228 5. Developing an Alternative
developed under the pressure of a false dilemma see Harris 1990
:47.
113
By abandoning the synchronic approach, the discipline of linguistics may liberate itself from anomalies
created and supported by the Saussurean paradigm.
5.5. “But that’s not linguistics”
Some linguists may suggest that the question of communication properly belongs in the domain of semiotics or communication theory, and that it should not be of particular
concern to linguists. They claim that language, after all, is the proper object of study within linguistics. What is at issue in such responses is, of course, the relationship
between language and communication. In regard to this issue, Berge comments: “The phenomena of communication have often been thought of as peripheral in linguistic
research. This view is a result of the strong hold the abstract objectivist language conception has had on modern linguistic thought”
1994 :618.
From the perspective of revolutionary linguistics, the suggestion that the question of communication falls outside the domain of linguistics seems analogous to suggesting that
germ theory falls outside the domain of medical science. And that it properly belongs in the domain of biology or microbiology. Needless to say, a doctor with an inadequate
theory of microbial infection would be, at best, an ill equipped doctor. A linguist with an inadequate theory and model of human communication is similarly ill equipped.
It has already been illustrated that it is an axiom of code model linguistics that “the linguists’ problem lies primarily in defining the code and secondarily in defining the
processes of transmission and reception.” The revolutionary approaches addressed here are not expressions of code model linguistics. Accordingly, it should come as no surprise
that they do not conform to code model axioms.
Linguists responding with the statement, “But that’s not linguistics,” are, in effect, issuing a call for orthodoxy. In other words, they are attempting to narrowly define
orthodoxy so as to exclude the margins.
114
As Kuhn notes:
Normal science can proceed without rules only so long as the relevant scientific community accepts without question the particular problem-solutions already achieved. Rules should
113
A analogical comparison to biological studies may help to explain how a processual view is neither diachronic nor synchronic. Consider, for example, biologists studying zebras. In a biological context, a diachronic view produces a
paleontological account of the zebra and its evolutionary ancestors. A synchronic view produces taxonomy, anatomy, and physiology of the zebra, selecting particular animals as objectified representatives of the whole. In
contrast, a processual view produces a science which sees the zebra not as a object, but as a gene pool of individuals interacting with its environment. Such an approach integrates certain interests also covered by paleontology,
taxonomy, anatomy, and physiology; however, a processual approach does not view the problem of the zebra in the same manner as any of the respective specialists mentioned. Such a processual view is, in fact, commonly held by
contemporary biologists.
114
For example, in 1997, this author heard a prominent linguist give an address in which he made an appeal for the practice of what he called “theoretical linguistics,” explicitly adding that by this term he did not intend the work of
Givón, Lakoff, or Langacker. Of course he was not suggesting that these three theoreticians have no theory, but rather, that he considers their approach to be marginal. They do not fit within what he considers the essential core. In
other words, “that’s not linguistics.”
5. Developing an Alternative 229
therefore become important and the characteristic unconcern about them vanish whenever paradigms or models are felt to be insecure.
That is, moreover, exactly what does occur. Kuhn 1970
:47; italics added
Of course, disciplinary orthodoxy may only be defined from within a paradigm. John Lyons has written, “To say that language serves as an instrument of communi-
cation is to utter a truism. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine any satisfactory definition of the term ‘language’ that did not incorporate some reference to the notion of communi-
cation” 1977
:32. It may indeed seem that Lyons has hit upon a truism, and it is true that definitions of language necessarily incorporate a reference to communication. It should
be noted, however, that the disciplinary perspective regarding the relationship of language and communication has not remained constant throughout the history of lin-
guistics. Rather, as paradigms have changed, so have dominant perspectives on the relationship of language and communication.
As discussed in chapter 3
, the linguistic tradition preceding Saussure was defined by the historical-comparative tradition, which contented itself with the evolutionary study of
sound change. Linguists presumed a surrogationalist theory of signs, but otherwise they were not particularly concerned with how language was related to communication.
In contrast to the dominant view of his day, Saussure thought it to be misguided for linguists to consider the tracking of sets of cognates through historical tunnels an
adequate account of human language. As Harris writes:
The explanations philological historians provided were in the final analysis simply appeals to the past. They did not—and could not—offer any analysis of what a language is from the
viewpoint of its current speakers. Whereas for Saussure it was only by adopting the user’s point of view that a language could be seen to be a coherently organised structure, amenable to
scientific study.
Harris 1983 :xi
With his speech circuit model of communication as a foundation, Saussure proposed that linguistics should study the langue, assuming that the langue was the shared and
fixed code which allowed communication to proceed. While it has taken various forms, that general view has held the attention of the discipline of linguistics since the decade
following publication of Saussure’s Cours.
Recent years have seen the perspective regarding the relationship of language and communication again called into question. Saussure considered the historical-
comparative tradition to be misguided. Many linguists of the present day think it to be similarly misguided for the discipline to consider descriptions of the “code” of ideal
speaker-listeners in a completely homogenous speech community an adequate account of human language. Please understand that this comment is not directed toward the genera-
tive school. While Chomsky coined this phrase “ideal speaker-listener,” he was indeed correct in stating that this view toward such ideals has “been the position of the founders
of modern general linguistics.” That position is, after all, the effect of Saussure’s proposals regarding the langue. But whereas Chomsky could write that he saw “no
230 5. Developing an Alternative
cogent reason for modifying” that approach 1965
:3–4, many contemporary linguists see ample reason for its modification.
Devlin discusses the move toward a modified or alternative approach to linguistics and communication in his book Goodbye Descartes
1997 . Having discussed the advent
of sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and increasing interest in the process of communi- cation as opposed to formal elements of language, Devlin writes:
Whereas Chomsky had concentrated on what might be called the internal mechanics of language, the new linguists viewed language as just one of many ways in which two people
can communicate. Using language to communicate requires much more than having a mastery of the syntactical rules of a given language, these new researchers argued. Accordingly, the
focus should be widened from language itself to the much more general notion of language as a component of a communication process.
Devlin 1997 :186
Devlin continues, predicting an increasing disciplinary shift not simply toward study of language in context,
115
but rather toward the study of communication using language:
So from now on, as we examine our language ability, the emphasis will be very much on communication using language, as opposed to a de Saussure- or Chomsky-style study of the
structure of language taken out of context. The developments we will follow are part of an emerging new science of communication. This new science is presenting many new chal-
lenges, as well as revelations, into what our minds are doing as we reason and use languages.
Devlin 1997 :186
5.6. The code model in the future of linguistics
