Linguistica Quo Vadis

Slides for a brief talk at an informal meeting on the past and future of linguistics. All speakers were asked to reflect on the theme "Linguistics Quo Vadis".

Transcript

1. Linguistica Quo Vadis Mark Dingemanse
2. What are our most enduring results so far?
3. Labov 69 Fillmore et al 88 Gundel et al 93 Fromkin 71 Dowty 91 Katz/Fodor 63 Hopper/Thompson 80 Schegloff et al 77 Chomsky 59 Sacks et al 74 Most cited articles in Language, 1925-2010 Data: Web of Science 2014
4. Labov 69 Fillmore et al 88 Gundel et al 93 Fromkin 71 Dowty 91 Katz/Fodor 63 Hopper/Thompson 80 Schegloff et al 77 Chomsky 59 Sacks et al 74 Most cited articles in Language, 1925-2010 Data: Web of Science 2014
5. Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 1974 demonstrated the orderly nature of conversation explained turn-taking as a socially sanctioned mechanism showed how turn-taking interacts w/ linguistic systems
6. Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 1974 demonstrated the orderly nature of conversation explained turn-taking as a socially sanctioned system showed relevance of performance for inferring competence
7. Labov 69 Fillmore et al 88 Gundel et al 93 Fromkin 71 Dowty 91 Katz/Fodor 63 Hopper/Thompson 80 Schegloff et al 77 Chomsky 59 Sacks et al 74 Most cited articles in Language, 1925-2010 Data: Web of Science 2014
8. Labov 69 Fillmore et al 88 Gundel et al 93 Fromkin 71 Dowty 91 Katz/Fodor 63 Hopper/Thompson 80 Schegloff et al 77 Chomsky 59 Sacks et al 74 Collaborative work Most cited articles in Language, 1925-2010 Data: Web of Science 2014
9. Labov 69 Fillmore et al 88 Gundel et al 93 Fromkin 71 Dowty 91 Katz/Fodor 63 Hopper/Thompson 80 Schegloff et al 77 Chomsky 59 Sacks et al 74 Observations of naturally occurring data Most cited articles in Language, 1925-2010 Data: Web of Science 2014
10. Some of the most enduring results in our field 1. data-driven: based on naturally occurring data 2. collaborative: based on teamwork 3. …not very cross-linguistic 4. …not very interdisciplinary The challenge To keep this collaborative, data-driven perspective, and take more advantage of linguistic diversity and interdisciplinary methods.
11. Some of the most enduring results in our field 1. data-driven: based on naturally occurring data 2. collaborative: based on teamwork 3. …not very cross-linguistic 4. …not very interdisciplinary The challenge To keep this collaborative, data-driven perspective, and take more advantage of linguistic diversity and interdisciplinary methods.
12. Some of the most enduring results in our field 1. data-driven: based on naturally occurring data 2. collaborative: based on teamwork 3. …not very cross-linguistic 4. …not very interdisciplinary The challenge To keep this collaborative, data-driven perspective, and take more advantage of linguistic diversity and interdisciplinary methods.
13. Some of the most enduring results in our field 1. data-driven: based on naturally occurring data 2. collaborative: based on teamwork 3. …not very cross-linguistic 4. …not very interdisciplinary The challenge To keep this collaborative, data-driven perspective, and take more advantage of linguistic diversity and interdisciplinary methods.
15. In Edge 2014: Bergen, Enfield, Everett, McWhorter, Pinker, inter alia — Linguistics is not doing all that bad, is it? What the Faculty of Language weblog wrote: “Maybe it’s a sign that what current linguists do is not highly prized that there is not a single piece in the lot by anyone I would consider doing serious linguistics. It’s a clear sign that what we do is no longer considered relevant to wider intellectual concerns, at least by the ‘Edgy.’ We really need to do something about this. Any suggestions for raising our profile would be welcome.”
16. In Edge 2014: Bergen, Enfield, Everett, McWhorter, Pinker, inter alia — Linguistics is not doing all that bad, is it? What the Faculty of Language weblog wrote: “Maybe it’s a sign that what current linguists do is not highly prized that there is not a single piece in the lot by anyone I would consider doing serious linguistics. It’s a clear sign that what we do is no longer considered relevant to wider intellectual concerns, at least by the ‘Edgy.’ We really need to do something about this. Any suggestions for raising our profile would be welcome.”
17. In Edge 2014: Bergen, Enfield, Everett, McWhorter, Pinker, inter alia — Linguistics is not doing all that bad, is it? What the Faculty of Language weblog wrote: “Maybe it’s a sign that what current linguists do is not highly prized that there is not a single piece in the lot by anyone I would consider doing serious linguistics. It’s a clear sign that what we do is no longer considered relevant to wider intellectual concerns, at least by the ‘Edgy.’ We really need to do something about this. Any suggestions for raising our profile would be welcome.”
