Voicing Politics: Linguistics and the Debility of Political Science
Main Article Content
Abstract
Voicing Politics claims that political attitudes vary with the language that people speak. Experiments with random assignment of bilinguals to answer survey questionnaires presented in either Estonian or Russian show that their answers do change when the language of the questionnaire is switched. First, relative to gendered Russian, genderless Estonian elicits more support for women’s rights. Second, relative to futured Russian, futureless Estonian elicits more willingness to invest now for future gain. Third, relative to dominant Estonian, minority Russian elicits more awareness of the “most nationalist” party in Estonian politics. But the first claim is inconsistent with the authors’ own evidence. The second claim is inconsistent with both Estonian and Russian’s joint use of linguistic aspect to express futurity. The third claim is invalidated by Russian’s lack of any translation for English “nationalist” that does not signal “anti-Russian,” to which Russian speakers will be more sensitive regardless of dominant or minority status. The experimental asymmetries reported by the authors are attributable, not to differences between the Estonian and Russian languages, but to unspoken context, on which the use of any language for communication must rely but which varies from one language to the next and for which survey research cannot control. Since no practicable survey questionnaire can control what context respondents choose to activate in interpreting a question and deciding how to respond, rather than identifying “beliefs” or “attitudes,” any survey research reveals unspecifiable variation in context. Since much of what purports to be known about politics has been inferred from inherently unreliable surveys, this implication of the errors in Voicing Politics is debilitating enough. But since the institutions that political science attempts to explain are uniformly consequences of language use, the uncritical endorsement of Voicing Politics by the discipline’s most prestigious American academic press, its board, editor and referees, prominent endorsers and multiple reviewers is evidence that the debility revealed by this study’s errors afflicts a broad sweep of the discipline extending far beyond survey research alone.
Keywords: Voicing Politics, survey questionnaires, Estonian and Russian languages, survey language context, political linguistics
Bibliography: Anderson, Jr., Richard D.: Voicing Politics: Linguistics and the Debility of Political Science, PCS – Politics, Culture and Socialization, 2023-2024, pp. 114-135.
Article Details
Literature
Anderson, R. D. (2021). Vladimir Putin, Russian identity, and Russia’s conduct, at home and abroad. Nationalism: Past as Prologue. Nova Science, 1-46.
Andrews, L. R. (1988). The spatial imagery of oblomovism. Neophilologus, 72(3), 321.
Bittner, M. (2005). Future discourse in a tenseless language. Journal of Semantics, 22(4), 339-387.
Brajuc, V. (2018). On the problem of Oblomov’s image interpretation. Limbaj şi context. Revista internaţională de lingvistică, semiotică şi ştiinţă literară, 10(1), 27-44.
Branstetter, J. G. (2017). Translational Moments: Citizenship in Meiji Japan. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Bronnikov, E. (2023). Voicing Politics: How language shapes public opinion. Democratization, 30:(8), 1628-1630, DOI: 10.1080/13510347.2023.2251005
Brown, R. (2020). The origins of the minimal group paradigm. History of Psychology, 23(4), 371.
Bybee, J., & Dahl, Ö. (1989). The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language 13(1), 51-103.
Carlos, R.F. (2023). Efrén Pérez and Margit Tavits. Voicing Politics: How Language Shapes Public Opinion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 2022. 232 pp. $120.00 (cloth). $35.00 (paper). $35.00 (ebook). Public Opinion Quarterly, 87(4), 1056–1058, https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad056.
Černyx, P. Ja. (1993). Istoriko-etimologičeskij slovar’ sovremennogo russkogo jazyka, I. Russkij jazyk.
Cikara, M., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2014). The neuroscience of intergroup relations: An integrative review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(3), 245-274.
Dahl, Ö. (1990). Standard Average European as an exotic language. Toward a typology of European languages, 3-8.
Dahl, Ö. (2000). The grammar of future time reference in European languages. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, 6, 309-328.
Dahl, Ö., & Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (Eds.). (2001). Circum-Baltic Languages. 2 vols. John Benjamins.
Dickey, S. M. (2024). Russian aspect from a cognitive linguistic perspective. Russian Linguistics, 48(1), 11.
