Abstract

Abstract In his book Are some languages better than others?, the leading linguist R.M.W. Dixon put forward what we refer to as ‘Dixon’s dangerous idea’, i.e. the idea that linguistics should evaluate the relative worth of languages and provide some general criteria for deciding whether certain languages can be taken to be better or worse than others. Although it is obviously licit to raise this question, Dixon’s arguments when answering it are inaccurate, thus spreading a dangerous idea. This article critically discusses Dixon’s proposals and shows how his arguments draw on arbitrary and decontextualized criteria, and on naive evolutionary ideas of absolute fitness.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call