18. In Edge 2014: Bergen, Enfield, Everett, McWhorter, Pinker, inter alia — Linguistics is not doing all that bad, is it? What the Faculty of Language weblog wrote: “Maybe it’s a sign that what current linguists do is not highly prized that there is not a single piece in the lot by anyone I would consider doing serious linguistics. It’s a clear sign that what we do is no longer considered relevant to wider intellectual concerns, at least by the ‘Edgy.’ We really need to do something about this. Any suggestions for raising our profile would be welcome.”
19. Here are two suggestions — let’s… Be critical in constructive ways (rather than dismissing colleagues as non-serious) Broaden our sense of ‘linguistics’ (rather than searching only under our own lamp-post) Embrace the fact that language is not owned by one discipline
20. Here are two suggestions — let’s… Be critical in constructive ways (rather than dismissing colleagues as non-serious) Broaden our sense of ‘linguistics’ (rather than searching only under our own lamp-post) Embrace the fact that language is not owned by one discipline
21. Here are two suggestions — let’s… Be critical in constructive ways (rather than dismissing colleagues as non-serious) Broaden our sense of ‘linguistics’ (rather than searching only under our own lamp-post) Embrace the fact that language is not owned by one discipline
23. Language is at an interdisciplinary crossroads It could hardly be owned by a single discipline
24. Set up shop here and you’ll do good business
25. We don’t own language — everybody does
26. photos: pictureofscience.ruhosting.nl and other sources
27. We’re sitting on a PR goldmine and we’re barely exploiting it!
28. Linguists need better communication skills, and science communication is a good way to start
29. Reasons to take science communication more seriously 1. It fosters public engagement essential for publicly funded science 2. It encourages us to think anew kids and laypeople often ask the best questions 3. It forces us to be clear and simple disciplinary neighbours will understand us better
30. In closing
31. Labov 69 Fillmore et al 88 Gundel et al 93 Fromkin 71 Dowty 91 Katz/Fodor 63 Hopper/Thompson 80 Schegloff et al 77 Chomsky 59 Sacks et al 74 Most cited articles in Language, 1925-2010 Data: Web of Science 2014
32. Labov 69 Fillmore et al 88 Gundel et al 93 Fromkin 71 Dowty 91 Katz/Fodor 63 Hopper/Thompson 80 Schegloff et al 77 Chomsky 59 Sacks et al 74 Most cited articles in Language, 1925-2010 Data: Web of Science 2014 GAP
33. Labov 69 Fillmore et al 88 Gundel et al 93 Fromkin 71 Dowty 91 Katz/Fodor 63 Hopper/Thompson 80 Schegloff et al 77 Chomsky 59 Sacks et al 74 data-driven collaborative cross-linguistic interdisciplinary Most cited articles in Language, 1925-2010 Data: Web of Science 2014
35. Edward Sapir (1929) The status of linguistics as a science, Language, 5(4), 207-214 An increasing interest in linguistics may be noted among workers in anthropology, culture, history, sociology, psychology, and philosophy. For all of them linguistics is of basic importance: its data and methods show better than those of any other discipline dealing with socialized behavior the possibility of a truly scientific study of society.
36. Edward Sapir (1929) The status of linguistics as a science, Language, 5(4), 207-214 An increasing interest in linguistics may be noted among workers in anthropology, culture, history, sociology, psychology, and philosophy. For all of them linguistics is of basic importance: its data and methods show better than those of any other discipline dealing with socialized behavior the possibility of a truly scientific study of society.
37. Thank you mark.dingemanse@mpi.nl European Research Council Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science
38. backup slides
39. Citation analysis caveats • Older articles have had more chance to get cited – Using citations per year (CPY) doesn’t change the top 10, only slightly reshuffles it • This is Web of Science — how about other metrics? – Google Scholar shows higher overall numbers (SJS74 = 10.000+), but the top and relative CPY are the same • This is Language — how about other journals? – Only 3 Linguistic Inquiry articles score as high as the lower half of the Language10. – No Lingua articles score as high as the Language10 – Language is arguably our most wide-ranging journal
40. Language top 10 in citations per year Data: Web of Science 2014 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Katz/Fodor 63 Kay/Fillmore 99 Kiss 98 Fillmore et al 88 Gundel et al 93 Chomsky 59 Schegloff et al 77 Hopper/Thompson 80 Dowty 91 Sacks et al 74