Harris Linguistic Wars Ch1-2

8/22/2019 Harris Linguistic Wars Ch1-2

1/32

C H A P T E R 1

Language, Thought, andthe Linguistics Wars

Language and our thought -g rooves a re inextr icably related, are, in a sense, on eand the s ame .Edward Sapi r

Every u t te rance is defic ientit says less tha n it wishes to say.Every u t te rance is exu be ran t i t c on v eys more t h an it plans.Jose Ortega y Gasset

"Never eat more than you can l i f t ," advises Miss Piggy; or , to quote the somew hatless vorac ious M s. An on ym ous , "Don't bite off more than you can chew." Put t ingaside the differences of scale wh ich give these cau tions their f lavor, we get a veryclear warn ing , one w hose kernel i s so apparent that paraphrase on ly mangles it . Buti t's no t an especially easy wa rnin g to follow, especially for juicy topics. A nd we arepul l ing up to a spread of the juiciest topics associated with th e h u m a n m o u t h : th ecommingle of meaning, noise , and power bundled into the word language. Everymorsel on the table savours of faraway regions, deep, m ysteriou s, comp ell ing; eventhe gusta tory metaph or we current ly find c losing in on us. Perhaps ano ther para-graph will help.Language is the sub jec t and the object of th is book. It is the method and the mate-rial, the produc t and the process, th e chisel and the s tone poin ts wh ic h , l anguagebeing wha t it is, ofte n slip noiselessly away wh ile more immediate matters occupyus, b u t wh ich , l anguage be ing w hat it is, also lu rch crashing f rom the shadows whe nwe least expect it . S omet imes w e seem to look r ight through language, hear rightpast i t , and appreh end direc t ly the ideas beneath the wri t ing on the page, be hin dthe words in the a i r ; somet imes w e can't get i t out o f the way . Somet imes anotherparagraph helps.Somet imes not .But a lway s weav ing i n and out , off and on , t h r o u g h an d t h rough th e discourse,are the inf in i te , indescribably subt le s inews that b ind language and t hough t . A s Miss

3


2/32

4 The Linguistics WarsPiggy and M s. A n on y m ou s demo nst ra te , separa t ing the idea f rom the vehic le is nota job for the fa int ; no r , in fact , for the s tu rdy . W e can say tha t Miss Piggy 's a n d M s .Anonymous ' s express ions mean the same th ing , despi t e the significant dif ferencein t he i r specific words. W e can eve n say they bo th me an the sam e th ing as the Sco t-t ish proverb , " I f ye can na see the bo t tom, d inn a wade ." M oreover , we can s t a te tha t'same t h i n g ' as "Don't tackle a job b e y o nd y o u r capacity," or, more b a ld ly , as "Dono t do som eth ing w hich i s no t wi th in yo ur ab i li ti e s," o r , more ba ld ly ,V x V y -((HAVE (YOU (A BILIT Yx) ) & N EED (TA SKy (A BILIT Yx ) ) D -DO (YOU (TASKy)) .But , o f course, we a re o n ly mo v ing a r o und in language, t ry ing to hold th e t h o u g h tsteady. W e haven ' t peeled away th e l anguage to g et at the t hou gh t ; indeed , we 'vemang led th e t h o u g h t a b i t with every t ransla t ion. W e c a n a lso move a round int hought , t ry ing to ho ld the language s t e a d y b y set t ing out the meanings of anambiguous word, l ike bank or the meanings o f an ambiguous sen tence , l ike"Roberto s aw th e m an f rom th e library" (Rober to could b e looking out the l ibraryw i n d o w and see the m a n , or he could b e walk ing d o wn th e street and s ee a m an h ek n o w s f rom the l ibrary) , or an a mb iguo us d iscourse, l ike Hamlet. The rub here i sthat, despite important similarit ies, bank i s not the same word when it refers to aplace wh ere y ou keep y o u r mo n ey an d w h e n i t refers to l and nex t to a r iver; the twoRober to-sentences are no t the same; your Hamlet i s no t my Hamlet. Th e corre-spond ing rub fo r Miss Piggy and M s. An on ym ou s i s tha t , despit e impo r tan t s imi-lari ties , their thou gh ts are no t the same.La n g u a g e and thoug ht a re no t iden t ica l , s ince each can b e par t ia l ly m an ipu la t edi n de p e n de n t l y of the o ther ; b u t on ly par t ia lly , and o n ly b y willful ly ignor ing inf i-nite , indescr iba bly subt le s inews.Som ethin g is a lwa ys lost. Wh ich b r ings us to l inguist ics , the sc ience with theu n e n v i a b l e t ask o f d i sen tang l ing languag e and thou gh t .Not a l l l inguis ts wo uld agree that th eir sc ience char ts th e s inuou s re la tions o f l an-guage t o th ou gh t , t houg ht to language , nor even tha t l ingu is t ic s i s a sc ience , nor , i fit is , abo ut wh at so rt of sc ience i t is . An d these d isagreements are cruc ia l t hem es inm u c h of w h a t follows, as is the unavoidable conclusion that l inguists are a c o n t en -t ious lot . Take th e dramatis personae f rom th e story at the hear t of t h is boo k, th ewars foug ht am ong (one- t ime or st il l) adh eren ts to the principles of the f i rs t ma n inthe list:

N o a m C h o m s k yR ay JackendofFJer ro ld KatzGeorge Lakof fJames M c CawleyPa u l PostalH aj Ross

Th e def in i t i on fo r linguistics w e j u s t gave r un s a fou l of several of t hem. Katz an dPostal, fo r instanc e, regard l inguist ics as so me t h ing ve ry muc h l ike mathemat ics , a


3/32

Language, Thought, and the Linguistics Wars 5pr i s t ine fo rm al sc ience wi tho ut connec t ion to a n y t h i n g as messy as t ho ugh t . Lakoffand Cho msk y bo th agree tha t l ingu is t ic s i s very mu ch concerned wi th mind , a ndtha t i t is an em pir ical sc ience, but d isagree severely on m an y specifics, i n c lud ingwhat i t is to be an empir ical sc ience. Ross, McCawley, and Jac kend o f f are in theem pir ica l sc ience camp, b u t fall be tween Lakoff an d Cho msky on va r io us specifics,depe ndin g o n the issues. All of these people and i ssues show up recu r ren t ly in thestory of the l ing u is t ic s wars. For n o w , w e will al leviate the sense of discord overf u n d a m e n t a l issues b y offer ing a m o r e c o n v e n t io n a l def in i t ion of linguistics, on ethat v i r t ua l l y a ll l inguis ts would agree to (a l thoug h wi th l ingu is t s , as with mostreflect ive h u m a n s , w e can't do wi t ho u t t ha t virtually): th e s t ud y of the l inks be tweenso und a n d m e a n i n g .Tw o qual i f icat ions , t h o u g h , a re imm edia te ly necessary . Firs t , sound is so me t h ingof a sho r t -hand he r e for the most accessib le e lem ents of l anguage ; meaning, for themost e lusive. That is , sound in t h i s d e f in i t io n inc lud es th e noises w e m a k e , b u t alsostands in for the let ters of wri t t en languages ( l ike Eng l i sh), th e characters of pic to-graphic lang uages ( l ike Chinese) , the ges tures of s ign ing languages (l ike A m esla n) .Meaning r u n s th e g a m u t f rom logical a n d grammat ica l concept s (like nega t ion a n dsub jec t /pred ica te r e la t ions) to the n eb u lo us dom ains o f impl ica t ion and nu anc e(l ike get t ing som eon e to c lose the w in do w by sn ar l ing "It 's co ld in here" at her ,e n fo r c i n g social relat ions to boot) . Sound i s the ha r d c u r r enc y ; mean ing i s the ne t -w o r k o f c u l t u r a l and fo r ma l c o n ven t io ns that turns i t in to a s t ick of gum at thec a n d y store.Sec o nd , the idea of s t and ing - in is a crit ical, bu t im plic i t , part of the de f in i t ion ofl inguis t ics , so muc h so tha t the de f in i t ion wou ld be more accu ra te ly r endered as"the study o f th e l inks be tween symbolic sound an d mean ing . " Th e clat ter o f a t ra inis a so u nd t ha t m eans y o u sho u ld cl ea r off t he t r acks , bu t sound and meaning a recausa l ly re la ted h ere , t he way a the rm om eter r ea d ing is l inked to hea t . Symbolslike "Watch out for the t ra i n !" car ry t he i r mean ing mo r e t enuo us ly , mo r e sub t ly ,mo r e i n sc r u t ab ly .

Such i s the t r emen dou s myste ry lingu is ts p lum b. I t can look pre tty m un dan e a tt i m e s w h e n th e pheno men a und e r analy si s are as fami l ia r an d v a c u o u s as "Hello"or "Please pass th e salt" or "Hot enough fo r you ?" but i t is every fa thom as deepas the search for the fun d am en t a l bi ts an d pieces of the phys ica l un iver se or for thegu i d i ng principles of life, and i t is far mo r e in t ima t e ly c o nnec t ed w i t h wh a t i t m e a n s(there ' s that wo r d aga in ) to be h u m a n .

Lingui s t s ex amine l anguage in a var ie ty of largely oppor tun is t ic ways , as physi-c is ts ex am ine ma t ter , b io logists life, b u t am o ng t he i r p r imar y methods a re those o fth e surveyor . They carve up the vast ter r i tory between sound an d mean ing in t omore manageab le provinces . Th e borders be tween these prov inces a re f r equent lyin d ispute and hang on some very technical issues, on ly some o f which p lay a rolein the l ingu ist ics wars, bu t the ir exis tence and their pr im ary conce rns are wel l estab-l ished. Moving in the convent iona l d i rec t ion , phonetics concerns th e acoust icd imen s ions o f l ingu is tic sound. Phonology studies the c luster ing of those acoust icpropert ies into signif icant cues . Morphology studies the c luster ing of those c ues in tom e a n i n g f u l uni t s . Syntax studies t he a r range men t o f those mea ning fu l un i t s in toexpressive sequences. Semantics studies th e composite m e a n i n g o f those sequences.


