Re: What good is linguistics?

[jwerchan@osulima2.lima.ohio-state.edu (James E. Werchan)]

>This question is directed to those of you with degrees from English
>departments in non-linguistic concentrations (literature, rhet-comp.,
>medieval studies .... etc.) who may have taken linguistics courses either
>because they were required or because you thought they would be useful.
>What did you think of the courses?  Were they useful in teaching
>composition?  Were they useful to you in other areas?  Do you have
>suggestions for people teaching linguistics courses within English
>departments to undergrad and grad majors?
>
>Thanks in advance.
>Sara Kimball
...........................

hi sara,

i taught 271 Intro to Linguistics twice.  the first time I hated it; the
second time i loved it.   and both times i used fromkin/rodman _intro to
language_.         unfortunately, we no longer offer the course; our primary
student population, elementary ed majors, no longer needs it in their degree
plans.   garden variety english majors don't seem to be clamoring for its
preservation.   and that saddens me.    I had some four or five linguistics
courses in grad school, and enjoyed them all.   

do they help me be a compositionist?  yes.  other areas? yes.   how can i
explain?  hm.....   They provided me with an idiom that demanded scientific
rigor.   They taught me to doubt myself and others, and gave tools with
which to test my doubts.    Had it not been for linguistics, a good
substitute might have been solid, statistically based psychology courses, or
maybe anthropology.   

How would I do 271 again to undergrad english majors?  well, the cynic in me
might say I'd first have to do a damage control lecture to comfort a roomful
of  artsy fartsy, free-form, ad hoc loving undergrads that such scientific
rigor is a Good Thing, and not a mean, nasty thing like the mathematics that
they were running away from in the first place to become englishers.   Along
those lines, I'd review some math pedagogy books to see how they comfort the
numero-phobic.  Betcha it would involve using lots of concrete applications.  

Before I'd ask for a bunch of homework involving phrase-structure rules and
tree diagrams, I'd have to remember those are the equations of linguistics.
They don't automatically make sense any more than numeracy automatically
makes sense when trotted out in equations.

I guess I'd have to start them off on seeing linguistics as a descriptive
tool, and that once language is described, one can use those descriptions in
syllogistic reasoning, a powerful way of making knowledge where before there
was myth and BS.

The second time I taught 271, I told myself it was going to be a survey, not
a tree diagram  course.   Did they learn as much?  Well, they didn't do as
many stupid diagrams and they didn't cut class out of boredom; and they
started independent readings in the study of language, not related to
coursework.  They pretty much usurped the syllabus and took themselves into
equally valuable territories that i did not anticipate.  I went along for
the ride.     It was the easiest A they ever worked their butts off for.  I
had a blast.


........
then again, I'm starting to blather.  I don't know what the hell I'm talking
about.
........
james w
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
                    Dr. James Werchan
(or maybe it's just someone who kinda looks a lot like him)
              Ohio State University at Lima
                    4240 Campus Drive
                     Reed Hall #135
                     Lima, OH 45804
                      419-995-8882
				
                    werchan.1@osu.edu					jwerchan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
(for main campus biz)
jwerchan@osulima1.lima.ohio-state.edu  (for local biz only)
								
  Come and visit: "http://www.lima.ohio-state.edu/~WACC"    
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""