Echterhoff, G. (2008). Language and memory: Social and cognitive processes. Cultural Memory Studies: An International and Interdisciplinary Handbook, 263-274.
Ehala, M. (2006). The word order of Estonian: implications to universal language. Journal of Universal Language, 7(1), 49-89.
Gross, J. H. (2023). Voicing Politics: How Language Shapes Public Opinion. By Efrén Pérez and Margit Tavits. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2022. 232p. 35.00 paper. Perspectives on Politics, 21(4), 1491-1493.
Grünthal, R. (2007). Morphological change and the influence of language contacts in Estonian. Beiträge zur Morphologie. Germanisch, baltisch, ostseefinnisch. University Press of Southern Denmark, 403-432.
Heredia, R. R., & Cieślicka, A. B. (2014). Bilingual memory storage: Compound-coordinate and derivatives. In Foundations of bilingual memory, 11-39.
Lichbach, M. I. (1994). Rethinking rationality and rebellion: theories of collective action and problems of collective dissent. Rationality and society, 6(1), 8-39.
Leppik, L. (2008). Social mobility and career patterns of Estonian intellectuals in the Russian Empire. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung 33(2), 42-62.
Lõo, K., Tomaschek, F., Lippus, P., & Tucker, B. V. (2023). Paradigmatic and syntagmatic effects in Estonian spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 66(2), 474-499.
Marcus, G. E. (2024). How Do Humans Create and Sustain Viable Communities? A Review Essay. Political Science Quarterly, 139(1), 117-121.
Metslang, H. (2001). On the development of the Estonian Aspect. Circum-Baltic Languages, 2, 443-479.
Michaelis, L. A. (2020). Tense in English. The handbook of English linguistics, 163-181.
Miljan, M. (2008). Grammatical case in Estonian. Dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
Miller, A. (2008). Natsiia, narod, narodnost’ in Russia in the 19th century: Some introductory remarks to the history of concepts. Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, Neue Folge, 56(3), 379-390.
Mummendey, A., & Otten, S. (1998). Positive–negative asymmetry in social discrimination. European review of social psychology, 9(1), 107-143.
Nordlinger, R., & Sadler, L. (2004). Nominal tense in crosslinguistic perspective. Language, 776-806.
Norris, M. (2019). Non-autonomous accusative case in Estonian. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics, 7(2).
Otten, S. (2016). The Minimal Group Paradigm and its maximal impact in research on social categorization. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 85-89.
Pérez, E., & Tavits, M. (2022). Voicing politics. Princeton.
Raible, W. (1990). Types of tense and aspect systems. Towards a Typology of European Language, 195-214.
Slobin, D.I. (2003). Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 157-192). MIT.
Slobin, D.I. (2005). Relating narrative events in translation. Perspectives on language and language development: Essays in honor of Ruth A. Berman (pp. 115-129). Springer US.
Sulkala, H. (1996). Expression of aspectual meanings in Finnish and Estonian. Estonian: Typological Studies, 1, 165-217.
Vihman, V-A., & Walkden, G. (2021). Verb-second in spoken and written Estonian. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 6(1): 1–23. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1404
Walker, J. S. (2013). Neither BURGHER nor BARIN: An Imagological and Intercultural Reading of Andrey Stoltz in Ivan Goncharov’s Oblomov (1859). Slověne=Словѣне. International Journal of Slavic Studies, 2(2), 5-30.
Wiley, N. (2014). Chomsky’s anomaly: Inner speech. International Journal for Dialogical Science, 8(1), 1-11.
Worth, D.S. (1977). On the structure and history of Russian: Selected essays. Otto Sagner.
Xiao, Y.J., Wohl, M.J.A., & Van Bavel, J.J. (2016). Proximity under threat: The role of physical distance in intergroup relations. PLoS ONE 11(7): e0159792. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0159792
Yokoyama, O.T. (1988). Disbelief, lies, and manipulations in a Transactional Discourse Model. Argumentation 2, 133-151.
Zaller, J., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 579-616.
Zwart, J. W. (1998). The minimalist program. Journal of linguistics, 34(1), 213-226.