4/32

6 The Linguistics WarsF or a n y o n e un f am i l i a r with l inguis t ics , those def ini t ions are sure to cons t i tu te astew of al ien and un dige s t ible terms. As they bec ome relevant to ou r s tory, theybecome clear . But , as a crash course, consider the sentence , "Fideau chased the

cat." Pho ne t ics con cerns the acou st ic waveform itself, the sys tema t ic disru pt ions ofair molecu les tha t oc cur w hen eve r someone u t t er s the express ion. Phonology con -cerns the elemen ts of that waveform which recognizably punctuate the son ic f lowcon sona nts , vowels, and syl lables , represen ted on this page by let ters . M orpholog yconce rns the w ords and m ea nin gfu l subwo rds cons t ruc ted out o f the phonologica le l e m e n t s t h a t Fideau is a no un , nam i ng s om e m ong re l , t h a t chase is a ve rb sig-n i fy ing a specific act ion w hich cal ls fo r both a chaser and a chasee, t h a t -ed is a s u f f i xind ica t ing past ac t ion , and so on. Sy ntax conce rns the ar rang eme nt o f those mor-phologica l e l ements in to phrases and sentencesthat chased the cat is a verbphrase, that the cat i s i t s noun phrase ( the chasee), that Fideau i s ano th e r no unphrase ( the chaser) , tha t the w hole th in g i s a sentence. Sem ant ics con cerns the prop-osi t ion expressed b y t h a t s e n t e n c e i n part icular , that it is t rue if and on l y if somem u t t n a m e d Fideau has chased some defini te cat.These d etai l s of the l ing uis t ic lan d grants are not especially impo rtan t in and ofthemselves, bey ond i l lustrat ing one of the key uses to which l ing uists put the divide-an d-co nqu er approach end em ic to sc i ence , but a trend should be very cl ear: the i rdirect ion is from s o u n d to m e a n i n g , from accessible to elus ive. W e start with theobservab leclacking tongue s , dis turbed a ir molecules , v ibrat ing e ar d r u m s a n dmove toward s ign i f i c anc emean ing , content, sense. Phonetics tel ls us such th ingsas the ampl i tude , dura t i on , and component f requenc ies of the speech signal;semantics tel ls us people use that speech signal to make assert ions abou t a dog anda cat; the i n termedia te branches char t the growth of m eani ng . W e also move, then ,despite the reservat ions of some l inguis ts , unmistakably toward thought . Indeed,meaning i s in m an y of it s uses j u s t an al ias for thought; more specif ical ly , ma ny ofits uses tag certain impor t an t subsets of t h ough t , the ones which have the most todo w i th be i ng h um an . W h en I say "I m e a n X" to y o u , I am saying t ha t "X" is inmy head an d, by way of my clacking tong ue or c lacking keyb oard, I wan t i t to en dup in yo ur head too.The even ts a t the hear t o f th i s bo ok the work of Noa m Chom sky, the sem ant i crebel l ion i t sparked, and the impact of both on modern l ingu is t ic shave every-t h i n g to do wi th tho ug h t and be ing hum an . The s tory begins wi th Chomsky 's com-pel l ing a rgum ent s th a t fun dam enta l a sp ec ts of hu m an beh av ior ( lingui s t i c c rea tiv -i ty, fo r i n s t ance , and l anguage acqui s i t ion) are inaccess ible w i thou t h is i nnov a t i ons .It develops fu r the r w h e n h is followers, pr inc ipal ly Lakoff and McCawley , ex tendth is w o r k m u c h deeper i n to the t e r r ito ry of thoug h t t h an C h om s k y i n tended . A n dit eru p ts in to open war fa re wh en Chomsky , soon abetted by the work of other fo l -lowers, most no tab ly Jackendof f , ret renches aspects of h is work to banish suchextens ions , repudia t ing the work of Lakoff, Mc Cawley, and the i r compatr iots . Howit ends , even //it end s, i s con trove rs ial , but the received view is tha t Lakoff andMcCawley were routed fo r i r ra t ional i ty and error , and that l inguis t ics is m u c h th ebet ter for thei r defeat . Perhaps . But , al though the name for thei r movement , gen-erative semantics, has becom e s om eth i ng of a snide joke in l ingu i s ti c o r thodo xy ,


5/32

Language, Thought, and the Linguistics Wars 7one of the a ims of th is book is to h e lp i t regain a bi t of i ts lost v i r tue keepin g inm i n d , h o w e v e r, that it deserves some of i ts shame; Chomsky ' s camp, some of i tsglory .

Th e e v e n t s at the hear t o f th i s book a lso have eve ry th ing to do with borde rs ; mo respecif ical ly , with bord er disputes . Th e on e s i n v o lv in g p h on e t ic s and p h o n o l o g y sawvery l i t t le act ion in the debate , b u t those among morphology, syn tax , an d s e ma n -t i c s t h e prov ince s more d i rec t ly involve d in m e a n i n g w e r e a ll flash points, an dth e closer th e te rr i tory was to the holy l and o f m e a n i n g , th e hot te r th e battles. Inext rem e , genera t ive seman t ic i st s a rgu ed tha t l anguage was one b ig shm oosh , wi thno place a t a l l for borders , eve n in principle ; soun d was a t on e en d of the l ingu is t icc o n t i n u u m , m ean ing a t the o the r , and a smal l g rou p of u n i f o r m ru le s , un tagged asto t r a d i t i on a l l inguis t ic subdiscipl ine , mapped o n e in to th e othe r . In e x t r e me ,Chomsky ' s camp, the in te rpre t ive seman t ic i s t s , were demarca t ion fetishists,r ed r aw i ng t h e i r bo rder s da i ly ; on e da y a g iv e n p h e n om e n o n wa s syn t a c ti c , t h e n e x tday morpholog ica l ; one day i t was seman t ic , th e nex t syntact ic . Each saw the o th e rs ide a s pe rve rse , and said so in g raph ic , un co m prom is ing te rms .

Such in te rna l b orde r d i spu tes are largely a mat te r of one theory aga inst ano the r ,m u c h th e same as a dispu te be tween a c lou d - l i k e su ba tomic mode l and a m i n i -so la r- sys tem mod e l , be tween f ixed co n t inen ts and dr i f t ing ones , be tween Da rwin-ian an d La m a rck ia n e v o lu t i on . Ge n e ra ti v e s e ma n t ic s wa n te d to leave th e l anguagepie pre t ty much as a wh ole , descr ibing i ts shape an d t ex tu re n on inv as ive ly . In te r -pre t ive semantics wanted to slice it into more man ageable p ieces . But as the battlebe ca me more f ierce a n o th e r border dispute arose , an extra- theore t ica l one , con-ce rn in g the def in i t ion of the ent i re field, the scope of l anguage s tudy , the a n s w e r tothe quest ion , W hat is linguistics?Every sc ience needs to rope of f those phe no me na for wh ich it can reasonablygenera te exp lana tory theor ie s . Na tu re , i t has been clear s ince at leas t Heracl i tus , isin d iz z y in g f lux , abuzz wi th co l l id ing , chao t ic , b lu r red even ts ; it is a u n iv e r s e ofi n f in i t e s ima l deta i l and immeasurab le vas tness . O ur senses hav e adapted to t h i s b yt u n i n g to on ly a t i n y r a n g e o f those even ts , th e ones mos t re levan t t o our su rv iv a land propaga t ion . W e see on ly a ce r ta in na r row ba nd of l igh t f requencies , h e a r on lya sma l l range of sou nd, smel l and tas te and feel on ly the grossest o f data.E v e r y t h i n gelse we f i lte r of f , ignore . Sciences do exact ly the same th i ng . Col lec t ive ly they hav eovercome many corporea l l imi ta t ions , augment ing our senses a s ton i sh ing ly well ,b u t they a lso m ake ev en m ore exc lus ive cho ices than o u r senses. Even in the ou t -l and i sh ly genera l schemes of some phys ic i s t s , cu r ren t ly work ing on a Theory ofE very t h i ng , o n l y the narrowes t of p h e n o m e n a w o u l d b e covered; a Theory ofE v e r y t h i n g w o u l d n o t e xp l a in , fo r in s tance , a m o t h d r a w n to a f lame, a wol f ba y in gat the moon, a physicis t wri t ing a g r a n t proposal. N o r sh ou ld i t. Science, l ike an yo th e r form of a p p re h e n d in g th e wor ld , wou ld be imposs ib le wi thou t its self-imposed l imi t s .Ch omsk y a rg u e d forceful ly tha t in l ingu is t i cs such l imi t s shou ld be drawnbe tween the knowledge of language and the u se o f l anguage . Cons ide r the dif ferencebe tween k no w ing how to p lay chess and ma king a specific m ov e. Th e f i rs t i s re la-t ive ly t idy the rook goes ho r izon ta l ly and ve r t i ca l ly , the b i shop goes d iago na l ly ,


6/32

8 The Linguistics Warsth e kn ig h t does a b u t t o n h o o k . Th e second depends o n a wel te r o f ephemera l con-d i t i o n s p a s t moves , ad versa r ia l skill, em ot ion a l s ta te , even the a m ou n t o f l igh t onth e board or the cou g h of a spectator. The f i rs t can be descr ibed comprehens ive lyby a b o d y of rules. The second can o n l y b e described broadly, and never p red ic tedwi th anyth ing approach ing ce r ta in ty by an observer . In l anguage , knowledge is rel-atively stable af ter chi ldhood acquis i tion , thou gh vocab la ry an d concep tua l knowl-edge grow and decay, wh i le use is subject to all the vicissi tudes of l i festress, dis-t rac t ion , a l te red s ta te s o f consc iousness . A speaker who know s the p ron un cia t ionof two an d martinis m igh t s t i ll c la im to h a v e had only "tee martoonies" if pu l ledover for erra t ic dr iv ing, especia l ly in a 1950s s itcom. Ch om sky and the in te rpre t iv -ists felt th e on ly way to isola te t ractable problems fo r l inguis t ics was to focus onknowledge and f i l te r off the ephem era of u se .

Genera t ive seman t ic i s t s f o u n d th is approach absu rd an d a rb i t ra ry , rega rd inga ccou n t s o f l inguis t ic knowledge to be com ple te ly ar t i f ac tua l wh en separa ted f romthe app l ica t ion o f that know ledge, i ts use ; M cCa wley ' s analo gy for the in terpre t iv is tsepara t ion of form and f u n c t i o n was to a theory of the s tomach wh ich ignored d iges-t ion . An d, o f course , however wo r thy the m etaphors , l angu age i s ne i the r chess nordigest ion . It is far messier and far less exac t than chess , fa r mo re ram if ied tha n d iges-t ion , thoug h pe rha ps no t so messy: sepa ra ting know ledge f rom use is not easy. Inex t rem e , genera t ive seman t ics sa id the re was no defen sible separa t ion . Respo ndin gappropr ia te ly to "Hot enou gh for you?" was the same for them as a ru le fo r makingsu re p ron ou n s ma tch e d th e i r a n t e ce de n t s . In ext reme , in te rpre t ive seman t ic i s t sshif ted the i r de f in i t ion s da i ly . Yes te rday 's knowledge was today 's u se; today ' s u se,tomo rrow' s know ledge . Ag a in , each s ide saw l i tt le mo re than pervers ion in the oth -er ' s methodologica l procl iv i t ies .The s tory , then , is in l arge measure abo u t ho w m u c h is too m u c h , a b o ut how b iga b i te o f language i s mo re th an l ingu i s t i c s can chew. Chomsky cha rged the gener -a t ive sema n t ic i s t s wi th g lu t ton y bey ond even M iss P iggy 's b road con s t ra in t s , o f t ry -ing to swa l low every conc e ivab le th ing w i th th e most obl ique re la t ion to l anguage .Th e r e tu rn a ccu sa t ion w as tha t in te rpre t ive seman t ic i s t s took on ly conse rva t ive ,tasteless, nu t r i t ion less l i t t le n ibb les f rom th e i m m e n s e , an d imm e n se ly ch a l le n g in g ,h u m a n p h e n o m e n o n , l a n g u a g e .The data of th i s d i spu te inc luded such th ings as sen tences an d the i r mean ings .So, for ins tance , sentences l ike la and I b were important in the germinal s tages ofthe debate ; sentences l ike 2a, in i ts dea th th roes .

