A typo correction: Read:
"So, you are still equating "having had phonetics/phonology", which can be translated as having formally attended and passed courses and exams in phonetics/phonology. " As: "So, you are still equating "having had phonetics/phonology", which can be translated as having formally attended and passed courses and exams in phonetics/phonology with having knowledge about phonetics/phonology? And similarly for any kind of academic knowledge?" On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 12:46 PM Anil Singh via Corpora < [email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 9:52 PM Ada Wan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Just a quick reply before the weekend to some of the points that I >> thought deserve a short clarification: >> >> 1. re linguistic empowerment: yes and no. As I commented on X (formerly >> Twitter) on 09Aug2023: "[t]here are divergent ways of thinking... but when >> it comes to language and the social sciences, one must be careful with how >> one "diverges"! Humans and [sic: are] humans. And much of what we postulate >> re "in-group/out-group" can be a matter of our "traditions" (if so, is it >> time to re-evaluate?), perspectives (if so, can we be biased sometimes?), >> or our willingness to include or will to exclude. How different can >> particular "languages" (in a folk psychological, proverbial usage) be, >> really? Where do the differences lie?". >> > > Of course. That goes without saying. For almost 40 years now I have been > looking at this issue and thinking about it. I had wanted to write a book > about it. This is what got me into languages and then NLP, because I was > then hooked by the study of language by itself, even without the issue of > linguistic empowerment, particularly from the computational point of view. > I have looked at it from all possible points of view. I was not a > linguistic purist even when I began -- with a lot of bitterness -- and I am > certainly not that now. I have no doubt at all that there is something > universal and species-specific about human languages, although I don't know > in what way it is universal exactly. No one does, as far as I know. No one > could be more against linguistic chauvinism of any kind than me. Or any > other kind of chauvinism. > > >> The same goes with "diversity" efforts. AND OF COURSE I am NOT AGAINST >> these. >> > > I believe that. I didn't say you were. I just gave an example to make my > point. > > >> But one has to be careful how far one goes with "difference(s)". >> > > Only as far as is reasonable and fair to everyone. > > >> 2. Re "John loves Mary" being "same/different" as "Mary loves John": it >> depends. Note stress/emphasis/topicalization, different usage pattern(s) >> etc., not just "subj verb obj". >> > > Well, yes, that is the central contradiction of Linguistics. It is > primarily supposed to be about spoken language, but -- quite naturally -- > linguists in academic literature have to use examples in written form. And > the written form misses "stress/emphasis/topicalization, different usage > pattern(s) etc.". Being concerned with language for 40 years, how could I > possibly not know it? > > However, I am unable to imagine a scenario where "John loves Mary" could > be the same "Mary loves John", with any possible > stress/emphasis/topicalization, different usage pattern(s) etc. for either > of them and their combinations. It may be that I am missing something here. > > >> 3. Btw, your usage of the term "word" can be replaced by other >> alternative formulations, e.g. "term", >> > > Let us terminate this terminological tussle about the term 'term', that is > to say, the term 'word'. > > I have already more than once agreed that the term 'word' is ill-defined > and that I have even written about it. In this case, you are indulging in > what can be called shadow boxing. > > >> 4. Re phonetics and phonology: I was not referring to the relevance of >> phonetic/phonological knowledge per se, that a practitioner in the space of >> "language and computing" would "need" in order to be competent. But that, >> as well as a comprehensive knowledge of general language theories and a >> broad background in p-languages and their (social/usage) contexts, belongs >> in the toolkit of a good linguist (as in, a good language scientist). To >> me, progressing to finer granularities is just refining our assumptions, >> our model. >> > > I mostly agree. Only mostly, since the statement above a somewhat vague > programmatic statement. If the details were there, I could agree to > specific things. > > >> But to those who may not have had phonetics/phonology, they may be more >> likely to think that they "need" "words" and hence my findings might be >> either a paradigm shift or the end of the world. >> > > So, you are still equating "having had phonetics/phonology", which can be > translated as having formally attended and passed courses and exams in > phonetics/phonology. I can't imagine how could you possibly talk about > de-pedatization if you subscribe to this -- in my opinion -- somewhat > ridiculous way of thinking. Pardon me for using strong words, but what you > say is on the borderline of being offensive, if not actually offensive. And > it is extremely silly and childish, coming from such a well-read person. > > >> 5. Re triple quotes: """ >> I copied and pasted your reply that didn't seem to have been sent to the >> list and put it in triple quotes, as a reference (for others). >> > > OK. > > >> 6. Re "Do you have any idea how much hundreds of millions of Indians >> suffer simply from being forced to use English?": in what ways are they >> "forced"? >> > > I can't even begin to attempt to describe in innumerable ways people