emunix.emich.edu>
Editor for this issue: T. Daniel Seely <dseelyemunix.emich.edu>
psyc.nott.ac.uk>We got 15 replies to our questions concerning the past achievements and future prospects of linguistics. We would like to thank Stirling Newberry, Bill Bennett, Dan Moonhawk Alford, John Clews, Peter Schmitter, Martin Eayrs, Donald Carroll, Bob Yates, Mike Maxwell, Larry Trask, Leo Obrst, Pius ten Hacken, Andrea Menegotto, Jonathan B. Alcantara, and Zvjezdana Vrzic for their stimulating and thought-provoking replies. LINGUISTICS AND THE MILLENNIUM: The answers to the first question centred round the issue as to whether linguistics is progressing, regressing or going round in circles.Stirling Newberry and Pius ten Hacken voted strongly in favour of the view that linguistics is progressing, the former giving at the same time an excellent summary of the main views expressed in reply to the second question concerning the three main discoveries in linguistics: "Linguistics is certainly progressing! After all, we have gone, in the beginning, from tremendous cultural snobbery (eg *barbaroi* for those who are not *koine* speakers and so on), to understanding that a large fraction, if not all, of human language descends from a common source. We have come to see how languages transmute over time, we are beginning to glimpse the fundamental ways that language arises in the mind", and so on. Pius ten Hacken voted for progress in linguistics from a Kuhnian-cum-Chomskyan point of view, arguing that if "progress in a science is the increase of the overall explanatory power of its theories", then this increase can be observed in the 'mentalistic paradigm'. Andrea Menegotto felt more pessimistic and voted for going round in circles. Progress in linguistics can only be achieved, she claims, if we find "a common ground, and since the decline of structuralism we do not have one." Pius ten Hacken and others would certainly say that this common ground has already been found. Dan Alford also voted for "going in circles during all of this century, admitting neither a Darwinian evolutionary base for 'language' nor the physics insights of what reality is." On a similar line, John Clews wants to know whether "language development on a human, evolutionary scale, was also progressing, going round in circles, or regressing?" Peter Schmitter took up the general historiographical gauntlet and discussed the problems inherent in any attempt to find 'global lines of development' in linguistics. He argues that one can only start to look for them after having established whether we want to make a speculative and/or teleological statement based on the philosophy of history (which can neither be verified nor falsified), or whether we want to make an empirical statement. In general, we had the impression that those working in the Chomskyan tradition are more optimistic and would, we assume, argue (although no one did) that it would possible to give a series of lectures on linguistics that would give us the same sense of satisfaction as the series of lectures on geology which had provoked our questions. Those not working in this tradition are generally more pessimistic. Another issue taken up by those replying to our questions was the implicit 'comparison' between linguistics and geology/natural sciences. Bill Bennett deplored the "lack of a dynamic theory (which is unnecessary for a system of classification such as needed by the natural sciences)". Zvjezdana Vrzic argued (and we fully agree with this view) that "trying to be more like a 'real science' is probably justified in the sense of introducing more rigor into the field and certainly, politically useful, but it may be harmful if this 'comparing' and 'borrowing' is indiscriminate. The object of our study is different, both 'natural' and 'social'" - and Pius ten Hacken and Jonathan Alcantara would add: cognitive. THE THREE MOST IMPORTANT DISCOVERIES: Those replying to this question listed between one and six discoveries. There was more consensus than we had expected: Chomsky, his innatist hypothesis and universal grammar received 6 votes; Jones and the discovery of the historical nature of language in general 5; Saussure and the discovery of the systematicity of la langue and the difference between langue and parole 3; Trubetzkoy's and Jakobson's work on phonology 2. Other nominations were: the discovery of the difference between language and reality, the invention of phonemic writing systems, the discovery that the human language faculty is in large measure autonomous, and that language (particularly, E-language) can reflect social or other extralinguistic factors. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? Leo Orbst was the only one to address this question and came up with the following list of desiderata which we most heartily endorse: "1) I would like to see computational models of language change created. I think that there are enough tools and information available to begin mathematically treating diachronic models. 2) Work on theories of communication, i.e., wider than the study of narrowly circumscribed human language: animal, non-verbal, etc., i.e, semantically significant transmission and representation of information. 3) Bring to the study of language more mathematical treatments, including additional modern subdisciplines of mathematics such as topology and category theory, the latter the study of form par excellence. I see these subdisciplines in particular as being usable to advance the state of metaphor study and discourse theory." Once again, thanks to everyone who took part in the discussion. If you have views you have not sent us yet we should still like to have them. Brigitte Nerlich and David Clarke - ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr Brigitte Nerlich Department of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK Phone 0115 951 5361 Ext 8341; home:0115 9287317 FAX 0115 951 5324 email: bnMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue