RE: [wg-c] A brief note on linguists...

["Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <rod@cyberspaces.org>]

Sorry, Mark, but I cannot let your statement go uncorrected. I am not a
linguist, but I majored in the subject in college.

It most certainly is not a misconception that Linguistics is an
inappropriate field to rely upon to address the theoretical issues some are
raising here. Indeed, I can think of no other field that has a greater body
of scholarship on the multiple levels of meaning in language. (It may be,
however, that most of us do not have the requisite level of expertise to
access that material, which may not be a bad thing since our task is much
more limited than the broad generalizations  presented by this discussion.)



Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
www.cyberspaces.org
rod@cyberspaces.org

> Subject: [wg-c] A brief note on linguists...
>
>
> I just realized a misconception is bubbling under the surface here...
> linguists are, to a great extent, focused on intra-word effects, and
> low-level language phenomena, and many work in the abstract,
> concentrating on languages as systems.
>
> The phenomena we're discussing here are squarely in the realm of, and
> speak to the core of, experimental cognitive psychology.
>
>
> --
> Mark C. Langston
> mark@bitshift.org
> Systems & Network Admin
> San Jose, CA
>