Friends of Semantic Compositions

January 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Site Statistics

Blog powered by Typepad

« Thanks a lot, Ohio State | Main | Rob Neyer plays with polysemy »

January 09, 2007



Must read this in depth when I'm not at the department waaay too late. I had some thoughts of my own, but the one you raised in the question period was one that hadn't escaped me.

Or perhaps, I thought of it from a different angle, a within-the-institution one: suppose that so many thousands take psych classes with the hope or intent of becoming psychologists, and that so many more thousands take chemistry with the hope or intent of becoming chemists (that is, employed by Dow or the like), or more likely a lot are it any surprise that people don't tend to take linguistics classes? What does it even mean to be a "professional linguist", other than working for a NLP or other software company?

Now, not everyone takes psych so they can become a psychologist; some, perhaps, take it because they're going into advertising or the like and they think psych can help those chosen careers. And in that case, linguistics can as well, and we need more of those people getting basic linguistic training. But as they say, "Follow the money."

The comments to this entry are closed.