Affiliation:
1. Dalhousie University Halifax Canada
Abstract
Abstract
Our interest should always be aroused when scholars reject the testable approaches that have underwritten scientific development since the seventeenth century. Academic excursions in the arts and humanities need not adhere to scientific benchmarks, of course, and discussions relevant to science that are presented there need not always be subject to rigorous examination. When investigations move into social-science territory, however, more focused attention is called for. Since the scholars discussed in this paper clearly think of themselves as social scientists, it is quite legitimate to subject their investigations to scientific scrutiny and logical analysis. This article briefly describes contemporary investigations and research paradigms characterized by unnecessary neologisms, flatulent jargon, fuzzy thinking, and unconvincing arguments about the discovery of new territory in well-ploughed ground.
Reference59 articles.
1. Anderson, Stephen. 2012. Languages: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Andreski, Stanislav. 1972. Social sciences as sorcery. London: André Deutsch.
3. Asimov, Isaac. 1988. The relativity of wrong. New York: Doubleday.
4. Bartolomé, Lilia. 2000. Democratizing bilingualism: The role of critical teacher education. In Zeynap Beykont (ed.), Lifting every voice: Pedagogy and politics of bilingualism, 167–186. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.
5. Bell, Allan. 2017. Giving voice: A personal essay on the shape of sociolinguistics. Journal of Sociolinguistics 21(5). 587–602.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献