“If it’s a black box, one linguist can pick it up; no number can, however, open it. If it’s any other color, it isn’t of any theoretical interest.”—SpecGram Letters Editor
Despite recent stunning advances in neurolinguistics and long-
One generally unchallenged but implicit assumption in the black box metaphor is that the black box doesn’t behave differently because it is being observed, tested, or studied. When dealing with language, that is often not true. Subjects of linguistics experiments who know they are subjects of linguistics experiments may very well behave differently as a result of that knowledge. The assumptions one may confidently draw in such a situation are all of the type that begin with phrases such as: “In a controlled laboratory setting...”. This is akin to training your cat to stay off the dining room table. Usually all you can really accomplish is to keep the cat off the table while you are in the house.
So, we decided to apply a black-
“How many linguists does it take to pick up a box from the ground?”
None responded except the editors of SpecGram. By a fortuitous accident, our team of poorly-
The responses of the SpecGram editors are reproduced below.
If it’s a black box, one linguist can pick it up; no number can, however, open it. If it’s any other color, it isn’t of any theoretical interest.
Picking up a box from the ground requires at least
At the universities we attended, none. That’s what the grad students are for.
Provided the box isn’t very heavy, most linguists are able-
You need at least...
It seems unlikely that real linguists would ever get around to actually performing the task, though, unless it’s done as a test in order to elicit a sentence from an informant.
We have to admit to some difficulty determining the scope of the unit being tested. Is it the presumably individual editors who provided such diverse responses? Is it the collective epistolary editorial entity? As this is only an initial investigation into the efficacy and analyticity of the approach, we elected to evade an exact answer, and the audience may adjudge independently as the analysis unfolds.
Response (1) surprised us. We thought our covert experiment had been exposed or recognized, but the eventual presence of response (2) alleviated our fears. Using a new discourse coding system we have been developing over the last decade (Affanita and Thanhthu, to appear), we would mark this response as {+metaphorical}, [+snarky],
Response (2) surprised us again, considering its length and pointlessly baroque detail. We encoded it as
Response (3) was also surprising, but only because we didn’t expect a third response at all. We encoded it as
Response (4) surprised us simply by the lack of surprises it contained. We encoded it
Response (5) was predicted by our Black Box Neural Network Predictive Process™ (Affanita and Thanhthu, to appear) after feeding it the first four responses
Unfortunately, we don’t have the space to expound on the ⪻delimiters⪼ used in our feature encoding system, but suffice it to say that the feature names are generally transparent and the delimiter shapes are generally iconic. Even with the potentially limited detail provided by the underspecified encodings, a clear pattern emerges.
The features common to all responses are variants of the UR-
Two scientists riding in a hot air balloon had been blown off course by strong winds. They had not seen another person in hours, and they were completely lost.
As they approached a mountain range, they spotted a woman atop a mountain, and yelled to her, “Can you tell us where we are?”
After some thought, the woman replied, “Yes.” The scientists immediately yelled back, “Where are we?”
The woman thought for a few minutes, and just before the scientists floated out of shouting range, she replied, “You are up in a balloon, over a mountain range, travelling at 15 to 20 miles per hour.”
One scientist turned to the other, crestfallen, and said, “Well, she wasn’t very helpful.” The other replied, “Yeah, she was a mathematician.”
“What?” responded the first, stunned. “How do you know she was a mathematician?”
“Well, she took a ridiculously long time to answer a simple question, her answer was indubitably correct, and it was totally useless.”
These findings are consistent with the stereotype of abstruse and introverted mathematicians. However, the addition of +SNARKY in the case of the editors of Speculative Grammarian is metamorphic, to borrow a geological metaphor. The lack of ABSTRUSEness is quite telling. So as not to jeopardize our chances of publication, let us merely declare satirical linguists, as a class, to be
While this type of black box testing is difficult to perform, its scope difficult to define, and its results difficult to interpret, such testing should take a rightful place in the toolbox of ambitious linguists.