Here is the link to the video.
I’d never in 1,000,000 years think that by “linguist” you would mean “polyglot, multiglot, speaks-a-lot-of-languages-dude” regardless of what the dictionary says. I would immediately think that you study linguistics.
But I definitely agree with the next part. You don’t need to be an expert in linguistics to offer advice on language learning.
Poor Christophe now has more ‘dislikes’ on his video than ‘likes’.
Christophes Youtube replies to "lingosteve"s and "mandalearn"s comments are hilarious… Perhaps too much Muay Thai…
If we look on Wikipedia, linguistics is split into three different types. One of these is the study of grammar, morphology etc. Surely, if you’ve studied a language, then you’ve also studied grammar , morphology and whatever and are then a linguist? Just because someone hasn’t told you that you are a linguist, it doesn’t mean you’re not.
Well, sure, those things are involved in linguistics.
But I’m not an astronomer just because I have studied things that would somehow fall into the category of astronomy. That is how I view the word linguistics with regard to language learners.
The field of linguistics is far wider than one would typically get from learning a language, basically.
But that is just one (mostly) uneducated native speaker’s impression of the word from all the contexts I’ve ever heard it in. Basically there is where the confusion for a lot of people is from. I do not object to his use of the word.
In fact, if I come across the word “linguist” used in this way I can often tell it’s Steve’s writing before I even find out. It sort of marks his brand.
James123,
I think you need to read the article in more depth. As I recall, the Wikipedia article on theoretical linguistics is good. It really has nothing to do with “grammar” as it is understood in language learning circles.
Studying case endings in a particular language (morphology) does not a linguist make (in the academic sense). If you look at things like Optimality Theory, or Principles and Parameters Theory, or The Minimalist Program, or other theoretical frameworks in linguistics, you’ll find they don’t have much to do with the traditional conception of grammar.
MisterB said: "Christophes Youtube replies to "lingosteve"s and “mandalearn"s comments are hilarious… Perhaps too much Muay Thai…”
You have to hand it to Clugston, he tries hard to sound like a snooty intellectual - even if he does look like a bad cross between a truck-driver with a 1-bit brain and a skinhead soccer-hooligan…
You know things are serious when people start calling each other out on YouTube videos. It would have been more entertaining, however, had it been in rap with references to Steve’s “posse” and Benny’s “homies”.
Also, this: “Please tell me when you can walk a university and obtain a position og linguist with your sophomoric understanding of what it encompasses.”
What does this even mean? If I understood correctly, and I’m really not sure that I have, the author of the video is stating that he’s an intellectual and scholar who understands the meaning of the word “linguist” to such a superior degree that he could be offered a university lectureship, where he might choose to present a paper on “serial verbs”, whereas the previous commenter could not achieve that.
Please could we sort this out once and for all with a rap war.
Man that guy loves the word “hackneyed” hahaha
Here he go again with another video Called…
“Steve Kaufman schooled on linguistics: Christophe Clugston”
oops… you might need to copy the entire link and paste it into your browser…
Steve Kaufman taken to school on languages Christophe Clugston - YouTube =channel_video_title
You don’t need the rest of the URL.
I think Clugston obviously feels that his profession is been underestimated. It’s his right to response. Although I feel he comes a little harsh on people, he’s right in his statements.
*to respond
This is a boring, waffling rant on absolutely nothing. Also he should cut out the alcohol when making videos. He sounded like he’d had a few to me.
I guess he is trying to sell he old university books or something.
His comparison with an MD (medical doctor, the profession I am studying) is kind of stupid. If you look up the definition of an MD, it states clearly “a physician, someone who hold a professional degree in medicine”.
I guess the guy feels as if his profession is underestimated! But that’s just a dumb comparison…
I just watched his latest video, and he seemed quite angry that people without academic qualifications in linguists are calling themselves linguists. He is absolutely right in some of his statements. Linguistics is the scientific study of languages, and few language learners are interested in studying languages scientifically. Rather, they spend their time immersing themselves in learning to speak languages.
The relationship seems similar to that of an athlete and a sports scientist. The athlete spends their time running and jumping, whereas the sports scientist spend their time studying people who are running and jumping.
His arguments then, are similar to those of a sports scientist complaining to an athlete “you know nothing about biomechanics and physiology so don’t call yourself a sports scientist”. That is a fair point. Of course, the athlete in turn is probably super-fit with extraordinary physical abilities, and the sports scientist gains none of these merely by looking at others doing the actual sport.
- Splog look up the definition of Linguist in any English dictionary. Is there any dictionary that does not say that a linguist is someone who speaks more than one language?
- What does the term “accomplished linguist” mean to you?
- I am a linguist by this definition and so are most of the people at LingQ.
- I am not a “language sicentist”., I do not study linguistics. I do not claim to. I only claim to be a linguist.
- I do not understand why this is in any controversial.