Reintegrating Philology: Deconstruction, Endangered Languages, and the (Second) Chomskyan Revolution...

8/7/2019 Reintegrating Philology: Deconstruction, Endangered Languages, and the (Second) Chomskyan Revolution in Linguistics

1/20

reintegrating philologydeconstruction, endangered languages,

and the (second) Chomskyan revolutionin linguistics*

david golumbiadept of english virginia commonwealth university

first friday march 4, 2011

*featuring almost no discussion of digital humanities


2/20

parts

1. (from philology) back to typology

2. trees, rhizomes, languages & history

3. the (second) chomskyan revolution in linguistics

4. deconstructing linguistic form

5. reconstructing philology


3/20

1. (fromphilology) backtotypology

Harpham (2009, 35): For Said, the object of philological attention, the text, is best conceived as a window onto

a particular historical world. In order to grasp that world, one must put oneself in the

position of the author, for whom writing is a series of decisions and choices expressed in

words (Said, 62). The political indifference of many, if not most, philologists

notwithstanding, Said argues that reading is, fundamentally, an act of perhaps modest

human emancipation and enlightenment (Said, 66).

de Man, by sharp contrast, regarded language in mechanistic and explicitly nonhuman

terms, and scholarship as a technical rather than an interpretive or evaluative exercise.

He urged scholars to concentrate on linguistic forms for their own sake, focusing on the

structure of language prior to the meaning it produces (de Man, 25).

[a return to philology] would involve a change by which literature,instead of being taught only as a historical and humanistic subject,

should be taught as a rhetoric and a poetics prior to being taught as a

hermeneutics and a history (de Man, 25-26)


4/20


in On Language (1836), Wilhelm von Humboldt argued that philology

could disclose the origins of myths, religions, and even national

characteristicsthe elements of a Volk. each language, he said,

represented a unique expression of a nations mental power, a

distinctive way of solving the universally imposed task of languageformation. after studying a number of languages, the philologist might

be able to construct a general typology of languages, which could then

inform a historical understanding of the principles of cultural

development and a philosophical understanding of the phenomenon of

human culture as such. at the end of his labors, the philologist mighteven be privileged with a glimpse of the ur-language, orUrsprache,

from which all others had evolved, and thus of the thought-forms

prevailing at the origin of human civilization itself. (Harpham, 39)


5/20


three aspects of typology

history is progressive and hierarchical

languistic and cultural development are progressive and hierarchical (languages

either improve or devolve over time)

human language can only be studied by paying exhaustive and careful attentionto existing human languages


6/20

2. trees,rhizomes,languages, & history

the family tree model was developed for the Indo-

European family and is broadly applicable to it. [but] is not

applicable everywhere and cannot explain every type of

relationship between languages (Dixon 28-9) the family tree model is only applicable during a period of

punctuation, and not during periods of linguistic equilibrium.

Language development during the past 100,000 and more

years has involved long periods of equilibrium, with only the

occasional punctuation (30)


7/20


Australia (as at 1788) provides a prototypical example of a

long-term diffusion area. almost every feature that can be

mappedphonological, morphological, syntacticapplies

over all the languages in a continuous area, its range ofdiffusion. (Dixon 91)

the (c. 260) languages of Australia share many recurrent features. there are

also a number of typological parameters in terms of which the languages

differ. for example, in one area, bound pronominal prefixes developed

from free pronouns, then head and object forms fused, and then some forms

underwent phonological truncation such that the full set of semantic

distinctions (person and number of subject and of object) were no longer

made; to remedy this, additional bound pronouns developed again from

free forms (Dixon 93)


8/20


when i got out into the field (in Australia) i found that i

actually understood very little about how language is

structured. but i learnt, little by little, by undertaking analysis

of texts, attempting grammatical generalizations, and checking

these with speakers. and then the theoretical ideas that i had

read about took on a new light, as i began to understand the

their relevance to the task i was engaged in. (Dixon 136)


9/20

3. the (second) Chomskyanrevolutioninlinguistics

the first Chomskyan revolution in linguistics (see Harris

(1995): transformational-generativegrammar(1957-77)

thestandardtheory(revolution 1a): syntactic structures (1957)

theextendedstandardtheory (revolution 1b, aka the aspects model):

aspects of the theory of syntax (1965)

therevisedextendedstandardtheory (revolution 1c): remarks on

nominalization & other essays in studies on semantics in generative grammar

(1972); Ray Jackendoff, semantic interpretation in generative grammar(1972),

x-bar syntax: a study of phrase structure (1977)

all share: there is a richly-featured faculty of language FL that canbe understood as a large computer program that runs [a] human

language


10/20


the second Chomskyan revolution in linguistics: principles

andparameters (P&P),aka government-binding (GB)

theory (1977-90)

the faculty of language FL is less a richly featured program and more a set of

optional parameters that are set by the environment;

for example, word order (SVO vs OVS vs SVO etc.) is parametric: all orders

are allowed, but each language tends to favor/feature one, and other parts of the

language structure fall out from this observation

the exemplary base had changed

theminimalistprogram (mp)aka the third Chomskyanrevolution in linguistics (1990- present)