1 a Ev e ryon e on Cormorant Is land speaks two langua ges .b T w o l anguages are spoken b y e v e ryon e o n Cormorant Island.2 a Spiro con jec tu res Ex-L ax.

T h e issue an d appeals s u r r o u n d i n g la a n d I b a re v e ry n a r row , highly t e ch n i ca l , a n drevo lve exc lusive ly a r o u n d th e f o rma l ma ch in e ry r e q u ir e d by th e compet ing theo-ries to e xp l a in t h e i r dif feren t impl ica t ions fo r Cormora n t I s l a n de r s : 1 a impl ie s aworld wh ere they a re a l l b i l ing ua l , bu t the l anguages they speak m igh t b e qu i tediverse ; 1 b impl ie s a wor ld where they all speak the same tw o languages ( say , Kwak-wala a n d Engl i sh) . Sen tence l a cou ld b e t rue in c i r cu ms ta n ce s wh e re I b w a s false,


7/32

Language, Thought, and the Linguistics Wars 9and vice versa . The i ssues and appea l s su r rounding 2a are very wide, re la t ive lyi n fo r m a l , and revo lve a ro un d m uc h b igger ques t ions than w hic h theory i s be tte r;t hey ask , W ha t is l anguage? an d W h a t is l inguis t ics?

By th e t ime these ques t ions su r faced , th e in te rpre t ive -gen era t ive seman t ics dif-ferences had o u t g r o w n an d exhaus ted the t e rm debate. W h a t be g a n as a comp a c t ,in -ho use d i sag reemen t ove r a s ing le hy pothes i s wi th in Ch om sky an l ingu is t ics hadm ush roo m ed in to fou nd a t ion a l p ropor t ions . Both sides saw the re levance of 1 a andI b very clear ly, and both s ides saw a resolu t ion w ith i n reach. But the years of acr i -m o n y an d dive rg ing a rgum ents be tween those sen tences and 2a had al tered the irvi s ion . In te rpre t ive sem an t ic i s t s d idn ' t even see 2a a s da ta , and regarded its i n v o -ca t ion by the other c a m p as clear an d da m n in g e v ide n ce t h e y we re n o l on g e r do in gl inguis t ics ; genera t ive sem an t ic is t s saw 2a as the c rux of an experimentum crucis,and saw it s dismissa l by the o th e r ca mp as clear an d da m n in g e viden ce t h a t t h e ywere pract ic ing a bra n d of l inguistics so sterile and navel-contempla t ive that the i rwork w as com ple te ly ho l low. Even th e political and whimsica l e lements of 2a char tth e chasm that h a d grown be tween th e e rs twhi le compan ions .

Simply p u t , th e chasm s t re tched be tween consensus an d dissensus , a l thoughthese te rm s a r e no t par t i cu la r ly s imple . Wh en la a n d I b were re levan t t o o u r story,all the arguers agreed close ly abo ut th e i r imp l ica t io ns , and a bou t wh a t sort of e n te r -prise l ingu i s t i c s sh ou ld be ; wi th 2a, there was so li t tle agree m ent tha t arguers h a rd lyappl ies . But th is p icture o nly ca tches th e grosses t imag e of the confl ic t , the shadowson the w al l . In the m id-s ixt ies , w i th the two-lang uages sentences , in terpre t ive a ndgenera t ive sema n t ic i s t s ag reed wi th o n e a n o th e r a bou t how to s tudy langu age, cer-t a i n l y , but they disagreed co l lect ive ly with the ir imm ed ia te predecessors. By themid-sevent ies , wi th Spiro ' s laxat ive conjecture , they disagreed with one another ,but now the genera t ive seman t ic i st s began to f ind poin ts o f agreemen t wi th p re -Ch om sk ya n l in g u i s t s . T h i s shi f t ing g r o u n d o f a g r e e m e n t s t h a t i s , h i s to ryformsno t on ly th e de f i n in g ba ck drop for the in terpre t ive-genera t ive semantics dispute ,but for all the whys, whats, and hows of l anguage s tudy . The issues which crystal-lized in the divergences o f Ch omsk y and h is form er disciples echo back t h r o u g h thecenturies to other controvers ies , o ther c lus ters of assent an d dissent , back to theearl iest investigations of l anguage , back to the birth of l inguistics, and science, a llof wh ich w e will get to anon.

Before we do , thou gh , Sp iro i s still on the tab le , and we shou ld c lear h im away:the n ub of 2a is tha t i t i s hopeless ly nonsen sica l in isola t ion ( the way in terpre t ivesem anticis ts a lway s preferred th e ir sentences) , but i s perfect ly fine in con text ( thew ay gen era t ive seman t ic i s t s g rew to pre fe r the i r sen tences); na me ly , as a responseto the ques t ion in 2b .2 b D oes a n y on e k n ow wh a t Pa t N ix on frosts her cakes wi th?


8/32

C H A P T E R 2

LinguisticsLingu i s t i cs , in the wides t sense , is t h a t b r an c h of s c ien c e w h ic h c on t a in s a lle m p i r i c a l i n v es t i g a ti on s c on c e r n in g l an g u ag es .

Rudolph C ar n apTo put i t br ief ly , in h u m a n s pe e ch , d i f f e r en t sou n ds h av e different mean in g s . Tos tud y t h i s co-ord ina t ion of cer t a in soun ds w i th cer t a in m ean ing s is t o s tudy lan -guage .

Leona rd Bloomfield

The Science of LanguageLingu is t i cs is , conci se ly but no t uncon t rovers ia l ly , the science of language. Therea re va r ious c i rc um locu t ions ava i l ab le , if necessa ry , bu t l anguage i s unques t ion ablythe object of s tu dy , and scientific best captures the spirit of i n v e s t i g a t i on commonto a lmos t e v e ryon e who has examined tha t ob jec t in a way tha t (current ly or ret-rospectively) fits the term, linguistic. Other approaches to studying language, andt h e re a re m a n y , g o by n a m e s l ike poetics, philology, an d rhetoric, bu t a s long as weh a v e had the word in En g l i sh , linguistics h as been associated with th e me th ods ,goals, and resul ts of sc ience.1 W h e n W i l l i a m Whewel l (who is also responsible forthe co inage , scientist) f irst proposed the term , i t wa s in his History of the InductiveSciences (1837 .1 :cx iv ; h e wa s bo r rowin g it f rom th e Germ ans , wh o, Teu tom'ca l lye n o u g h , l a te r came to p re fe r Sprachwissenschaft).U l t ima te ly , th e matter o f l inguist ics ' f i t to the category o f science (or, in t e rmsm ore be f i t ting th e charismatic power of science in th e twent ie th century, th e matterof l inguis t ics ' me ri t for the status of science) is a pre t ty t r iv ia l one . C learly there arecompel l ing reasons for l inguis ts to emula te workers in discipl ines l ike physics ,ch e mis t ry , and bio logy the prototypica l sciences . Physicis ts , che mists , and biol-og is ts h a v e be en imm e n se ly successful , producing vast quant i t ies of resu l ts aboutt h e n a tu ra l wor ld .There are also some s tr ik ing para l le ls be tween l inguis t ics an d these other sci-ences , and the s tronger those para l le ls a r e t h e closer l ingu istics is to these pursui ts

10


9/32

Linguistics 11in methods , goal s, and re su l t s the more conf iden ce we have in g iv ing i t the l abe l,science.

But , mo re cru cia l ly , each in te l lectua l domain requires a certa in m easure o f integ-r i ty , an d there a re equa l ly com pe l l ing reasons not to emula te these f ie lds too closelyor too b l i n d ly . Th e objec t und er inves t iga t ion mu s t b e al lowed to gu ide th e ana lys i s ,and a syl lable is not a q u a rk . A m e a n i n g is not a mo le cu l e . A sentence is not a l iver.N or does l ing uis t ics need the nomina l b le ss ing of science. It is some sort o f sys-temat ic , t ru th -seek in g , knowledge-m aking en terpri se, and as long as i t br ings hom eth e ep is temic bacon b y t u r n i n g u p resu l ts about language, th e label isn ' t terriblyimp or t a n t . E tymo log y i s he lp fu l in this regard: science i s a descendant of a Lat inword for know ledge, and i t i s on ly the know ledge tha t matters .H av in g said a ll tha t , ho wever , the re is certa in ly a range o f methods, goals , an dresul ts tha t p laces such pu rsui ts as l i te rary cr i t ic ism, ph i losophy , an d history a t oneend o f a c o n t i n u u m of know ledge -makin g pursu i t s ; phys ics, chemis t ry , an d biologyat the other . F or lack of a be t te r t e rm, we c an call the crit icism an d phi losophy en dhumanities. F o r lack of a bet ter term, we c an call th e physics and chemis t ry en dsciences. A n d de f in ing l inguis t ics as "the science o f language" ac knowledges tha t itfalls much c lose r to the physics e n d th a n th e cri t ic ism end. Its methods, goals , an dres i l i en t re su l t s come from a long t rad i t ion o f t rea t ing l anguage as a n a tu ra lo b j e c t s o m e t i m e s a socia l object , sometimes a menta l ob jec t , somet imes bo th ,b u t a lwa ys a s some th in g w h ich cou ld b e observed, l ike th e stars and the rocks, an dsometimes poked, l ike th e a n ima l s and the plants.Sound and Meaning

Sp eec h i s m ean i n g an incorporea l th ingexpressed in sounds , which aremater ia l t h ings .Ernst Cass i rer

A l t h o u g h the form al s tudy o f l anguage dates a t l east back to the Akka dian s , andthe re was su re ly campf i re l ingu is t i csFred and Barney mus t have had some wayof t a l k i n g about t a lk ing , o r wha t they w ere us ing wou ld n ' t have been l anguagethe win ds of t ime have erased a l l but a very few vestiges of pre-H el len ic work. Wec a n start w ith the Stoics , wh o, am on g the ir other act iv i t ies , sys tem atica l ly inves t i -ga ted language as an object in the na tu ra l wo r ld . They were ph i losophers , an d rhe t -or icians , and pol i t ica l scient is ts , and proverb ia l tough -gu y fa ta l is ts , bu t the y werea lso l ing uis ts .

Lingui s t s qua l inguis ts a re in teres ted in language in and of itself, the w ay a phys-icist is interested in matter, or a biologist in l ife. This statem ent, as simple as it is ,ac tua l ly conf l ic ts with the s ta ted goals of a grea t m an y l inguis ts , inc lud ing severa lwho take center s tage in our s tory . Noam Chomsky, in particular, says f la t ly andof ten t h a t he has very l i t t le concern fo r l anguage i n and o f itself; never has , neverwill . His driv in g conce rn is wi th m enta l s t ruc ture , and lang uage is the most reveal-in g tool he has fo r getting at the m i n d . M o s t l inguis ts these days fol low Cho msky 'slead here. The subti t le of George LakofFs major book , fo r ins tance , is What Cate-gories Reveal about th e Mind, and Ray Jackendof f , w ho works in a department o f


10/32

12 The Linguistics Warscogni t ive sc ience, has one ent i t led Semantics and Cognition; in general , l inguis tsregard their discipl ine now as a branch of psycho logy . For most of th i s cen tury ,though, l inguis ts h ad qui te dif feren t allegiances, seeing their discipl ine as a b ranc hof cu l tu ra l a n thropo logy . Ea r li e r y e t m an y l ingu i s t s h ad f rankly theological goalshistorical l inguis ts in the n i ne t een t h c en t u ry w ere after the one "pure"A d am i c lan -guage , spoken f rom Eden to the collapse of the Nimrod's tower , and the Medieva lModistae used l anguage to map the hidden s t ruc tures of creation.