are > forced to use English. There is tons of literature about that, but a lot of > it may be non-European languages. For example, it is there in Hindi. The > book that I always wanted to write, but for various reasons couldn't, at > least so far, was partly about that. > > Just to mention a few examples. The medium of instruction in India, > particularly for higher education, and exclusively for technical and > scientific education, is in English. Every day hundreds of millions of > people suffer due to that. The result is that a lot of people grow up with > complexes and stunted intellect, as they couldn't understand what the > teacher is saying, what is written in the books, and so on. When they come > to college, a majority of people have problems writing one decent page of > content in either their own language(s) or English. > > The legal system, particularly at higher levels, works in English. As a > result, the overwhelming majority of people have no idea what is going on. > They have to rely on others completely, some of whom themselves may not be > very fluent in English. > > All the lucrative jobs require not only knowledge of English, but spoken > fluency in English. Not only that, your accent while speaking English puts > you in a particular caste, so to speak. As a result, an incompetent and > badly educated person who speaks fluent English can get through life much > more easily than a competent well-educated person with a 'bad' English > accent. > > There is little incentive to write (and read) in Indian languages, and > therefore it is very difficult to write and publish literary or academic or > even other kinds of books in Indian languages. > > And so on and on and on. > > The challenge is that it is very difficult to solve this problem, since > there are many major languages in India, and so speakers of one language > will not accept 'imposition' of another Indian language, or even the > requirement to learn another Indian language. As a result, just as the > British ruled by Divide-and-Conquer, so English rules in this time tested > way. > > And to top it all, if you want to be associated with the global > economics/culture/world-at-large, you again need English. > > >> But I can understand that. >> > > I don't think you do at all, based on your comments. > > >> The more important thing is to also understand that no one has to >> discriminate based on language(s), >> > > Sure! Who can disagree with that except a language chauvinist? > > >> no one has to adopt a purist attitude when it comes to >> using/understanding of language by others. >> > > Perfectly true. Did I even hint at that to the least degree? You are again > shadow boxing. > > >> People can always have various language/linguistic habits, no one has to >> use "one language only". >> > > Again, did I even hint at that in any possible way? > > >> The point is not to use language as a weapon. >> > > Ditto as above. > > >> [These are things I think you know, but many on this list may not.] >> > > I sure do. I have been thinking and researching about these matters for > the last 40 years, almost obsessively, from all possible points of view. My > position on this issue has changed a great deal over the years. But even > when I started, I was not a purist in any sense of the word. I will always > be against forcing people to do things they don't want to do. > > >> Re "Do you know that there are and have been schools in the world, >> including India, where students are punished if they are caught speaking in >> their mother tongue (or first, "native" language)": is this still happening >> in India? I've only had similar experiences in my "foreign language" >> lessons and in real life (using a variety/style y when/where y can be >> "frowned upon") --- though not "punished", just looked upon >> with 🙄 or 👀 in ways condescending. >> >> > The last time I checked, it was happening. As of this moment, I don't know > for sure. But, as pointed out above, innumerable people do suffer in > innumerable ways due to the supremacy of English in India. I may have some > suggestions, but I don't really know the solution to this issue, as it is > complicated by so many factors. I will never ever support forcing people to > use one or the other language. > > Why do you make assumptions as you comment on anything and hurl > semi-insults? You don't really know me. I didn't assume anything about you. > > For example, if I have understood correctly, you simply wanted to say that > one should pay attention to stress/emphasis/topicalization (I will add, > from my side, prosody and intonation) when considering the meanings of the > sentences "John loves Mary" and "Mary loves John" (note that there is no > question mark here at the end). And you went about it by first saying "let > me guess" and then making some silly statements about my competence and > expertise about language(s). You could have simply mentioned the importance > of stress/emphasis/topicalization in the beginning. I can't imagine any > reason why you have to make such assumptions. > > Well-read and well-educated as you are about language(s), perhaps it is > possible, even if only remotely, that I could have a thing or two that I > could tell you about language that you might not perhaps know? > > >> Great weekend! >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Corpora mailing list -- [email protected] > https://list.elra.info/mailman3/postorius/lists/corpora.list.elra.info/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > -- - Anil
_______________________________________________ Corpora mailing list -- [email protected] https://list.elra.info/mailman3/postorius/lists/corpora.list.elra.info/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
