Friday, October 14, 2005
“On Language” 10/13: Linguistic evidence for reincarnation?
Skeptic scoffs at the link between language and past lives
‘On Language‘
Chicago Tribune
October 13, 2005
By Nathan Bierma
temp.link/perm.preview
Linguist Sarah Thomason has published critiques in the journals American Speech and Skeptical Inquirer of linguistic claims about reincarnation, especially the findings of Ian Stevenson, a psychiatrist at the University of Virginia. Beginning in the 1970s, Stevenson studied subjects such as a West Virginia woman who, under hypnosis, conversed in German and claimed to be a 19th Century German teenager named Gretchen.
Thomason studied Stevenson’s transcripts of conversations with “Gretchen” and concluded the woman couldn’t have been a native of Germany in a former life.
“Gretchen usually answers with just a word or two rather than in full sentences,” Thomason wrote in the Skeptical Inquirer. “All she seems to know, either for speaking or for understanding, is a handful of words.” Many of Gretchen’s words, Thomason added, closely resemble their English equivalents—“braun,” for example, is the German word for “brown.”
Of Gretchen’s responses to questions she was asked in German, many were either repetitions of the question or “ja” or “nein” (“yes” or “no”). Of Gretchen’s other 102 responses, Thomason said, only 28 were “appropriate” or sensible answers, while 45 did not make sense and 29 were “cop-out” answers such as “I don’t understand” or “I don’t know.”
Thomason says that in one telling exchange, the interviewer asks, “Was gibt es nach dem Schlafen?” This literally translates “What is there after sleeping?” but is intended to mean “What do you eat for breakfast?” Gretchen answers, “Schlafen, Bettzimmer,” meaning “Sleep, bedroom.” Thomason points out that not only did Gretchen misunderstand the question, she uses the word “Bettzimmer,” while a native German speaker would say “Schlafzimmer,” literally “sleep room.”
“Do we need a paranormal explanation for her knowledge of some German words and phrases? Surely not,” Thomason wrote.
Robert Almeder responds with these comments:
“On Language” 10/5: The Errors of ‘Elements’
Linguist throws the book at gurus
‘On Language‘
Chicago Tribune
October 5, 2005
By Nathan Bierma
temp.link/perm.preview
Geoffrey Pullum, linguist and co-author of “The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language” (Cambridge University Press, $160) and “A Student’s Introduction to English Grammar” (Cambridge University Press, $29.99) ... was none too happy to hear about “Elements of Style Illustrated.”
“There is an ILLUSTRATED edition of `The Elements of Style’ coming out?” he replied by e-mail. “Oh, how pathetic, how horrible.” ...
Pullum says other rules in “Elements,” such as the book’s bans on beginning a sentence with “however” and using “hopefully” to mean “we hope that . . . ” also go against the grain of English. To see how unnatural the rules of “Elements” can be, Pullum says, look at White’s own fiction (which Pullum praises for its elegance).
White goes only two paragraphs of “Stuart Little” before breaking his rule that only the word “that,” not “which,” can introduce a clause not enclosed by commas…