Bu t , of course , s c i en t i s t s a lmos t a lway s ho ld d i s tan t goa l s whi l e they w ork onm o re i m m ed i a t e data an d theor ies , especial ly re l ig ious goals . Astrop hy s ic is ts l ikeKepler a n d N ew t o n a n d E i ns t e i n w ere t r y i ng to u n c o v e r th e w o r k i n g s of Go d inna t u r e , as are more recen t phys ic i s t s wi th much di f fe rent no t i o ns of God a n dna ture , l ike Capra a n d Z u k a v ; e v en th e ch urch ' s b iggest bogey m e n G a l il eo a n dD a r w i n p o r tr a y e d the i r r esearch as b ranches o f na tu ra l theo logy , r evea l ing th esub t l e ty an d b e a u t y o f God's hand iwork . Quas i - secu la r mot ives a re a l so popularwith sc ient i s ts , par t icular ly in th i s ce n tury , l ike h igh -ene rgy phys ic i s t s looking fo rth e b e g i n n i n g o f t i m e or the t in ies t b i ts o f m at t e r , o r m olec u la r b io log i st s loo kingfor the secret of l ife. W hatev er the i r u l t ima te mot ives , thou gh , phys ic is t s look a tmat ter , b io logis ts look at orga nisms, geologists look a t rocks . That is w here t hey gofo r t h e i r data, wh at they seek to ex pla in wi th the i r theor i es . L ingu i s t s look a t l an-g u a g e . That is w h e r e t h e y go f o r the i r da ta , what they seek to expla in wi th the i rtheor i es .The m o s t f r equen t ly i n v o k e d de f in i t ion of linguistics, a vers ion of w h i c h b eg in sth i s s ec t ion , ca l ls lang uag e a p a t h r u n n i n g f rom s o und to m e a n i n g , a n d cal ls l in-guis t ics th e explo ra t ion of that path. T h e Stoics were the f i rs t to f o rm a l i ze the twoe n d po i n t s o f th i s pa th , "d i s t ingu i sh ing be tween 'the s ignif ier ' a n d 'the s ign i f i ed ' "( R o b i n s , 1967:16) , a n u t te r l y f u n d a m e n t a l i n s i g h t , the f i r s t pr inc ip le o f l inguis t ics .Th e scientif ic approach to l anguage h a s u n i f o r m l y p ro v e d m o r e v a l u a b l e fo r ex p l o r -in g the sonic s ide of the spl i t ( the signifier) , i n c l ud i ng t he a rr angem en t o f s o und sin to words and sen tences . The meaning s ide o f the d iv ide ( the signified) h asr e m a i n e d s h r o u d e d in specu la t ion , a n d m a n y of the m o s t s ub s t an t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o nsh a v e c o m e f rom phi losophers , b u t l ingu i s ts hav e a lways f o u n d th e prospect o f get-t ing a t the signif ieds very co mp el l ing. T he Sto ics we re a lso the f i rs t to ident i fy dis-t i n c t a r eas w i t h i n the s t ud y o f s ign i f i ca t ion phone t i c s , m o rpho l o gy , and s y n t ax .

These were majo r advances , es tab l i sh ing th e pa ram e t e r s of l inguis t ics as ana u t o n o m o u s p u r s u i t , and the key to these advances w as clearly th e s a m e as the keyto Greek advances in c o s m o l o gy an d me cha nics : abs t rac tion . Langu age is so i n t i -m a t e l y tied to consc iousness , r eason , an d b e in g h u m a n , that i t is diff icult fo r m a n yt h i n k e r s to detach themse lves to the po i n t w he re t hey c an look at i t in genera l r a thert h a n specific t e rms . But the Stoics f lour ished a t a t i m e w hen c o n t ac t s b e t w eenGreek speakers and non-Greeks were on the rise; indeed, the head Stoic's (Zeno)first l anguage was Semitic. This exposure fo rced the Stoics to real ize that there wasno t h i ng i nhe r en t to the s o u n d of a word or the pat te rn of a sen tence which carriedthe m ean i ng . The re is no t h i ng i nhe r en t in the sound ofchien, or Hund, or dog, thatevokes a l oya l , bark ing qua druped ; ra ther , as the Stoics found, the l inks betweens ignif ier an d signif ied are the product o f c o n ven t i o n , c o ns ens us, a n d r ea s o n .T h e Stoics a lso par t ic ipated in an i m po r t an t c o n t ro ve r sy ab o u t l anguage , w h i c h


11/32

Linguistics 13h i s to r i a n s tag with the words analogy and anomaly. The analogis ts saw l anguage int e r m s of order and regu la r i ty ; the a n oma l i s t s saw i t as far more hapha zard , pa r t ic -u la r ly in the d o m a i n o f m e a n i n g . Th e par t i c ipan ts in the deba te did no t cut the pieth i s c lean ly , and the i s sues were no t even de l inea ted ve ry p rec ise ly un t i l V arro reex-a m in e d th e m in t h e f ir s t c e n tu ry B . C . His tory has no t t rea ted th i s d i spu te wi th mu chs y m p a t h y , and i t is easy to see w hy . "The bu siness of science," as Russe l l tells u s,"is to f ind u n i f o r m i t i e s " ( 1 9 6 7 [1912] :35) , so the posi t ion t h a t l a n g u a g e is f u n da -m ent a l l y haphazard i s t an tam ou n t to aban don ing sc ience . I f o rde r is i l lusory orsuper f ic ia l , the re is no p o i n t in look ing fo r p a t t e r n s i n sys temat iz ing , or classify-ing , or abs t rac ting . Inde ed , abs t rac t ion i s un th i nk ab le in a wor ld of to ta l ly u n i qu eobjec ts ; mo re imp or tan t ly , such a w or ld i s i tse lf un th inka ble , s ince our br a ins a ref u n d a m e n t a l l y pat tern de tectors .

Th e Sto ics , cu r ious ly enou gh , were p re t ty m uc h in the a n om a l is t c a mp . But theposi t ions were ne i ther r ig id n o r abso lu tera the r , they were " two a t t i tudes to l an -guage , each in i tse l f reasonably jus t i f ied b y part of the evidence" (Rob in s ,1 9 6 7 :1 9 ) and th e Stoics were reac t ing to analogis ts w ho over-ge nera l ized, ignoredda t a , and a t t em p ted t o prescr ibe usage. Th e Stoics w ere empir ica l , w i th a hea l thyrespec t fo r the com plex i ty o f l anguage an i m p o r t a n t corne rs tone of the i ra dv a n ce s w as re ject ing th e s imple equa t ion of one word wi th o n e mean ing . Theywere also less co nce rned th an the analogis ts w i th issues of l ingu is t ic "purity," an dco r re sp on d in g ly m ore to l e r a n t of dia lecta l var ia t ion . The dispu te subsided with th ediscovery of more regular i t ies in language, such as the cr i t ica l d is t inct ion be tweenin f lec t ional m orph em es and the seman t ica l ly heav ie r , mo re id iosync ra t ic , de r iva -t i o na l mo rphem es, and with the gene ra l neglect of m ean ing. In short , i t was se t tled,qu ie t l y , in f avor of the ana log is t s , tho ug h i t has flared u p cons i s ten t ly in v i r tua l lyevery othe r d iv is ion al debate in l inguis t ics , and i t p lays an especia l ly cr i t ica l role inth e gene ra t ive - in te rpre t ive sch ism, whe n o n e camp became con su me d wi th se ma n -t i c ques t ions an d p u rsu e d l a n g u a g e deep in to i rregular i ty an d chaos whi le th e o th e rs tayed safely n e a r th e su r f a ce .

A cruc ia l t e r m f o r m a l h a s sn uc k in to the discuss ion in sev era l p laces , and i ts ignals the las t cri teria! lesson we need to take from the Greeks . Formal has a nas tyr ing abo u t i t fo r some l ingu i s t s (mos t ly l ingu is t s opposed t o Ch om sk y ' s p rog ra m,tho ug h o the rs a t tack h im for no t be ing f o r m a l eno ug h) , bu t i t is abso lu te ly essent ia lto l inguis t ics , as i t i s to any sc ience , and m eans no th ing m ore th an codified abstrac-t i o n . F or ins tance , /s t r / is a represen ta t ion of an abstract sound s tr ing , an ins tanceo f w h i c h occurs in the p r o n u n c i a t i o n of string. String is an express ion in the f o r m a lsystem of Engl i sh or thography . "NP + VP" is a forma l express ion wh ich represen tsthe syn tac t i c s t ruc tu re o f the p rev ious sen tence ( s ince i t con ta ins a Noun Phrasefol lowed b y a Verb Phrase ) . And so on . The Greeks explored the abstract codif i-ca t ion o f l anguage , adap t ing th e Ph on e c i a n a lp h abe t an d u s in g it to ca rve up there la t ive ly co n t in uo us ac ous t i c wav eform s of speech in to d i scre te sen tences , phrases ,words , morp h e me s , a n d p h o n e m e s .The Greeks s tayed pre t ty close to the sonic (and graph ic) aspects of l anguage , asd id the i r Rom an and ea r ly Medieva l g ramm at ica l descendan ts , bu t the s tudy oflanguage vee red sha rp ly off t owa rd more obscu re mat ters wh en c la ssical g ram m armet up wi th the un ique brand of Ar i s to te l i an though t in the h igh Middle Ages


