systematically investigate their language, making his bold claims hard to verify. Those bold claims mainly being that the Piraha's language does not feature recursion, thought by most linguists to be universal. He also claims a whole lot of other things that verge on Sapir-Whorf territory, another reason he's controversial.

As regards the missionary thing, my understanding is that he dropped it fairly quickly when he discovered (so he says) that the Piraha have no interest in people or events not within living memory (a lot of what makes Everett really controversial is more to do with anthropology than linguistics).