Campbell: Advances Chapter 2

MAubrey
Posts: 898
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Campbell: Advances Chapter 2

Post by MAubrey » August 11th, 2016, 3:19 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote:
MAubrey wrote:Whether you are or not. Campbell doesn't know the history of linguistics and relies on dated sources that aren't accurate for his presentation.
Is there an article of similar length to this chapter that you would recommend instead, with similar scope?
That's a really good question. To be honest, I don't real a lot of the introductory literature on linguistic historiography. R. H. Robins has a Short History of Linguistics, but I've only glanced over it. It's also a much longer work.

The two books (non-introductory) that I think are most illuminating on the subject are:

P. H. Matthews' Grammatical Theory in the United States: From Bloomfield to Chomsky
Dirk Geeraerts' Theories of Lexical Semantics

The former presents how generativism grew out of American structrualism and the latter charts the development of the study of semantics over the past 150 years. The both especially makes it clear just how much more complicated Saussure's influence has been (even in linguistics not all structuralism was Sassurean) and paint a more accurate picture of the landscape than Campbell does. And it isn't merely an issue of scope and space, but of facts. I dealt with a few bits of this in my review for Themelios, but I have a larger document of inaccuracies that there wasn't space for in the review.
0 x


Mike Aubrey, Linguist
Koine-Greek.com

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 736
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Campbell: Advances Chapter 2

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » August 12th, 2016, 1:09 am

MAubrey wrote:
The two books (non-introductory) that I think are most illuminating on the subject are:

P. H. Matthews' Grammatical Theory in the United States: From Bloomfield to Chomsky
Dirk Geeraerts' Theories of Lexical Semantics

The former presents how generativism grew out of American structrualism and the latter charts the development of the study of semantics over the past 150 years. The both especially makes it clear just how much more complicated Saussure's influence has been (even in linguistics not all structuralism was Sassurean) and paint a more accurate picture of the landscape than Campbell does. And it isn't merely an issue of scope and space, but of facts. I dealt with a few bits of this in my review for Themelios, but I have a larger document of inaccuracies that there wasn't space for in the review.
Just put in an ILL request for these. Would like t read about "how generativism grew out of American structrualism" ... I have some vague notions about that but it would be good to read about it from a linguist. I should have put in a request for Cambell's book but for some reason it didn't occur to me.
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Paul-Nitz
Posts: 428
Joined: June 1st, 2011, 4:19 am
Location: Lilongwe, Malawi

Re: Campbell: Advances Chapter 2

Post by Paul-Nitz » August 12th, 2016, 7:30 am

I think Campbell's Chapter 2 gave me a better awareness of the history of linguistics and its influence on Biblical studies, regardless of its reported short-comings. I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that understanding the history and theories of GENERAL LINGUISTICS (the study of the phenomenon of language) is probably beyond my reach and interest. But I am interested in learning more about Koine Greek from DESCRIPTIVE LINGUISTIC literature.*

So, is there anything about GENERAL LINGUISTICS that I must understand in order to profitably read DESCRIPTIVE LINGUISTIC works such as Levinsohn's "Discourse Features" and Runge's "Discourse Grammar"?
  • As a side note, Aubrey inserted a link to Robin's introductory book on linguistic theories. This 780 word review on Amazon makes me think Robin's book is not a good choice.
    https://www.amazon.com/review/R3OB8ZN1T ... gital-text
    MAubrey wrote: I have a larger document of inaccuracies that there wasn't space for in the review.
    M.Aubrey - Would you be willing to post that here for us?
*
General Linguistics

Linguistics concerns itself with the fundamental questions of what language is and how it is related to other human faculties. In answering these questions, linguists consider language as a cultural, social, and psychological phenomenon and seek to determine what is unique in languages, what is universal, how language is acquired, and how it changes. Linguistics is, therefore, one of the cognitive sciences; it provides a link between the humanities and the social sciences, as well as education and hearing and speech sciences.

Descriptive Linguistics

Descriptive linguistics is a branch of linguistics that studies how languages are structured. Research is undertaken in a wide variety of languages. We also offer a graduate program in Hispanic linguistics. This long-standing program incorporates a broad area of research and training in this growing and dynamic field.
http://www.linguistics.pitt.edu/disciplines/general.php
0 x
Paul D. Nitz - Lilongwe Malawi

MAubrey
Posts: 898
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Campbell: Advances Chapter 2

Post by MAubrey » August 12th, 2016, 10:55 am

Paul-Nitz wrote: M.Aubrey - Would you be willing to post that here for us?
It isn't in condition to be shared. My Themlios review, however, is online: http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org ... ing-new-te
0 x
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
Koine-Greek.com

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 736
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Campbell: Advances Chapter 2

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » August 12th, 2016, 4:27 pm

I just read quickly Porter's three posts[1] on Campbell Advances ...

Some of us were briefly taken captive to a collection of ideas (not really a framework) presented by the Porter spin on SFL, but that was eons ago, like a quarter of a century. Once we got down to actually giving serious attention to the implementation in PhD dissertations from this non-framework it became pretty obvious that this wasn't a coherent school of thought. I still have hard copy of these works in my files. I pull them out once in while to remind me how much I appreciate the published work of SIL consultants who get Phd's after several decades of field work in linguistics.

Porter wasn't happy with Campbell's book, but who cares?

[1] the missing link is intentional. If you want to read it go look for it.
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2662
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Campbell: Advances Chapter 2

Post by Stephen Carlson » August 12th, 2016, 11:05 pm

MAubrey wrote:Whether you are or not. Campbell doesn't know the history of linguistics and relies on dated sources that aren't accurate for his presentation.
For a book titled "Advances in the Study" this chapter could have been written 25 years ago without affecting much of the content.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 736
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Campbell: Advances Chapter 2

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » September 1st, 2016, 4:44 pm

MAubrey wrote:
Jonathan Robie wrote:
MAubrey wrote:Whether you are or not. Campbell doesn't know the history of linguistics and relies on dated sources that aren't accurate for his presentation.
Is there an article of similar length to this chapter that you would recommend instead, with similar scope?
That's a really good question. To be honest, I don't real a lot of the introductory literature on linguistic historiography. R. H. Robins has a Short History of Linguistics, but I've only glanced over it. It's also a much longer work.

The two books (non-introductory) that I think are most illuminating on the subject are:

P. H. Matthews' Grammatical Theory in the United States: From Bloomfield to Chomsky
Dirk Geeraerts' Theories of Lexical Semantics

The former presents how generativism grew out of American structrualism and the latter charts the development of the study of semantics over the past 150 years. The both especially makes it clear just how much more complicated Saussure's influence has been (even in linguistics not all structuralism was Sassurean) and paint a more accurate picture of the landscape than Campbell does. And it isn't merely an issue of scope and space, but of facts. I dealt with a few bits of this in my review for Themelios, but I have a larger document of inaccuracies that there wasn't space for in the review.
I've been reading Matthews and Geeraerts for two weeks. Not an easy read. Solved the longstanding mystery of E. V. N. Goetchius "transformation[al]" treatment of the passive §116-118. I had previously assumed that this indicated dependence on Chomsky. Matthews (pp. 158-17x explains that Chomsky was dependent on Zeilig Harris and Harris had been publishing for decades, had introduced the idea of transformation in the mid '50s so Goetchius would have had ample opportunity to read his work. Matthews states that Chomsky 1957 was "politely ignored" by the major linguists.

Matthews points out that one of major issues in the history of generative grammar was the relationship between semantics and syntax. His explanation of this problem cannot be summarized, it isn't simple.
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Post Reply