12/32

14 The Linguistics Warsk n o w n as Scholasticism. In mo dern t e rms, the resu l t ing syn thes i s i s probab ly c loserto one o f the hu m an i t ies , ph i los oph y , than to na tura l sc ience , bu t in the t e rms o fthe per iod the M odistae w ere r igorou sly sc ient i f ic , and, a lso l ike phi lo sop hy , hads ignif icant t ies to a for m al science, logic . Th ey g o t t he i r nam e from a col lec t ion ofrepresen ta t ive w r i t ing s en t i tl ed D e Modis Significandi, and significance w as t he i rd e f i n in g c o nc e r n , b u t t hey w ere more genera l ly in te res t ed in the t h r ead s weav inga m o n g modi essendi ( the ways th in gs a re), modi intellegendi ( the way s w e conce ivet h e m ) , and the t i tu la r modi signiftcandi ( the way s we express them): in shor t, a m on greal i ty , t h o u g h t , a n d l anguage ."No idea is o lder in the his tory of lingu ist ics ," Pieter Seu ren writes , "than thet h o u g h t t ha t there is , so meho w h id d en und e r nea t h th e surface of sentences, a formor a s t ruc ture w hich provides a semant ic analysis an d lays bare their logical struc-ture" ( 197 3 [1971]:528) ; with the M odist ae , this t hought became the d r iv ing con-cern. Modistic gram m ar is best characterized by the systemat ic extens ion of form allogic to the s t ud y of l anguage , and by the adopt ion of Aristo tle 's preoc cu pat ion fo rcau sat ion . In a mood swing typica l of most in te l lec tua l pursui t s , the M odistaej u m p e d a ll ove r the ir predecessors for no t looking deeply en oug h in to causes , wi thsett l ing fo r m e r e t a x o n o m y w h e n e x p l a n a ti o n w as requ i red .The genera l explan a t ion to wh ich the i r r ig id deduc t ive methodo logy led s t rikesm o d e r n s a s s o m e w h a t m y s t i c a l t h a t t he re i s a un ive r sa l g r amm ar u nd e r ly ing l an -guage w h i c h i s "dependant on the s t ruc ture of real i ty" (Bursi l l -Hall , 197 1 :3 5) bu tit is the c o nsequenc es of t h i s pos i tion tha t a re re levan t . Th e M odis tae were far m o r econce rned w i th abs t rac ting gen era l pr inc ip les of l anguage t han th e anc ien t s (whot end ed to look fo r genera l pr inc ip les of ind iv id ua l l anguag es , par t icu la r ly Greek).Rog e r Bacon, fo r ins t ance , sa id tha t there were prob lems specific to a g iven l an -guage , and prob lem s co m m on to a l l l anguages , and on ly the la t te r were o f scientificin t e res t. As a na tura l ex tens ion o f th i s approach , th ey came to the pos i tion tha t a lll anguages were in essence the sam e, and "that sur face differences be tween them aremere ly acc iden ta l var ia t ions" (Ro bin s , 1967:77) , a posi t ion w e will see aga in . In thes t andard def in i t i ona l sc hema of the f ie ld, wh ich sees lingu ist ics as the invest igat ionof l i nks be tween th e signifier and the signif ied, th e Modistae were a grea t dea l mo reinterested in the l inks a t the signified end o f the cha in th an in the acc iden ta l var i -a t i o ns of the s ignif iers . Indeed , they ru led a ll ma t t e rs d i r ec tl y c o n c e r n ing so undcomple te ly out o f the rea lm of g ramm at ica l s tudy .The scholastics were the v ic t ims of a ra ther v io le nt mo od swing t hemse lves . Theywere d r iven f rom th e in te l lec tual scene by th e inc reased concern fo r empir icalresearch and m athema t ica l mo del ing tha t ma rks the beg inn ings o f mod ern sc ience,and the w o r k of the Modis tae w as largely forgo t ten. Jespersen 's s urve y of l inguis t ichis tory , fo r instance, d ismisses th e en t i r e Midd le Ages in two sen tences (1922:21) ,and M odis t ic g ram m ar h ad v ery l it tl e d i rec t i n f l u e n c e on m ode rn l inguist ics , as idef rom so me t e r mino lo g ic a l r emnan t s . But i ts indirec t in f luence is substant ia l :C h o m s k y studied th e Modistae a s a y o u n g m a n , and i t shows. M odist ic g ram m aralso had an impac t o n Rena issance phi losophers o f lang uag e, especial ly the Port-R o y a l schoo l that Cho m sky has w ar mly ac kno wled ged a s an i n te l le c tua l f o r e r unne rof his p r o g r a m .Th e next cr i t ical step in the history o f l inguist ics , and t he o ne gene r a l ly t aken to


13/32

Linguistics 1 5m ark th e emergence o f " m o d e r n l inguist ics" comes with th e fam ous ch ief jus t iceof Bengal , Wil l iam Jones , in his 1786 Thi rd A n n u al Discourse to the Royal Asiat icSociety, in which he suggested that Sanskri t , Latin, and Greek were al l the descen-d a n t s o f "some com mon source, which , perhaps , no long er exists ," and that Gothican d Celt ic m igh t ha ve sim ilar roots. There h ad al ready been su bstant ial work do neon Sanskri t ; there h ad been deba te ab ou t c lass if icat ion, genet ic relations , an d h yp o-thet ical sources , and the proposal of a comm on source for Sanskri t , La t in, andGreek had even been advanced . But Jones 's paper is a convenient crys tal l izat ionfo r his tor ical purposes , because i t draws al l these thread s in to a su ccinc t discu ss ion;it was even com mon place for qui te some t ime to view Jones 's paper as the div idin gpoint be tween the pre-scientif ic and scientific periods of l anguage s tudy.2 Th e w orkwh ich came to a head in Jones ' s address rapidly harden ed into th e parad igm know nas comparative linguistics.Th e compara t ive method w as ext reme ly s imple , though i ts resul ts f requent lydepend ed on s taggering di ligenc e and an as ton ishing breadth of know ledg e. L in-guists just looked closely fo r packages of sound and m e a n i n g in one l anguage whichwere s imi lar to packages o f sound and me anin g in an other l anguag e and workedout ex pla na tion s for the similari t ies. The process is exa ctly paral lel to that of otherobserv at ional sciences , l ike as t ronom y an d paleontology; indeed, Kiparsky (1974)calls i ts pra ct i t ione rs paleogrammarians.

In some cases , the explanat ion of s imi lar i ty the comparat iv is ts came up withmigh t be tha t a word was adopted by ne ighb oring langu age groups, in other casesthe correspondences could only be explained as coincidences , but i t became veryclear that m an y of the Europe an and West Asian langu ages were "rela ted," descen-dan t s of the same parent . Th e mos t famous demons t ra t ion o f these relat ions isG r i m m ' s l aw (which , howe ver , Jacob Grim m simply cal led a "sound shi f t ," not alaw, and which Rasmus Rask had observed before h im), accou nt ing for the paral lelsamong, for ins tance, Lat in pater, G erm an Vater, and Engl i sh father, and am ongLat in piscis, G e r m a n Fisch, and Engl ishes/*. The b e a u t y o f G r i m m ' s law is tha t itvery ne at ly ident i f ied a m ajor b ranch of the Indo-European family tree, the Ger-m an i c l anguages, by way of a few simple ar t iculatory similarit ies (such as the facttha t bo th p and/are prono un ced us ing the l ips) , and wi th in a few inten se decades ,s imi la r i ns igh t s had es tab l ished the p resent c onf igura t ion of the Indo-Europeanf ami ly as a hard scientific factsol id ly a m o n g the chief intel lectual accompl ish-me nts o f the n ine teenth century .The com parat iv is t resul ts hav e withs tood the corros ive passage of t ime rem ark-ably well, but the comparat iv is ts themselves were v iciously at tacked by the self-styled neo gram mar ians toward the end of the century , in a power shift t h a t m anyl inguis ts regard as a "false r e v o l u t i o n " i n fact, as the prototypical false r ev o l u t i on ,all heat , no l i g h t b u t which is best regarded as a demi- revolu t ion. It affected theda ta and the scope of the f ie ld substant ial ly . The neogram mar ians ( the mos t fam ou sbe ing Kar l Brugm ann an d He rma nn Paul ) a t tended more widely to con t em p ora ryl anguages and dialects as valua ble in thei r own r ights , where the com parat iv is ts ha dfocused largely on dead l anguages , look ing to contemporary l anguages p r imar i lyfor the l ight they could th row on the past. This shift also affected the goals and argu-m en t l ines o f l inguistics, b y turn ing toward psychological ques t ions an d genera t ing


14/32

1 6 The Linguistics Warsnew classes of war r an t s an d appeals. Th e n e o g r a m m a r i a n s , fo r instance, looked forlaws ra ther th an regular i t ies , and banned speculat ion on nonver i f i ab l e mat te r s , l iketh e or ig ins of l anguage . They fanc ied them se lves m uc h l ike phys ic i s ts ; th e c o mpar -at ivis t s ' favor i te analog y was to natural is t s . W hat this shift did no t alter in any in t e r -es t ing way was the b u l w a r k of com parat iv e l ing uist ics ' great success, its met ho d -o l o g y t h e neo g r ammar i an c o d i f i c a t io ns of scientific principles "were largelyd r a w i n g o u t w h a t h a d b een impl i ed b y [ the compara t iv i s t s ' work]" (Robins ,1 9 6 7 : 1 8 7 ) a n d i t had no effect on compara t iv i s t s ' resul t s , except perhaps tos t reng then some of t h e m . The o ther r ev o lu t ion ary shoe fell wi t h F e r d inand de Saus-s u re 's m o n u m e n t a l Course in General Linguistics (1966 [1915]) , wh ich in i t ia t edth e l i ngu i s t ic s tr a in c o m mo n ly kn o w n as structuralism (and wh ic h , i nc id en t a l l y , isano ther po in t tha t marks , some say , th e b e g i n n i n g of m o d e r n , scient if ic l inguist ics;jus t as the m iddle c lass is a lw ay s r is ing, l ingu ist ics is a lways becom ing a sc ience) .S t r uc t u r a l i sm

The f irs t th ing th at strikes us when we s tudy th e facts of language is tha t the i rsuccession in t im e does not exist insofar as the speaker is concerned. He is c o n -fronted with a state.F e r d i n a n d d e Saussure

Saussure ' s i n f l u e n c e w as vas t , b u t som ewh at ind i rec t , s ince h is Course is a post-h u m o u s r e c o n st ru c t io n of some of h is la te lec tures by two of h is col leagues (Char lesBally an d Alber t Sechehaye , in col laborat ion with on e o f Saussure ' s bet ter note-t a k in g s tuden t s , Albe r t Ried l inge r ) . For the purposes o f our G rand Pr ix r ev iew ofl inguis t ic h i s to r y , t ho ug h , w e need to cons ider on ly two o f Saussure ' s most ramif iedconc eptua l impac t s , both ideal izat ion s w hic h help to iso la te the ob ject of l inguist ics .

Before Saussure , many people ca red pass iona te ly about th e object of l inguis-t ic s l a n g u a g e b u t n o o n e w a s pa r t i c u l a r ly c o nc e r ned ab o u t de f in ing i t in a rig-o r o us way . L anguage was j u s t t ha t t h ing t ha t happened wh en y o u o pened y o u rm ou th a t t he t ab le , squeezed a few no ises ou t o f yo u r voca l chords , and induce dSocra tes there by to pass the sal t . Th e Stoics w an ted to see w h a t its bits an d piecesw e r e s o u n d s , mo rphem es , words . The Modis t ae took som e o f these d iscover ies(and ignored o ther s), a long w i th man y o f t he i r o wn , an d sifted t h r o u g h t h e m for thes t ruc ture o f r ea l i ty (o r, what w as the same, the m ind o f God) . The c om para t iv i s t sadded t im e, hug e s t re tches of t ime, to l ingu ist ics , t ry i ng to reel i t back to the s tar tingpo in t . And a l l o f them had some background no t ion o f what language " rea l lyw a s " t h e A d a m i c to n g u e , o f which on ly degenera te sc raps remained ; th e b lue -pr in t of the un ive r se ; or, for the deeply chau vin is t ic Greeks , Greek. B u t t hey wer en 'tespecially c o nc e r ned w i th de f in ing the per fec t ly obv ious , l angu age . Saussure was .He was so c o nc e r ned t ha t he felt almost paralyzed in the face of the neo g r am-m a r i a n c o n t i n u a t i o n of th is d isregard , te l l ing one of h i s f r iend s t ha t h e couldn ' twri t e a n y t h i n g o n language b ec ause no one in the f ie ld kne w what they w ere do ing .First h e left Leipzig, th e cen te r of the n e o g r a m m a r i a n u n i v e r se , for a cha i r in Paris;t h e n h e left Paris, still to o close to the misgu ided ma ins t ream , for the re la t ive obscu-ri ty of Gene va; the n , befo re he d ied , he des t royed m ost o f the lec ture no tes a r t i cu -


15/32

Linguistics 17la t ing his no t ions o f langua ge and language s tudy . But , teaching a general course inthe l inguis t ic ou tback of G enev a , he was free of supposi t ional con straints , and rede-f i ned the f i e l d .

