The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax

Abstract

EVEN THOUGH I fall outside its usual academic target-audience, I said yes to Lingua Franca's 1990 subscription offer, because it got to me personally. offer featured an article, The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax, purporting to debunk a myth regarding number of words Eskimos, have for snow. It just so happened that I, -- many years ago, of course, you understand -- well, that I passed along such a myth, if indeed it was, to other unsuspecting people. Mathsemantic Monitor fells that good semantic practice requires him to search out and destroy his own unsound semantic habits, and when safe, even to help others in same way. Accordingly, I felt obliged to say yes. My subscription, however, began with a later issue. one that had motivated me was sold out. I seemed to have missed fate's hook. Then a 1992 University of Chicago Press catalog listed a book ($14.95, postage paid, paperback) by Geoffrey K. Pullum titled, Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax and Other Irreverent Essays on study of Language. This time I connected. Professor Pullum's book consists of twenty-four short and seriously irreverent articles published originally as Topic ...Comment columns in Natural Language and Linguisic Theory, a journal whose existence, I confess, had previously escaped my notice. title article was in chapter 19. Not wanting to rush to my reward without knowing something about my nemesis, I began at Foreword. Its author, James D. McCawley, quickly made clear that I'd purchased a collection of in-stories I might not understand: Each Pullum column [said McCawley] was an exquisitely crafted piece of criticism, satire, fantasy, and/or reporting, dealing entertainingly and provocatively with important issues relating to ways in which we linguists practice our profession or to ways in which world beyond our journals, classrooms, and conferences impinges on linguistics and its practitioners. Like Freemasonry, roles of insider and outsider admit of degrees. Pullum must rank as a 33rd-degree linguistics insider. I'm not any kind of linguistics professional (or professional anything else except aviation consultant). My dabblings in linguistics allowed me to recognize only about one six of people and publications Pullum mentioned. But that was enough to keep me going. And as I read on, averageing less than one short chapter per sitting, my appreciation grew slowly and irregularly. first seven chapters, on Fashions and Tendencies in linguistics, were for me hardest. Chapter six, for example, an interview of Noam Chomsky by Science Officer Spock on Generative Enterprise, must be a scream for scholars in linguistics space quadrant. I managed a polite but mostly uncomprehending smile. next seven chapters, on Publication and Damnation, began to tickle. By time I started next six chapters, on Unscientific Behavior, I was ready to laugh. Chapter fifteen, The Revenge of Methodological Moaners, broke me up. As author warns, in this piece he rails against tendency of linguists to write about philosophy of science as applied to their subject instead of writing about what languages are like, which what linguists are supposed to be good at. You could find similar tendencies in almost any social science. last chapter in unscientific-behavior section reminded me of care with which Allen Walker Read tracked down origin of OK. In this chapter Pullum exposes and destroys the great Eskimo vocabulary hoax. Because I should, and because I believe you'll find it interesting, let me pass along Pullum's assignment of credit. What I do here, he says, is very little more than an extended review and elaboration on Laura Martin's wonderful American Anthropologist report of 1986 [based in turn on a speech she gave in 1982]. Laura Martin professor and chair of Department of Anthropology at Cleveland State University. …