192 5. Developing an Alternative
discussion, the fallacy of species essentialism is a core issue inherent in Saussure’s dichotomization of diachronic and synchronic approaches.
Categorization also presents a problem for sociolinguists. As Simpson notes 1994
:1896, sociolinguists, more so than the practitioners of most subdisciplines of linguistics, seem to be aware of the problem of defining language—thus their preference
for the term variety. Nevertheless, the code model perspective of language is woven into the metatheory of sociolinguistics. Even though sociolinguists may abandon the term
language in an effort to circumnavigate the reductionism inherent in Saussure’s develop- ment of synchronic linguistics, the code model and Aristotelian logic continually bring
the core issue to the forefront.
89
The logic states:
If people share a speech community, then they communicate. If they communicate, then they must share a code.
Therefore, if people share a speech community, they must share a code.
The problem in defining a code is, of course, directly related to the problem of defining a language. Thereby Wales states: “‘Code,’ as a term borrowed from
communication theory and semiotics, is so widely used in other fields, linguistic and literary, that it is in danger of becoming a mere synonym for language, variety, or
dialect”
Wales 1994 :577.
Cherry’s 1966
discussion of quantization brings the issue to the only reasonable conclusion, albeit one which presents an impasse for the Saussurean notion of langue
and, if taken seriously, the enterprise of synchronic linguistics:
The words “quantum” and “quantization” have become adopted with specialized sig- nificance by physicists, but are used in the present context with their original meaning of
“allowed amount,” “sufficient quantity,” or more precisely “significant change of quantity.” The concept is really very broad; quantization is a logical necessity of description. For
example, we quantize people [into language groups,] into political parties, into age groups, social classes and the like, though in truth [their language varieties,] their opinions, their ages,
and their fortunes are as varied as the winds. We merely do this for the purpose of discussion, that is, for communication.
Cherry 1966 :47
Most linguists will agree that individual varieties idiolects are grouped via quan- tization for the purpose of discussion. One may conjecture, however, that many are
unaware of how their practice of quantization conflicts with their own code model-based metatheory regarding the nature of language and communication.
5.2.1.3. Revolutionary response to the problem of variation
It should be apparent at this point in the discussion that revolutionary linguists reject certain perspectives and conditions of the Saussurean paradigm. This section provides a
89
In this case, the form is hypothetical syllogism Weston 1992
:51, producing the form: If p then q.
If q then r. Therefore, if p then r.
5. Developing an Alternative 193
general response to the problem of variation. The section does not, however, repeat discussion of specific revolutionary views. For such discussion, see again section
4.4.2 .
Saussure insisted that descriptive linguistics should address language from the perspective of the language user. In the context of his argument countering the historical-
comparative paradigm, this was an understandable position. In the contemporary context, however, revolutionary linguistics does not consider this to be a valid position, for it
depends upon flawed logic.
Revolutionary linguists recognize the perspective of the language user to be a normal expression of egocentrism and naïve realism. That is, the typical language user views his
neighbors’ language use primarily in relation to himself and he assumes that in their language use everyone else means the same thing that he does.
90
While such a perspective may be common, it is not based upon reality. Revolutionary linguists may
concede that language users’ perspectives could provide an interesting topic of study, but they consider the hypothetical language user’s perspective to be an inappropriate basis
for the scientific study of language as a phenomenon. In their view, such a view supports a flawed notion of constancy and relationship within the speech community.
Saussure described diachronic and synchronic linguistics as being in obvious and essential opposition. Considering the fact that the diachronic view to which he referred
was consumed with the definition of historical relationships and the reconstruction of proto-languages, to the relative neglect of then-contemporary language use, one can
understand the intensity of Saussure’s interest in describing a different view, one which allowed the linguist to look at language as it is used. From the perspective of revolution-
ary linguistics, however, the dichotomization of diachronic and synchronic approaches represents a false dilemma.
91
It is not necessary that the linguist studying contemporary language use consider language as being fixed in time and space, any more than it is
necessary for a geographer studying a river to treat the water as fixed in time and space. Indeed, its fluid nature is an inherent quality of its existence. In the revolutionary view,
any theory of language which treats language as being fixed in time and space simply does not account for the reality of the situation. In the revolutionary view, a theory of
language and communication must be able to account for the fact that language develops and is used in a context of constant variation, both in terms of structural usage and in
meaning. Any theory which does not account for such is simply not accounting for the reality of human language.
Obviously, then, revolutionary linguists reject the reductionism Saussure employed in developing synchronic linguistics. In the revolutionary view, that reduction is not only
considered unnecessary, it is regarded as a theoretical fallacy. Accordingly, synchronic
90
It is important to distinguish the terms egocentrism, “viewing everything in relation to oneself,” and egoism, that is, “selfishness”
Neufeldt 1989 :139. The two are often confused in common usage.
91
False dilemma: a fallacy in argumentation which involves “reducing the options you consider to just two, often sharply opposed and unfair to the person against whom the dilemma is posed …. Arguing from a false dilemma is
sometimes a way of not playing fair: it also, obviously, overlooks alternatives” Weston 1992
:86.
194 5. Developing an Alternative
linguistics as developed in the Saussurean paradigm is considered a logically invalid approach to the problem of language and communication.
5.2.2. The problem of abstraction
