Date:  Wed, 7 Dec 1994 11:44:52 EST

From:  TERESA M LOCKHART <tmlock01[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]MSUACAD.MOREHEAD-ST.EDU>

Subject: Re: The ADS crystal ball



>

> My dear ADS colleagues:

>

> It is heartening to see the electrons of ADS-L at last beginning to tingle

> with contemplation of where we should go for the Annual Meeting. Two months

> ago, I found it odd that the ad hoc committee's recommendation, to boldly go

> where no ADS annual meeting had ever gone, published prominently (p. 2 -

> that's the hot-news place) in the ADS newsletter, met with - just about

> perfect nonresponse. The s-mail writers remain almost 100% silent, but those

> who are fortunate enough to be Internetworked are at last giving the proposal

> a working over.

>

> Qui tacet consentit, could be argued by those who approve the committee's

> proposal. But now the silence is being broken, and it is much better to break

> the eggs before cooking the omelet. Mirabile dictu, we are also having a

> civilized conversation, though I know the various sentiments are strong.

>

> I know because, having conducted last year's poll of all members, I know that

> our strongest advocates, as well as our more moderate ones, are almost

> exactly divided between those in favor of MLA and those in favor of LSA. The

> number of those who wanted something else is much smaller. So the committee

> went against the sentiments of the membership.

>

> I came a day late to the committee meeting last summer and was myself amazed

> to be told of their conclusion. I believed them when they said they hadn't

> come to the meeting with the April alternative in mind. Rather, it began to

> emerge the more they considered the serious disadvantages of deciding on

> either one or the other of the midwinter meetings.

>

> So it could be said that the April choice was for negative reasons - to avoid

> dissing nearly half our membership, as we now do by meeting with MLA, and as

> we would (with a different half) if we switched to LSA.

>

> But as the committee considered the April alternative further, it began to

> seem not a last resort but an opportunity. And as ADS-L is now beginning to

> replicate conversations the committee had, let me take this opportunity to

> explain the opportunity.

>

> The opportunity is to make something significant of the ADS annual meeting.

> As I try to think about it now, I think we have always had a sense that the

> ADS annual meeting wasn't much; it was an adjunct to something else, whether

> MLA, or MLA plus LSA (remember the years when both of them met in the same

> city at the same time?), or DSNA (in the summer), or Methods, or even NWAV

> (in 1978, in Washington). In every case the other meeting was larger, and the

> sense was that people came for the other meeting and then took time for ADS.

> Even now, for example, we have a day and a half of ADS sessions, while MLA

> (and even the Name Society) goes on for three or four days.

>

> And it's not as if we've selected just a few papers from a heap of proposals.

> We get only a handful of abstracts every year, and accept almost all that

> look reasonable. This, by the way, can give outsiders the impression that we

> favor an in-group that gives papers year after year. In fact, the program

> chairs have made efforts to encourage newcomers (as in this year's special

> session on Spanish and English), and still there is plenty of room even in a

> short program for repeaters.

>

> As I read the arguments for going with LSA or continuing with MLA, they seem

> in essence to say: I need to go to LSA/MLA, and am able to take some time

> for ADS if it's there; perhaps if it's there, it will attract other

> like-minded LSA/MLA attendees. That's a fine principle, but it doesn't seem

> to work, mainly because LSA/MLA has so much else going on, including sessions

> in our areas of interest. It could be argued that this is true for MLA but

> wouldn't be for LSA; but consider that ADS did meet in the same city and

> place with LSA as recently as 1986 (NYC), 1987 (S.F.), 1988 (New Orleans),

> and 1989 (Washington DC); the latter three years in independent hotels, so we

> weren't favoring MLA; and our attendance was pretty much the same as it is

> now, in fact very much the same. The only thing that has notably increased

> attendance is "New Words of the Year," which now gets about 70, compared with

> 30 - 50 for other sessions.

>

> And I think we've been busy enough with the MLA/LSA meetings at the time of

> ADS that we've let the ADS meeting coast along.

>

> Frankly, I question whether ADS needs an annual meeting at all. And I think

> that's the thought in most of our minds, that ADS by itself isn't worth a

> meeting. It's just a nice adjunct.

>

> But suppose we look on the April meeting as an opportunity: not to aggrandize

> ADS for aggrandizement sake, but to contribute significantly to the study of

> the English language in North America & other languages as they relate to it.

>

> What comes to mind as a model for this is the conference on Language

> Variation in the South, that brought together linguistic geographers and

> variationists and lexicographers and - well, people who regularly go to MLA,

> to LSA, to DSNA, to NWAV - they all got together, met each other, exchanged

> insights. That's the potential for an independent ADS meeting.

>

> It would *require* active planning, and probably a different theme, each

> year. Perhaps each year, in addition to the supervising vice

> president/program chair, there should be a special-topic organizer, chosen at

> least a couple of years in advance - who would organize the ADS meeting

> almost as a special conference. The Council could call for topic proposals,

> appoint organizers, announce topics in the Newsletter and in kindred forums;

> and make a significant contribution to a particular topic.

>

> What could such topics be? Well, we might consider other places, e.g.

> Heartland English or New York City speech; we might revisit the Linguistic

> Atlas of New England; we might ponder slang with Jonathan Lighter; wonder

> about innovation in AAVE; review the neologisms of the 20th century. Pick

> keynote speakers and organize panels early; seek grants; perhaps publish

> proceedings.

>

> That would give ADS something distinctive to do.

>

> You who have read thus far, thanks for your patience. I will not weigh down

> your e-mail boxes so heavily again. But this is a crucial decision, and a

> crucial opportunity. - Allan Metcalf <AAllan[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]aol.com>

>

 It seems that you have given this a lot of thought and I would like to know

 your descision. Good luck!!