The f i rs t idea l izat ion to th is end was to separate l anguage from the weight of thecen tur ies the co mpa rat iv is ts had laid on i t , a weight which pressed he avi ly on l in-guists but was wh ol ly un no t iced by speakers in thei r dai ly t rade of me a n in g s . Saus-sure di s t ingui she d sharp ly be tween diachron ic l inguis t ics an d s ynch ron i c l inguis-tics. Diachronic l i te ra l ly me an s across-time, and i t descr ibes any wo rk which ma psthe shif ts and fracture s and m uta t ion s o f languag es over the cen tur ies . In gross out-l i ne , it is s imi lar to evolut ionary biology, which maps the shifts and f rac tures andm u ta t i ons of species over t ime , and to geology, which maps the shifts and t rans for -m a t i o n s of rocks. Synchronic l i teral ly mean s with-time, t h ough e tym ol ogy is mis-leading h ere, s ince Saussure 's term describes an atempo ral l inguis t ics , l inguis t icswh ich proceeds wi tho ut t ime, which abs t racts away from the effects of the ages ands tud ies l anguage at a g i v en , frozen m o m e n t . Tw o other words he used in thisregard evolutionary an d static l ingu is t ic shelp make the d is tinct ion c learer , bu tt h e y also draw a t t ent ion to the pecul i ar ity o f s tudy ing l anguage as i f t ime d idn ' tmat ter .Static l inguis t ics i s a p ret ty baffl ing not ion , to w hich there are no clear analogiesin othe r n atu ral sciences . Ecological biology is s imi lar , in t h a t it looks at the inter-ac t io ns of species a t a g iven time, wi thou t too much regard for the selective pres-sures t h a t gave ri se to the m, and so i s chem ist ry, in that i t looks at the interact ionsof chem icals , i r respect ive of the i r h is tory, but both of these sciences have defini tetemporal dimensions . The closes t analogies , in fact, are to formal sciences, l ikemost branches of mathemat ics and logic; t r iangles and exis tent ial quant i f iers areou ts ide of t ime. But how can langu age, an inescapably empirical phe no me no n, bethe object of a fo rm al science? How can a word be l ike a t riangle? The ans wers areas problem at ic as the que st ions , and we will see a good deal of th is i ssue before weare th ro ug h , but whatever the in-pr inciple com pl icat ion s are, in pract ice Sau ssure 'sd is t inc t ion i s very workable . In practice, synchronic means someth ing l ike "withina genera t ion ," s ince it is only t h rough the i n n o v a t i o n s an d m i s under s t and i ngs ofsons an d daugh ters , grandsons an d granddaugh ters , tha t l anguages change, a n dSaussure asked h is s t uden t s for a though t -exper iment to ma ke th is point . "Imaginean i solated individual l iv ing for several centur ies," he asks. "W e would probablynot ice no change; t ime would no t in f luen ce l anguage" (1966 [1916]:78) .3Synchronic and diachronic, t h e n , refer not to aspects of langu age so m uc h as per-spectives on langu age.The key term in Saussu re 's thou gh t expe r iment i s c lear ly isolated. Even an age-less s p eak erDi ck Clark, for ins tan ce has to chang e his speech to keep up wi ththe gen era t ional t ide . T h a t i s , langu age i s a social prod uct , wh ich br ings us to Saus-sure 's second ideal ization, an other sharp divis ion, th is on e between l anguage whe nit i s put to use, haw kin g records on televis ion, and the sys tem that m akes ha wkin gpossible. The first , language in use, Saussure cal led parole; the second, the systemb e h i n d l anguage use , he cal led langue. The difference is rough l y the one betweenthe ord ina ry par l ance t e rms , speech an d language, word s which are pre t ty loose inthei r ow n r ight , but wh ich are, respect ively, still the two bes t Engl ish t rans lat ion s


16/32

18 The Linguistics Warsfor Saussure ' s te rms; speech i s m ore closely associa ted with ta lk ing and l is ten ing ,language w i t h th e pr inc ip les an d ru l e s wh i ch ma k e the trade of mea n ings possib lewhen we ta lk and l is ten . More abstract ly , we might ident i fy Saussure ' s te rms,respect ively , wi th be h a v io r a n d g ra m ma r . Parole is verbal activity: speaking, writ-ing, l i s ten ing , read ing . Langue is the background sys tem tha t m akes l ingu is t i cbeh av ior possib le .The scienti f ic approach to l anguage means , in la rge measure , taking i t to be ana tu ra l ob jec t , som eth ing wh ich ex is t s in na tu re , and th i s no t ion c lea rly li es in backof Sau ssure 's t h i n k i n g i n th e Course langu age on a few occasions is even ca l led a"concrete objec t , " though the re is n o th in g con c re te about i t at all. Th e most con-crete aspects o f l anguageac o us t i c dis tu rbances in the a ir or characters on thep a g e a r e o n l y reflexes, v i r tua l ly acc iden ta l . Cer ta in ly the danc ing a i r molecu les,the ink and the page , a re no t w ha t we mean wh en we ta lk abou t l anguage . I t i s thepa t te rns in the a ir and on the page, and the n e twork of re la t ions which l ink thosepa t te rns to ac t ions a n d beliefs. T h e pa t te rns a n d the i r ne tw ork con st i tu te Saussure 'slangue. Parole is largely a fi l ter for his approach , to screen out the variable , vulner-ab le , ephem era l ec hoes of those pat terns . Parole ' is, he says, outside th e scope andcapa bi l i t ies of l ingu is t ics . Saussurean l inguis t ics s tudies the sys tem , the ru les of theg a me , not the i n d iv idu a l mov e s of a specific contest. (Chess, by the w a y , was a favor -i te Saussu rean ana logy fo r language.)

Th ere are , it i s easy to see , som e d au nt i ng com plica t ions to th is s tyle of reaso ning .T h e da ta mus t come f rom parole, f rom people open ing the i r mou ths a n d b lu r t i n go u t s ignif icant sounds , but the theor ie s conc e rn langue, th e system that l inks thoses ignif iers to signif ieds. More t roublesome, the signifiers are publ ic i tems, sensibleon l y i n con ce rt w i th a n o t i on o f co m m u n i ty ; t h e signifieds are priva te i tem s, sen-sible o n l y in concer t wi th a n o t ion of i n d iv idu a l cog n i ti on . L a n g u a g e is a "socialproduct deposited in the bra in of each individual" (Saussure , 1966 [1916]:23) . Toth e e x te n t that l anguage is a natura l object , then , there a re on ly tw o conce ivab leloca t ions for i t to re side in na tu re , bo th of them necessa ry bu t b o th of them verya m o r p h o u s an d poorly unders tood themselves , socie ty an d mind. Th is s i tua t ionm akes l ingu is t i cs a ve ry Janu s l ike p rofess ion , on e head fac ing t owa rd a n th rop o log yan d soc io logy , th e othe r toward psychology. (Saussu re 's thou gh t , in fact, a ccom-moda te s bo th h e a ds , but he was s t ron g ly i n f l u e n c e d b y D u r k h e i m , and h is over-w h e l m i n g t ende ncy i s to face toward soc io logy . )Lingu is t i c theory in Saussu re 's m o d e t h a t is , s t r uc t u r a l i smc har t s the sys temu n d e r l y i n g speech, not speech itself. This sys tem, best kn ow n in l inguis t ic c i rcles asgrammar, n ow takes center s tage .

Sapir, and, Especially, BloomfieldV e r y r o u g h l y , the f i rs t h a l f of the t w en t i e t h c en t u r y saw the fo l lo wing ma j o r t h e -ore t ica l deve lopment s in [ l inguis t ics] : (1) th e c on f lu en c e , w i th a ll appropriatet u r b u l e n c e , of the two re la t ive ly indepe nden t n ine t een th cen tu ry t rad i t ions , t heh i s t o r i c a l - c omp ar a t i v e an d t h e ph i losoph ica l -descr ip t ive , th e pract ical descr ip-ti v ism of miss ionar ies and an th ropolog is t s comin g in as an im por t an t t r ibu tary .(2 ) ser ious effor ts b y Saussu re, Sapir, a nd espec ia l ly Bloom f ie ld , n o t o n l y to in t e -


17/32

Linguistics 19grate th e posit ive f indings of these t radi t ions into a single discipline but, evenm o r e , to es tabl i sh that d isc ipl ine as a respectable branch o f science with theproper degree o f a u t o n o m y f rom other branches . (3) The discovery and devel -o p m e n t of the pho n e mi c p r i nc i p le .

Charles Hocke t tIn N or th A m er i ca , w h ere ou r story now takes u s, s t ruc tura l i sm took very firm rootin the twe nt i es and th ir ti es , and cont inue s to f lour i sh ( thoug h the word , structur-alism, is ac tua l ly in some disrepute) .4 But i t was a h om e- grow n s t ruc tu r a l is m . A sh ap p ens so often a t cr it ica l jun c tu res in the his tory of science, s t ructu ral i sm was inth e air. It was,h ind s igh t reveals , i nc ip ient in the n e o g r a m m a r i a n m o v e s to i n t ro-duc e r igor and sys temat i c i ty in to co mpa ra t iv i s t approaches , but several impor tan tth read s are a l so no t i ceab le in a n um be r of inde pend ent scholars in par t i cu lar , i nth e l i ngu i s t i c work o f th ree g u ys nam e d W i ll : th e phi losopher , W i lhe lm v o n H u m -boldt ; the psychologi s t, W i lhe lm Wu nd t ; and the on ly Am er ican in the group , in-guis t W i l li a m D w ig h t W h i tn e y . H u m b o l d t was one of the few n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r yscholars of l a n g u a g e no t pr imar i ly concerned with its historical aspects, and he was(in a way tha t par t ial ly recal l s the Modis tae) fa r mo re interes ted in the general prop-ert ies of l a n g u a g e , its sys tem, tha n h is con t em p ora r i e s . W und t , who was s t ronglyin f luenced b y H u m b o l d t , w o v e l inguis t ic interests into h is Volkerpsychologierough ly , "cul tura l psy c ho logy " and volkerpsychologische interests into h is lin-guis t ics . Whi tney, who was t r a i ned am ong the G erm an neogrammar ians , also hada solid concern for the social-psychological dimensions of l anguage, and, mostimportant ly, argued for a m o r e systematic and i ndependent approach to l anguage(Bloomfield credits h im with helping to banish the "myst ic vagueness an d haphaz-ard theory" of ear li e r approaches 1914:312). N o n e of these Wills could be calleda structural ist , and thei r contr ibut ions to l inguist ics a re qui te var ied, b u t they a llcont r ibu ted substant ial ly to the cl imate which gave rise to Saussure's views andtheir North Amer ican cognates .

