Editor for this issue: T. Daniel Seely <dseely
emunix.emich.edu>
It is is gratifying to have Paul Kiparsky confirm what I had predicted purely theoretically and w/o any data had to be the case, namely, that the Russian authorities did for a time attempt to impose the use of Russian in Finland, contrary to what had been claimed in some earlier postings on LINGUIST. My reasoning was based on the basic principle that like causes produce like effects in linguistics and linguistic policy as in anything else, and that since the Russian authorities did do this in Poland in the same period, it would be astonishing if they did not try it in Finland. But this basic uniformitarian principle seems to be under attack in different areas of linguistics itself, and so this is a good opportunity to reassert its universal applicability in any science, incl. linguistics. For example, we must assume that the same laws of linguistic change which applied after the breakup of Proto-Indo-European to its descedant languages must also be assume to have applied in the (pre)history of the Altaic languages as well as in the linguistic prehistory of the ancestor language(s) of Indo-European (whether we call it Nostratic or not). But this is precisely what seems to be widely ignored or even denied by many linguists today, for no reason I can discern other than reluctance to accept the consequences of sticking to the uniformi- tarian principle in these cases. Likewise, it seems to me that all too often things get proposed and accepted in synchronic linguistics which are impossible if we believe in uniformitarianism, e.g., that rules of versification in Old Norse or in Vedic had access to abstract phonological representations, even though they do not have such access in languages in general. Or consider the ongoing discussion of the "unmarked" uses of "he" in English, where it seems that there exists a whole line of inquiry into this topic which ignores the existence of languages other than English. Or any number of other topics in and around linguistics. Uniformitarianism, I have read, is a rather recent idea in the history of science, so perhaps it is not strange that we seem to have trouble abiding by its tenets sometimes, but by the same token it is recent enough to be worth talking about as a topic of current interest. Alexis Manaster RamerMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue