I appreciated reading about some of the ethical issues involved in linguistics, which Rickford raises --- specifically regarding the unequal partnership between the African American speech community and sociolinguistic researchers. It becomes very easy, and often unintentionally so, for academia to exploit the wealth of knowledge within a community (especially one that has been traditionally marginalized) without equal reciprocation for the knowledge and insights exchanged. Rickford discusses the concept of “service learning,” which he hopes will become more widespread in higher education through models at Stanford, Cornell, and other prominent universities. In my personal experience of service at Stanford, I have faced similar ethical issues and participated in discussions of related topics, especially in our Branner community service conversations. I think researchers, not simply those interested in community service and are involved with the Haas Center for Public Service, should be well-versed and cognizant of the principles of ethical and effective service, such as reciprocity and learning through partnership, respect for diversity, and humility. One can argue that research in academia is in itself a form of public service, as findings in research lead to a better understanding of the world, which in turn can aid us in making more informed decisions. Thus, research in all fields should be bound by those same principles in order to be ethical and effective, making best use of their findings rather than simply learning from a population and taking those insights with them. However, I would disagree with some of Rickford’s proposed solutions for bridging the observed unequal partnership. He describes activities such as “tutoring in math,” which, though not his ideal form of reciprocity, “are relevant, too, and [he] would rather see [them] do something than nothing, establishing firmly for [them]selves and [their] students the notion of ‘service in return.’” Such activities assume a level of superiority in offering blind returns for what is gained; a more ethical approach would take into account a community’s needs and wishes rather than flatly imposing whatever the taker deemed to be a sufficient exchange.

Lupyan, on the other hand, talks about how context affects a subject’s response --- a recurring theme we have seen so far in our study of linguistics. He cites a series of experiments which illuminates the difference in shapes drawn when subjects are asked to draw a “three-sided polygon” versus a “triangle.” This illustrates the gap in our minds, where concepts are stored on an abstract (and therefore idealized) level, and our physical environment, where concepts are instantiated in multiple (and oftentimes imperfect) ways.