Th e m os t i m p or t an t f igures in the d e v e l o p m e n t of A m e r ican s t ruc tu r a li s m , fa rand away, are Edward Sap i r and Leonard Bloomfie ld ; and, given the subsequentdirec tion of the field, the most imp orta nt of these two, far and away, is Bloomfield.5S ap i rand , to a lesser ex ten t , the ea r ly B loomf i e ld h a d the cu l tura l -psycho -logica l in teres ts o f W un dt and W hi tney , and he had H u m bo l d t ' s concern for thegen eral , sys temat ic propert ies of l anguage, for w h a t he called, after H u m b o l d t , itsinner orm. W itho ut the e xpl ic i t here-a-dis t inct ion- there-a-dis tinct ion theorizing ofSaussure, he wove from these s trands a re ma rkab ly paral lel approach to l inguisticanalysis , the specifics of which ( in both Saussure and Sapir) would take us too farafield. But the re was s om eth ing else in the w eave as wel l , the most impor tant char -acter i s t ic separat ing American l inguis ts from thei r European cousins , a def in ingtrai t best termed "the Amerindian imperat ive." Sapir ' s teacher was the intel lectualand pol it ica l jug ge rna ut of U.S. lang uag e s tudies at the t u rn of the century , FranzBoas, a.k.a. Papa Franz, a .k .a. The Fa th e r of American Linguis t ics . Boas recog-nized both th e oppor tuni ty and the obl igat ion th at came w i th the r ich, diverse, chal-l eng ing l anguages of the Americaslanguages very different from th e I n d o - E u r o -p ean t ongues w h i ch dom i na t ed O ld World l inguist ics.


18/32

20 The Linguistics Wars(A s a very super f ic ia l exam ple of these differences, take th e verbs of Kwakwala ,a l anguage na t ive to the damp western reaches o f Canad a, i n c lud ing Co r mo r an tI s land . Kwakw ala ve rb s a r e wh o l ly ind if fe rent t o t im e o f occur rence , and needn't

b e marked for tense in the w ay most Indo-Eu ropean verbs are . B u t they are h ighlyc o nc e r ned about the au thor i ty of the speaker, and have to be mar ked to indicateth e speaker's jus t i f i ca t ion fo r making a sta tement about th e described ac t ionmar ked to ind ica te whether th e speaker saw the act ion, just heard about i t f romsomeone else , or exper ienced i t in a d r eam a no t io n h igh ly a lien to the languages,and the speakers, of the Ind o -E ur o pean famil ies.)6M u c h of the ear l iest research into non-European languages had on e o r the o t he r ,or b o t h , of two st ra ight forwardly rapacious mot ives: conquest and convers ion .Divers i ty was there fo re a prob lem, som eth ing wh ich impeded " the advance o f c iv-il izat ion and the l abours of the missionary" (Lyell , 1870:461). Grammat ica lresearch pr imar i ly looked for w a y s of fo rc ing th e concepts of Chris t iani ty or ofEuropean admin is t r a t ion in to th e na t ive language , so t hey cou ld be served up laterf rom pulp i t o r page . This goa l , a long wi th hap hazard t r a in in g , a g enera l be lief inthe rac ia l , cu l tu ra l , and l ingu is t ic in fe r io r i ty o f "primitives," and a warping s tr eakof ch au vi n is m w hic h he ld La t in to be Pope o f a l l Languages , led to t r ea tm ent s o fA m e r i n d i a n l anguages a lmost as barbarous as the t r ea tment o f the i r speakers .A l g o n q u i n an d M o h a w k an d Delaware expressions were pounded into categor iesl ike d a t ive and sub j unc t ive and pa r ti ti ve -gen it ive , and wha t c o u ld n ' t b e po und edin to these s lo ts was ignored . Boas and h is s tuden t s had no th in g bu t con tem pt fo rth i s b u n g l i n g a n d ma ngl ing . Sapir put i t t h i s way :

A l inguis t who insists on ta lk ing a b o u t th e Lat in type of morphology as though it werenecessarily th e high-water mark of l inguistic deve lopme nt is l ike the zoologis t tha t seesin th e organic world a huge conspiracy to evolve th e race-horse or the Jersey cow.(1922:124)

The refe rence to zoology is not acciden tal . Boas recognized and en fo r c ed the integ-rity of A m erin dia n langu ages, priz ing the col lec t ion of textual specim ens above al l ,and steered h is students , a long with ( through h is i n f luence at such inst itutes as theBur eau o f Am er i c an E t hno lo gy ) most of the av ai lable funds,, in a prima rily descrip-t ive , data-dr iven d irec t ion. Though other a t t i tudes an d other approaches cont in-ued , under Boas th e sanct ioned mainst ream o f linguist ics w as wha t h e called th e" ana ly t i c t e c h n iqu e" t o descr ib e l anguages in t he i r na t ive hab i t a t , ex t rac t ing th eregular i t ies t ha t presen ted themse lves , impos ing none from w i t h o u t . (H u m b o l d t ,i n c i d en t a l l y , w as also in f luen t ia l here ; he had a r gued , fo r instance, that cer ta inM a la yo -Po lyn e s i a n wo r d s w h ic h lo o ked superficial ly l ike Europ ean verbs were infact be t t e r ana lyzed , wi th in the i r ow n l inguist ic systems, as n o u n s ; see Koerner ,1990.) V ariety for Boas and his s tuden ts was not a hin dran ce, b ut a cause for cele-b r a t io n , an d they also came to have a he al thy respect for the var ious wor ld v iewsb u n d l e d up in the d iverse Am er ind ian languages . Boas cer t a in ly had , l ike mo st sci-ent is t s , in terests be yo nd the b ru te fac ts . He called langu age a "window on the soul,"w h i c h was no t so much a sp i r i tua l de f in i t ion as a cu l tu ra l and psycho log ica l one .But th e o v e r w h e l m i n g i m p ac t o f Papa Franz was to focus closely on l a n g u a g e s in


19/32

Linguistics 21and of them selves ; th i s emphas i s made h im , for many , " the fa ther of the au then-t ically scientific s tudy of l anguage in Nor th Amer ica" (Anderson, 1985:198).Sapir isolated, l ike Saussure, in a cold intel lectua l backwater , O t t a w a a u g -mented Boas 's data-dr iven program with a theoret ical ly r icher , phi losophical lydeeper , b u t somewhat eclect ic approach, developing a un i q ue l y A m e r ican s truc-tura l i sm.7 H e wrote about th e dangers of succumbing whol ly to the "evolut ionaryprejudice" of historical l inguistics (1949a[1921]:123), for instance, an d h e articu-lated a no tion closely paral lel to Saussure's langue, saying tha t the defin ing aspectsof l anguage l ie "in the formal pa t t ern ing and in the relating of concepts ," and tha t"it is th is abs t racted languag e, rather mo re than the physical facts of speech" whichfo rms the subject mat ter of l ingu is tics (19 49a [1921 ]:22). Where he departs mostclearly fro m Sau ssure is in the explicit apprec iat ion of variety wh ich grew out o f theAm erindian imperat ive. (Not ice, incidental ly , that th is impe rat ive in and of itselfw as enough to determine a s t rong synchronic bent to American l inguist ics, s incethere w as virtual ly no wri t ten records wi th which to plu m b l inguis t ic h is tory; too,B o a s w h o , in any event , had l it tle h is torical t raining act ively discouraged h iss tudents f rom comparativist work.) Sapir 's work is remarkable for penetrat inginsights, bril l iant leaps, and a carefu l balancing of the tens ion between the generalproperties of l anguage and the as tonishing range of concepts and categoriesemployed b y l anguages ; be tween uni formi ty and divers ity; between , in Varro 'ssomewhat st i l ted terms, analogy and a n o m a l y .H e writes e loquent ly abou t the "deep, cont ro l l ing impulse to f o r m " an d "thegreat u nd er l y i ng g round- p lans , " and ( in a phrase par t icu lar ly evocat ive o f Saussure)argues for "an idea l li ngui s t i c en t i ty dom inat ing the speech habi t s" of langu ageusers (1949a[ 1921]: 144, 148). But he is equ ally eloqu en t, a nd more voluble , abou tvariety, a bo u t th e def in ing trai ts tha t keep speakers of different languages from t rulyunders tanding o ne another , even in translat ion, because each lacks "the necessaryform-grooves in w h i ch to r u n " o n e another ' s though ts (1949a[1921]:106) .Sapir 's s t ructu ral i sm, the n, w as more th orou gh ly psychological tha n Saussure 's ,and i t w a s t h a n k s to the weal th o f nat ive data that kept Am erica n l ingu is ts skep-t ica l of genera l c l a ims about l a n g u a g e m u c h more aware o f the divers i ty and vol-at il i ty i n t h e h um an t rade of mean ings . Sapir was ing en ious , and very inf luent ia l .But he was no t , even thoug h there w ere l ingui s t s somet imes know n as Sapiriansi n to th e fort ies and fif t ies, the sort to sponsor a school ; Joos (1957 :25) ci tes h im no tfo r "the dev eloping of any me thod , but ra ther the es tabl i shing of a char ter for thefree i n te l l ec tua l p lay of persona l i ties more or less ak in to his own," and , in fact, Jooswags his f inger a bit at "the essential i rresponsibi l i ty of w h a t has been cal led Sapir 's'method'." Sapir ians (almost ent i rely made up of Sapir ' s s tudents) were dis t in-guished most ly b y the i r unor thodox in teres t in the m enta l life of l anguage, for acer tain m ethodolog ical elas t ic ism, and for thei r occas ional cr i t iques of the or tho-d o x y , not for a specific body of u n iqu e postulates and pr inciples .The same m ight have been said of Sapir's colleague at the Uni v er s i t y of Chicago,and his successor to the Ster l ing Professorship in L inguis t ics at Yale, and the def inerof the or thodoxy in the for t ies and f i f t ies , Leonard Bloomfie ld. The same migh thave been said of Bloomfield , but for two th ings . He found behav ior i sm and he


