Linguistics and the Bigger Picture

Both readings this week seemed to depart from the concepts and themes addressed in the readings to this point.  Lupyan’s piece focused on psychological phenomena as byproducts of language, while Rickford examined the social implications and obligations of linguistics as a field of study.  While neither introduced a new linguistics specific concept to the class, I felt that these readings did a good job of causing us to consider the value and impact of what we are learning.

            Lupyan’s article discussed triangles, and how different descriptions of a triangle could cause us to think of very different things.  The general thesis of the piece seemed to be that we as humans think of particular things, even when we think we are thinking about general things.  To illustrate his point, Lupyan references a study where some people were asked to draw triangles and others were asked to draw three sided shapes.  Since a triangle is, by definition, the only thing that can be a three sided shape, we would expect the two groups to draw the same thing.  What the study found however, is that the people asked to draw a triangle generally drew equilateral or isosceles triangles with one a flat side on the bottom and a point at the top, while the variation in triangles drawn by the three-sided shape group varied far more.  I thought this was interesting because it forced me to consider how my specific choices in language affect how people perceive the messages and information I am trying to convey.  To me, this shows that a good fundamental understanding of linguistics can help in any field of study, as we are constantly processing other peoples’ ideas and trying to convey our own.

            Rickford’s piece was more focused on the asymmetrical relationship between researchers and their subjects of study within the field of Linguistics.  Specifically, Rickford focusses on the African American Community and AAVE as an example of a demographic that has provided rich information that has advanced the field but received relatively little in return.  Rickford goes on to suggest ways in which linguists could give back to the African American Community and in my opinion, some of his ideas would actually benefit the field even further.  As an example, incentivizing African Americans to become linguists would probably be beneficial toward creating a more robust and accurate understanding of AAVE within the Linguistics community.  Specifics of the article aside, Rickford’s piece caused me to think about the immediate impacts of my actions in addition to longer-term goals.  Rickford’s main point seems to be that we ought to compensate in some way those who help us achieve our aims.  This added moral layer of abstraction can be extended to any field of study, and I think it’s always an important thing to keep in mind.