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

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

I certainly do not want to go down this road. Obviously, "memorability" is
not a linguisitic concept; nor are the other terms you use. Those are your
terms and you use them to suppport your argument. The issue, however,
concerns a disagreement over approaches to how "meaning" is understood. You
prefer one discipline over another and that is fine. It is silly to debate
this in the context of the task before the WG-C.

Rod

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark C. Langston [mailto:skritch@home.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 3:52 PM
> To: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
> Cc: wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] A brief note on linguists...
>
>
> Linguistics, in pure form, does not speak to memorability, says little
> about its relationship to categorization, and says nothing about
> contextual dependency at the level we're discussing.
>
> Sorry, but I'm pulling rank here.  The field of linquistics and the
> field of cognitive science intersect to a small degree here, but
> linguistic inquiry is not the proper avenue from which to approach
> this.
>
> You may have studied it in college; I hold several degrees and have
> published numerous papers in the relevant field.  The only reason I'm
> doing contract work instead of working towards tenure at an Ivy is
> because the money's better.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 03:21:36PM -0500, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
> >
> > 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.)
>
> >
> > > 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
> > >
>
> --
> Mark C. Langston
> mark@bitshift.org
> Systems & Network Admin
> San Jose, CA
>