Diskussion:Tagmemik

"Wichtig"?

"Die Tagmemik ist eine wichtige sprachwissenschaftliche Richtung innerhalb des amerikanischen Strukturalismus", lautet der erste Satz des Artikels. Wichtig auch außerhalb des engen Kreises von Missionaren und Linguisten des Summer Institute of Linguistics / Wycliffe Bible Translators? Die American National Biography schreibt dazu:

Like all his work, Pike's tagmemics was a practical approach, a tool in the work of SIL. It was not widely adopted elsewhere. [...] Pike's influence within academic linguistics in the United States diminished as generative theory gained a commanding position in the 1960s, but he was widely respected for his methods and practical applications in the descriptions of languages.

Oder das Fazit in History of the Language Sciences V. 2, S. 1982 (ISBN 3110167352):

Its potential is great, and has hardly been tapped.

Weniger freundlich ist Western Linguistics von Peter A. M. Seuren, S. (ISBN 0631208917):

Tagmemics never evolved very much, although dozens of out-of-the-way languages were described in terms of it. Its use remained limited to SIL-trained linguists.

Über den eingeschränkten Kreis der Tagmemik-Anhänger in Linguistic Ecology von Peter Mühlhausler, S. 335 (ISBN 0415056357):

Mention should also be made of the branch of American structuralism of tagmemics, the school which was devoted to the translation of the Bible into all of the world's languages. In this school, the role of linguistics is ancillary to that of producing translations of the scriptures and that of reducing languages to writing [...]

Ich habe einen Hinweis auf den eingeschränkten Kreis der Vertreter der Tagmemik eingefügt. —Babel fish 07:54, 26. Jun 2006 (CEST)