language is almost perfect; there is no richly-featured FL at all


11/20


principlesandparameters (P&P)

the faculty of language FL is less a richly featured program and more a set of

optional parameters that are set by the environment;

for example, word order (SVO vs OVS vs SVO etc.) is parametric: all orders

are allowed, but each language tends to favor/feature one, and other parts of thelanguage structure fall out from this observation

the exemplary base had changed


12/20

4. deconstructinglinguistic form

the code talker paradox: On the one hand, Navajo must be

extremely different from English (and Japanese), or the men

listening to the Code Talkers transmissions would eventually

have been able to figure out what they were saying. On the

other hand, Navajo must be extremely similar to English (and

Japanese), or the Code Talkers could not have transmitted with

precision the messages formulated by their English-speaking

commanders. Navajo was effective as a code because it had

both of these properties. (Baker 2001, 2)


13/20


Navajo prefixes elaborate on the basic meaning of the verb

root in intricate ways. for example, the root dlaad, meaning

to tear, combines with six different prefixes to make the

following word:

ninhwiishdlaad(ni + n + ho + hi + sh + + dlaad)

i am again plowing

these aspects of Navajo pose a major challenge to that greatinstitution of Western civilization, the dictionary. since Navajo

has so many prefixes, the primary lexical meaning is rarely

carried in the first part of a word. (Baker 2001, 8)


14/20


thepolysynthesisparameter

every argument of a head element must be related to a

morpheme in the word that contains the head. (Baker 1996,

14)

ninhwiishdlaad(ni + n + ho + hi + sh + + dlaad)

I am again plowing


15/20


WALS (The World Atlas of Linguistic Structures)

http://wals.info

WALS feature list

http://wals.info/feature currently 142 categories; e.g.:

consonant inventory

voicing in plosives and fricatives

fusion of selected inflectional formatives

reduplication

order of subject and verb

verbal person marking


16/20

5. reconstructingphilology

Bauman, philology of the vernacular:

the vernacular is a communicative modality characterized by:

1. communicative resources and practices that are acquired informally,

in communities of practice, rather than by formal instruction;

2. communicative relations that are immediate, grounded in the

interaction order and the lifeworld; and

3. horizons of distribution and circulation that are spatially bounded, by

locality or region. (32)


17/20

if you want to understand a culture, examine its texts, and if you want to

comprehend a text, read it in relation to the culture to which it gives expression.

(31)

the dynamic tension between textual persistence or continuitytraditionon the

one hand, and textual changevariation or creativityon the other. This tension is

calibrated in terms of persistence or change in the formal, thematic, and pragmatic

aspects of texts. (31-2)

The nature and capacities of texts are closely tied to the communicative technology

employed in their production, circulation, and reception. (32)

There is a sociology of textual production, circulation, and reception in any culture

and historical period. (32) While thematic concerns are foregrounded in the investigation of texts as

projections of culture, there has always been a significant interest in form in the

Americanist tradition, and the analysis of form in relation to function and meaning

is a prominent concern (34; see Hymes 1981)



18/20

the vernacular, furthermore, can only be understood in

dynamic relation to the cosmopolitan; they are opposing

vectors in a larger communicative field. If the vernacular pulls

toward the informal, immediate, locally grounded, proximal

side of the field, the cosmopolitan pulls toward the

rationalized, standardized, mediated, wide-reaching, distal

side. (Bauman, 32-3)



19/20

workscited

Baker, Mark. 2001. The Atoms of Language: The Minds Hidden Rules of Grammar. New York: Basic Books.

Baker, Mark. 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bauman, Richard. 2008. The Philology of the Vernacular. Journal of Folklore Research 45:1. 29-36.

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

de Man, Paul. 1986. The Return to Philology. In The Resistance to Theory (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota

Press). 21-26.

Dixon, R. M. W. 1997. The Rise and Fall of Languages. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Golumbia, David. 2010. Minimalism Is Functionalism. Language Sciences 32:1 (January 2010). 28-42.

Golumbia, David. 2009. The Cultural Logic of Computation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Harpham, Geoffrey Galt. 2009. Roots, Races, and the Return to Philology. Representations 106 (Spring 2009). 34-62.

Harris, Randy Allen. 1995. The Linguistics Wars. New York: Oxford University Press.

von Humoldt, Wilhelm. 1786. On Language. In Michael Losonsky , ed., Humboldt: On Language: On the Diversity of

Human Language Construction and its Influence on the Mental Development of the Human Species. CambridgeUniversity Press, 2000.

Hymes, Dell. 1981 In Vain ITried to Tell You: Essays in Native American Ethnopoetics. Philadelphia: University of

Pennsylvania Press.

Said, Edward. 2004. The Return to Philology. In Humanism and Democratic Criticism (New York: Columbia

University Press). 57-84.


20/20

reintegrating philologydeconstruction, endangered languages,

and the (second) Chomskyan revolutionin linguistics*

david golumbiadept of english virginia commonwealth university

first friday march 4, 2011

*featuring almost no discussion of digital humanities

Date post:	08-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dgolumbia
View:	226 times
Download:	0 times

Reintegrating Philology: Deconstruction, Endangered Languages, and the (Second) Chomskyan Revolution...

Documents