Everything you ever needed to know about the Y-model of linguistics in one cute animated drawing!

If you want to know what goes on in my mind (ha!), just look at the walls of my room. I have drawn on them all and frequently invite friends to do so, too. Here are some of my favorites:

The happy octopus, Calen Stone.

Quote from The Little Prince provided by Katie Talsma.

Color-by-number, Anel Guel.

 

My favorite swear-word.

Linguistics, as you might guess, is quite prevalent on my walls, too. For example, below you can see the traditional (read: wrong) analysis of the Spanish copulas ser and estar, just underneath that illustration of the urinary tract, complete with kidneys and prostate (in green), courtesy of Min Jung.

And my masterpiece is here below: everything you ever needed to know about the Y-model of linguistics in one handy-dandy little animation show.

Print and retain for future reference.

From this drawing, you can glean all the essential facts about generative linguistics, namely:

1. Syntacticians are top, Semanticists are bottom, and Phonologists are off somewhere to the side dithering about whether or not to participate.
2. All semanticists are awkward.
3. Morphologists get left out.
4. Abstract symbols arranged into binary branching trees are what the whole show is about.


Now, next time you meet a linguist in line at the grocery store or on the bus or wherever, you don't have to embarrass yourself by asking "How many languages do you speak?" Instead, you can ask a relevant and thoughtful question based on any of these four facts I have provided. Here are some helpful suggestions to get you started:

• In the ongoing struggle taking place at the syntax-semantics interface, with whom would you say the real power currently lies?
• What should we do with all these unemployed morphologists?
• In your opinion, what is the cultural significance of the strictly binary relations assumed between structures alpha, beta, gamma, and chi?*
• Are you a semanticist? Oh, I'm sorry to hear that.

However, I must urge caution, as not all linguists subscribe to the basic worldview depicted here. Try breaking the ice first by asking how she/he feels about recursion. If the response includes a long-winded diatribe about Piraha, leave the premises immediately. Or if you're too nice of a person to do that, just change the subject to something involving the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. If, however, the word "recursion" elicits a favorable response, then feel free to further test the waters with one of the discussion questions suggested above. If the linguist asks for your opinion on the grammaticality of a number of sample sentences, don't be alarmed. This is not a test; he/she is probably just collecting data. Keep calm and give your honest opinion.

Good luck, and happy discussing!






*This is a trick question. The correct answer is: "Oh, I'm sorry. You must have mistaken me for an anthropologist."