20/32

22 The Linguistics Warsf o u n d logical posi t ivism, for bo th of w h i c h he is now widely sn ickered a t; b e h a v -io r ism is an ou tmode d b rand o f psycho logy , pos it iv i sm an ou tmode d b rand o f ph i -losophy . So , Bloomfield 's n a m e s h ow s u p f r equen t ly as l i tt le mo re tha n a c iphe r inth e l inguist ics of the last few decades, a foil to a n o t h er n a m e w e hav e a l ready seena good deal of, and will see m u c h m o r e of, Chomsky. In par t , th e role of foil is nat -ura l , s ince un ders t an d ing Chom sky ' s impac t comes most eas i ly wh en it is v iewedas a reac t ion, i f not a correct ive, to cer ta in Bloomfield ian t rends. In part , the roleof foil is imposed, s ince the vic to rs wri te the his tory , and Ch om sky 's r ise cam e atth e ex pense of a genera t ion insp i red an d st rongly i n f luenced b y Bloomfie ld.T h e word w hich best captures Bloomfie ld, especially in d is t inc t ion to h is par t ia lr ival , Sapir , is methodical. ( C h o m s k y w as never Bloomfie ld ' s r iva l except in theabstract; Bloom fie ld d ied befo re Chom sky came on the scene .) They bo th wro tebooks entit led Language, for instance, and the differences are tell ing. Sapir 's(1949a[1921]) is a r ich, invigorat ing essaycer ta in ly no t wi thout s t ruc ture andtheoret ical import , b u t heaped high with br i l l iant insights an d imaginat ive leaps.Bloomfield 's (1933 ) i s a cookbo ok cer ta in ly no t w i thou t b r i ll iance and imagina-t ion , but far mo re sys t emat ic , and fa r mo r e carefu l about giving its readers recipeswith whic h to obtain s imilar resul t s , leading them to their o w n insights , guid ingt he ir imag ina t io n . Th e compar ison m a y b e less tha n f lat ter ing to Bloomfie ld , a n dit car icatures two bo oks wh ich hold up astonishingly well, despite m ore tha n sixtyin t e rven in g years of feverish l ingu ist ic ac t ivi ty , but i t catches th e pr imary dif fe rencebe tween th e books , th e l inguists, an d their respect ive impacts on the f ie ld . Sapir'sbook is m ore en joyab le , and perhaps mo re passionate , but i t is a lso less pract ical ,less usefu l . Bloomfie ld gave a genera t ion o f l ingu is ts a handboo k. He gave themso met h ing to do (and , of course, many said , h e made l inguist ics a science).8 E v e nSapir ' s most devout students had to admit Bloom fie ld 's impac t on the disciplinewas fa r mo r e c o mpr ehens ive :

Al th ou g h Sapir used l inguis t ic m e t h o d s and procedures with c o n s u m m a t e skill, he wasan ar t i st ra the r t h an a scientist in th is regard. It was Bloomfield who formula ted themet h ods of l inguistic science i n to a clearly def ined and t ightly coheren t body of doc-t r ine . ( N e w m a n , 1951:86)Lit t le more than a decade separates Bloomfield ' s Language from Sapir 's, but i t

was an impo r t an t one for Amer ic an l i ngu i s t i c s an d goes a lmost as far t owardex p l a i n i ng th e dif fe rences be tween those tw o books as does th e difference in t he i rau thors ' t emperament s . The def in ing even t o f tha t decade was the fo rm at ion o f theLingui s t i c Soc ie ty o f Am er ica , whose nam e proc la ims the success o f the indep en -d e n c e mo vem en t ea r ly i n the c en t u r y and d ec la r es ano t he r o ne ju s t un d e r way ; t hemodif iers on either side of Society say it all.9 The preposi t ional phrase, of America,codif ies t he deve lopments separa t ing i t s members f rom their European re la t ives.Th e adject ive, Linguistic, signals a separat ion from their academic re la t ives s tudy -ing language in parallel disciplines. Appropriately, Boas, Sapir , and Bloomfie ldwere a l l inst rum en tal in fo rm ing the society: Boas and Sapir were the m ain forcesin cu t t ing th e um bil ical cord to Europe; Bloomfield w as rapid ly becom ing th e mainforce in cu t t ing th e apron st r ings to psychology an d e thno logy . H e wrote th e LSA'sma nifesto , cal l ing for an o rgan izat ion d is t inc t f rom "the ex ist ing societies, Phi lo-


21/32

Linguistics 23logical , Or iental , Modern Language, Anthropologica l , Psychological, an d w h a tnot ," most of who se memb er s "[do] n o t kno w t ha t t he r e is a science of l anguage"(1925:1; 1970:109). Most people who cal led them selves linguists were in fact stillhoused in l anguage or l i tera ture or an t h r o po lo gy d epa r t men t s o n ly th r ee of the26 4 F o und a t io na l Memb er s of the L SA l isted linguist ics among th e courses theyt augh t b u t they w er e b eg inn ing to feel more k insh ip wi th o ther s wh o cal led them -selves l inguists tha n with the ir im m ed iate col leagues, and Bloomfield ar t iculatedtha t kins hip. Eve n l ingu ists wh o main tained s t rong interests in l i tera ture or phi lo l-ogy, for instanc e, took the ir papers in these areas to o ther foru m s. (Hil l wr i tes thathe "felt forced to present" h is l i terary analyses elsewhere 1991:14.)Th e LSA soon f i red up w h a t h as become a pr o mine n t f e a t u re of the field's l and-scape ever s ince, its sum m er L ingu is tic Ins t i tu t e . Th e Ins t i tu t e w as (and rem ains) avery impo r tan t t r a in in g and in doc t r ina t ion grou nd fo r scho la r s who saw them -selves, or t hereaf t e r came to see themselves, as scientists of l anguage first, scholarsof cu l tu re or m i n d or F r enc h , second. Blo o mf ie ld was a regu la r an d insp i r ingteacher a t the Ins t i tu te u nt i l h is i l lness and dea th in the la te forties (Sapir taughtthere on ly once) . With t h e LSA also cam e a pub l i sh ing o r g a n t a k i n g th e c o m m o n ,om nivo rous , bu t apropos t i tl e , Language w h i c h so o n b ecame h uge ly i n f luen t i a lto the profession an d pract ice of l inguist ics , and no article w as mo r e i n f luen t i a l inbo th regards than Bloomfie ld ' s cont r ibu t ion to the second issue, "A Set o f Postu-lates for the Science of Langu age" (1926 ; 1970:128-4 0) three decades la t e r s ti llbeing called " the Cha r ter of contemporary descr ipt ive l inguist ics" (Joos, 1957:31).Th e postulates take u p a now -fami l ia r topic , th e object of l inguist ics (Sau ssu re ' sCourse an d Sapir's Language a re bo th c i ted as inspira t ions) , b u t with cons iderab lymo re r igor than they had been t ackled by any o f Bloomfield 's predecessors. He re isa sample , kept merci fu l ly br ief :

8 . Def . A minimum X is an X which does not consist ent i re ly oflesser X's .Th u s , if X, consists of X 2X 3X 4 , then X, is not a minimum X. But i f X, consists ofX 2X 3A , or of A,A 2, or is u n an a l yz ab l e , then X , is a m i n i m u m X.9. Def. A m i n i m u m f o r m is a morpheme; its m e a n i n g a sememe.T h u s a m o r p h e m e is a r e cu r r e n t (meaningful) form which c a n n o t in tu rn be analyzedinto smaller recur ren t (meaningfu l ) forms. Hen c e any unana lyzable word or format iveis a m o r p h e m e .10 . Def. A form which may be an utterance is free. A form which is not free is bound.Th u s , book, the man are free forms; -ing (as in writing), -er (as in writer) a re boundforms, the las t -named differing in m e a n i n g from the free form err .1 1 .D e f . A m i n i m u m free form is a word. (1926:155-56; 1970:130)

There are seven ty - three mo r e f i f t y in al l for synch ron ic l ingu is t ic s , twenty -sev enfor diachronic l inguist ics (his tor ical s tudies being s t i l l very much al ive, but nolonger in the dr iver ' s seat ). All seve nty-se ven look equal ly ped ant ic . Bu t only tosom eone unw i l ling to g ran t the need fo r precision in the s tud y o f language . Theywere necessary to give l ingu istics a form al bac kbon e. N ew ton 's Opticks m a y h a v elooked pedant ic to some o f h i s con temporar ies , E uc l id ' s Principles to some of his;10cer t a in ly B loom fie ld had such con tem poraries . Sapir , fo r one . Sapi r was no en em yof precis ion or o f r igor , but his view of lang uag e was far too ramif ied for a neat


22/32

24 The Linguistics Warsna tural sc ience approach, and he surely had Bloomfield in his m i n d , i f not his sights,w h e n h e argued a few years la ter for a l inguist ics "which does not ape nor attemptto adopt unr ev i sed th e concepts of the na tura l sciences." Too, h e w as clearly wor-ried about Bloomf ie ld ian scissors at the apron s tr ings whe n he fo l lowed that argu-ment wi th a plea fo r l inguists to "become increasingly concerned with th e m a n yanthropological, sociological, and psycho log ica l prob lems wh ich invade the f ield oflanguage" (1929:214) , to no avai l . ' ' Th e str ings were cu t , at least far as the m ajorityof l inguists w as concerned, especially the youn ger ones, w ho took th e antiseptic pos-tula tes to hear t an d t he i r fullest exposi t ion, Bloomfield 's Language, t o bed withthem a t night .Tw o collateral developments, outside the field of l inguist ics, in the Language-to-Language decade were even m ore imp or tan t fo r Bloomfie ld 's hand book, bo thapparent ly crysta l l iz ing for him at Ohio State , where he became fast f r iends w i thAlbert Weiss (in fact , his postula tes were expl ic i tly modeled on Weiss ' postula tesfo r psychology 192 5). These d eve lo pmen t s , foreshadowed a few pages back, werethe r i ses of behavior ism and posi t ivism, b oth of which reared the ir seductive headsin th e twent ies .Behav ior i s t psy c ho lo gy h a d b een b u i ld in g s inc e Pav lo v ' s f am o u s N o b e l - w i nn i ng ,r ing- the-d inner -be l l -and-watch- the-dog-droo l e x p e r i m e n t s at the t u r n of the cen-t u r y , bu t i t d i d n ' t hit i ts str ide, or g e t i ts n a m e , u n t i l th e w o r k of Jo hn W at so n a n dh is col laborators in the t eens a n d twent ies . In the ba ldest t e rms, behav io r i sm i s thepos i t ion tha t beliefs, ac t io ns , an d k n o w l e d g e are a l l the produc t s of rewards an dp u n i s h m e n t s . G i v e a pigeon food every t im e it sneezes, and i t will soon start sneez-ing w h e n e v e r i t ge ts h un g r y . Sho c k a ra t w h e n e v e r i t a t tacks an o th er r a t , and i t willsoon show less aggression. Smile a t a b ab y an d give h er ex t r a a t t en t io n whe n sh ecal ls y ou "papa" and she will ( t h o u g h all too brief ly) say "papa"w h e n e v e r sh e w a n t sso me ex t r a a t t en t io n f rom you . Expose a c h i ld to c ensu r e o r r i d ic u l e whe n sh e mis-p r o n o u n c e s "light" o r gets an i r regu la r p lu r a l wr o n g or spells a word inco r rec t ly ,and he r l ingu i s t i c b e h a v i o r will c o n v e r g e on the n o r m ; i t will b e c om e g r a m m a t i c a l.Be h a v i o r i sm

Date post:	08-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	casandra7
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

Harris Linguistic Wars Ch1-2

Documents