User:Iph/Linguistician

A linguistician is a person active in the field of linguistics. However, many linguists/linguisticians dislike this term, and insist instead on the term linguist. In fact, they suppressed this article from Wikipedia proper, claiming that it was insufficiently important (but look at some articles on minor terms — which should perhaps only be in Wiktionary — and topics — ephemeral characters and the dross of popular culture — that do survive; I am not spending my time chasing them).

As most of the the pages in Wikipedia on linguistics and related topics were written by linguists/linguisticians, those pages reflect the usage they prefer. However, this page addresses the problem of ambiguity associated with that usage, and so to avoid that ambiguity it uses the term linguistician when referring to a person engaged in the field of linguistics.

Arguments for linguistician
The word linguistician is in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) cited as in use in the literature since 1897, meaning "one who is versed in linguistics". Its advocates argue that it is thus long established and is the appropriate term for those who work in the field of linguistics. Further, it is derived sensibly from linguistics and preserves the regularity seen in statistician (derived from statistics), and mathematician (derived from mathematics).

Furthermore, they point out, the shorter term linguist is ambiguous: OED records it in use since the 16th century (citing Shakespeare's Two Gentlemen of Verona, no less, in 1591) meaning "One who is skilled with languages; one who is master of other tongues besides his own". It is indeed still in common use today with this original meaning; most current dictionaries list this meaning first, many defining the word linguist simply as “a person skilled in languages or linguistics”.

Of course, before about the middle of the nineteenth century, when linguistics was called philology (which term is nowadays given a narrower meaning), and well before the time of such scholars as Ferdinand de Saussure, the study of languages always involved actually learning several languages well, and then through this knowledge studying patterns and structures and so on; in those days, a linguistician was always a polyglot, and the word linguist applied to both.

Things have changed. Today's linguisticians are not necessarily all polyglots because some topics in modern linguistics are so abstract that practitioners can busy themselves with syntactical algebras, computer models, and other specialisms, without needing to speak (fluently or at all) any language but their own. Thus advocates of the linguistician argue that use of linguist to mean "one who studies language", when ordinary people (supported by current dictionaries) think of it as meaning "polyglot", is misleading; moreover, they say, that ambiguity lies at the core of the vocabulary of what is supposed to be a scientific subject.

Contrary to the assertion of some opponents of linguistician that it is "too much of a tongue-twister to become generally accepted," advocates point out that similar terms like rhetorician, academician, and so on are routinely used, so people who are supposedly experts in language ought to be able to manage linguistician.

Of course, this argument by analogy can be turned around: a logician's speciality is logic (not logics), and a rhetorician's is rhetoric (not rhetorics). Advocates of linguistician could suggest that linguisticians start a campaign to rename the subject linguistic; similarly, to anyone who objected that a physics specialist is a physicist and not a physician, an opponent might suggest that they start a campaign to rename the occupation linguisticist, but that might well be expected to prove even more of a tongue-twister. Both these arguments are, of course, somewhat tongue-in-cheek. The fundamental point, however, cannot be avoided: The word for one who practices a particular profession is not formed in a universally regular way from the name of that profession.

Finally, if one asks a linguistician today what term one should use for a person who can speak and write several languages, one is likely to be told "a polyglot". Given that there is a perfectly good word for one who speaks multiple languages, the ambiguity is totally unnecessary. This word, however, is in no way common, so this does not avoid the problem.

Arguments against linguistician
Given that they accept these arguments, advocates of linguistician posit theories of why some linguisticians so dislike the term as applied to themselves. A cynic might suggest in answer that they all hope that other people will assume they are polyglots, and therefore amazingly accomplished; but this is surely unworthy. Another indication was offered when Karl V. Teeter, then Emeritus Professor of Linguistics at Harvard University, wrote on the subject to “LINGUIST List 5.1123” (Friday 14 Oct 1994):

I am repelled/repulsed by the term "linguistician", as were Einar Haugen and many others when it was first proposed in print years ago by Robert A. Hall -- Haugen pointed out at the time that the only terms of any currency in English with this suffix were “beautician”, “mortician”, and “cosmetician”.

Others quickly pointed out (i) that the OED citation of use of “linguistician” was from before Hall was born, and (ii) that there are more than 40 other terms ending in -ician, the vast majority for highly respected occupations, such as mathematician and physician. Contrariwise, beauticians and morticians might reasonably argue that such extreme dislike of words merely because of a word-ending shared with their professions is a clear case of intellectual snobbery.

Why has linguistician not caught on?
As linguistician is plainly less ambiguous, one must explain why it has not become the standard word. Doubtless in part this is purely pragmatic - linguisticians tend to prefer linguist, and few people outside of the field have regular opportunity to discuss the subject and thus use the term. There are doubtless other reasons, though.

For example, the OED shows linguist (in the sense under debate) to be significantly older than linguistician, dating from 1641 - only 50 years after the first recorded use of the word with any meaning. Some have argued that, as a point of fact, where two words are derived from the same root and have the same meaning, the one coined later is less likely to become dominant. Thus linguistician is less likely to have caught on.

Some have also argued that linguistician was coined at a time when many humorous "-ician" words were being coined and so never caught on because it was perceived by many as not being a serious word.