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
The question of whether or not the code model should have a place in the future of linguistics is distinct from the question of whether the model will have a place in that
future. The question of whether it will have a future must be addressed first. In answering that question, it is helpful to consider the three constituent models individually, for the
apparent plausibility they command contributes to the apparent plausibility of the code model as a whole.
The oldest of the three constituents, the conduit metaphor, has displayed a tremendous longevity. It is already hundreds, if not thousands of years old, and at present
there is no indication that its continued use is threatened. This does not mean, however, that anyone has ever literally packaged a nugget of meaning into a word, or literally
joined two brains via a pipe or wire. Nevertheless, one should expect that common language will continue to employ the metaphor. By extension, the “common sense” view
of communication will likely continue to employ the conduit metaphor.
116
A similar vitality is expected for the information theoretic constituent, albeit for different reasons. Information theory continues to display a strong and productive
115
Devlin notes and discusses increased interest in meaning and context, which Chomsky relatively ignored, as well as “two other key features of communication that Chomsky ignored: cultural knowledge and the structure of
conversations” Devlin 1997
:207.
116
See Lakoff 1987
for a discussion of folk theories concerning language and communication.
5. Developing an Alternative 231
existence in electrical engineering and related fields, including computational engineering and neurology. Since the technical uses of information theory in these fields
are independent of its appropriation in the code model, one would expect that, even if the code model were to be abandoned, the information theoretic account could remain vital
in the engineering concerns. Linguists should understand here that where linguistics is concerned with the actual transmission and reception of articulated sound waves, it is
dealing with an engineering issue. In that regard, information theory will continue to be effective in linguistics as well, but that application should be distinct from the use of the
code model.
Within linguistics, the vitality of the code model largely depends upon the perceived vitality of Saussure’s speech circuit more so than it does the vitality of Shannon’s infor-
mation theoretic model or the conduit metaphor. If linguists abandon the Saussurean paradigm in favor of another, then one might reasonably expect that the speech circuit
will be abandoned in the process. When that happens, ultimately, the code model will follow. Exactly what model will take its place is yet to be determined.
One must remember, as well, the various academic contexts in which the code model is employed. The model is not simply the property of linguistics; other disciplines in the
humanities and human sciences also employ the model e.g., English literature, Kinneavy
1971 :17–40; anthropology,
Spradley and McCurdy 1980 :11–13. Roughly characterized,
any discipline which has at sometime been strongly influenced by Saussurean structural- ism is likely to demonstrate or to have demonstrated an affinity for the code model of
communication.
Considering the breadth of diffusion which the code model account has seen, the model is likely to remain in use for some time, even though it has been shown to be an
inaccurate and misleading account of human communication via natural language. But as long as the discipline of linguistics continues to employ the model and the body of pre-
suppositions which it typically embodies, the discipline will continue to struggle with the inconsistencies and anomalies it supports.
5.7. The code model and alternative model in social context
