98 4. Code Model Linguistics: Patch or Abandon?
Kuhn’s writings didn’t stick to the original meaning of the paradigm concept. Paradigms in their original sense are, according to their first appearance on the scene, “concrete problem
solutions that the profession has come to accept.” But Kuhn soon used the paradigm concept for other senses, in works composed around the same time as SSR [The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions] and even in SSR, without being fully aware that he was doing so.
Hoyningen- Huene 1993
:140
In later writings, Kuhn did finally abandoned his use of the term paradigm in reference to group commitments. He chose to limit its use to the original sense, referring
to the shared examples or problem-solutions. From there he began to refer to group commitments as just that, group commitments. See figure
4.1 .
Figure 4.1. Metonymic continua Kuhn created through his various uses of the term paradigm
4.1.2. Selecting operational definitions
The semantic pathology and inconsistency in Kuhn’s choice of terminology, together with the abundance of Kuhn’s writings and those of his critics and proponents, through
which that inconsistency persists, threaten to undermine the potential usefulness of his theory. Nevertheless, by carefully identifying operational definitions one may use Kuhn’s
theory
to benefit, even if an alternative set of terminology may be required. The question remains, however, as to just how the term paradigm should be used, and if it should be
used at all. While Kuhn did eventually abandon use of the term for all but the shared examples and problem-solutions, the history of its prior usage cannot be retracted. The
problem is compounded by the 1996 reprint of Structure, particularly since that book does not include any sort of an introduction explaining the term’s role within the history
of the Kuhnian project. Accordingly, newcomers to the project are destined to struggle with the metonymic continua, just as did readers of the earlier
1962 and
1970 editions.
4. Code Model Linguistics: Patch or Abandon? 99
As Kuhn recognized, few readers seem to have grasped the significance of the shared examples component of disciplinary practice
Kuhn 1996 :187. Accordingly, few critics
employ the term paradigm in reference to that component. Instead, it seems that most contemporary readers employ the term in one of two ways: a in reference to a type of
theory, or b in reference to a disciplinary worldview. Theory can be generally defined as “a formulation of underlying principles of certain observed phenomena”
Neufeldt 1989
. It should be clear at this point that Kuhn referred to much more than such a general notion of theory. In most places were he refers to a theory as a paradigm, he is
commenting upon the fact that a community of scientists has made the theory a fulcrum upon which elements of disciplinary belief and practice are balanced and levered. This
sense of the term is related to the second common understanding of the term, as a disci- plinary worldview. Worldview can be generally defined as “a comprehensive conception
or apprehension of the world esp. from a specific standpoint”
Mish 1983 . Disciplinary
worldview may be similarly defined as a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the topic of study, especially as characterized from the specific standpoint of a
disciplinary community. This sense of the term is in agreement with Kuhn’s description
of scientific revolution as a change in worldview 1996
:111ff.. What is it about the shared examples and problem-solutions that Kuhn considered to
be so important? Why did he finally reserve the term paradigm for reference to this component? Kuhn seems to have envisioned disciplinary belief and practice as a massive
abstract network. At various points in his writings and times in his career he was comfortable referring to nearly all of the nodes in that network as being a paradigm or
paradigmatic. But that does not mean that he considered all of the nodes in the network to be equally related or to have equal importance in the system. Rather, he recognized that
no matter how the various nodes may be related to each other, they were all related to the one concrete node, the shared examples and problem-solution component. It is through
actual practice with these shared examples and problem-solutions that the scientist learns his or her trade. As Horgan concisely explains regarding the term paradigm, “Kuhn used
the term to refer to a collection of procedures or ideas that instruct scientists, implicitly, what to believe and how to work”
Horgan 1996 :42–43. Furthermore, while Kuhn
recognizes that the members of a scientific community are individuals and as such their personal conceptions of the disciplinary network will not overlap in all details, he
identifies the node of shared examples and problem-solutions as the node most likely to be shared by all members of a scientific community. Indeed, without that node, it is not
likely that an individual will ever learn “what to believe and how to work” within the disciplinary community.
Since Kuhn has supplied alternative terminology such as problem-solution, models, theory, etc., this study will employ his alternative terms whenever the intended sense of
paradigm is not clear. Where the intended sense is not obvious in quoted material, alternative terms are offered in brackets. Definitions for important terminology follow:
100 4. Code Model Linguistics: Patch or Abandon?
•
CommunityGroup:
scientists working together andor conferring with one another, either in person or through the medium of disciplinary literature. While a group is
obviously composed of individuals, if it is functioning as a group, then the individuals will, to varying degrees, share beliefs and behavior patterns.
•
Group Commitment:
conscious or subconscious obligations andor allegiance to a particular manner of scientific methodology and perspective; often generated by a
particular metatheory. Kuhn writes of the commitments not simply as a body, but as an organized group, a “constellation.”
•
Metatheory:
ideology or theoretical presuppositions; underlying beliefs which generate a particular approach; generally extend from first principles established in
early stages of the paradigmatic life cycle
•
Disciplinary Matrix:
the objects of group commitment. Kuhn lists these as: 1 symbolic generalizations, 2 models, 3 values, 4 exemplars. The basic term
theory in some senses captures these, as well as the related notion of methodology. While Kuhn chose to abandon the term ‘disciplinary matrix’ post-1970, it will be
retained here since it is a useful term. Theory, alone, does not capture the individual components, nor is it adequately identified, in its common usage, as an object of
commitment.
•
Shared Examples:
in particular, this refers to concrete problems and their solutions which a discipline employs as models or patterns for organizing investigation, as well
as in teaching presuppositions and perspective. Shared examples can include con- ceptual models and exemplars two of the elements of the disciplinary matrix.
The following discussion addresses these terms more fully, both in regard to how Kuhn used them and, later, in regard to the code model of communication and linguistics.
4.1.3. Paradigm communities
