4. Code Model Linguistics: Patch or Abandon? 181
employed in integrational linguistics. He does, however, provide discussion of philo- sophical concerns which are important not only to integrationalists, but to revolutionary
linguists in general.
4.5. Viewing revolutionary approaches as developmental
Revolutionary approaches must be recognized as being somewhat autonomous of normal science approaches; they depend on a different conception of language and its
relationship to communication, even though their proponents may not have explicitly outlined the models so employed. In consideration of Kuhn’s incommensurability
hypothesis, reviewers must make a concerted effort to overcome the biasing effect of a familiar paradigm before offering criticism of a competing paradigmatic perspective.
Reviewers may find it difficult to think in the terms defined by a different paradigm. They can begin, however, by considering the research questions defined by the revolutio-
nary approach, comparing those questions to the research questions of the paradigmatic perspective with which they are familiar.
Revolutionary approaches should also be recognized as being developmental. That is, being in the process of development, they may not address all the areas of inquiry
covered by approaches with greater longevity. Linguists from other schools are under- standably eager to see how this or that new theory will handle their favorite area of
interest. Occasionally, however, that eagerness grades into criticism. It is said that such criticism was occasionally directed toward Chomsky’s early work in developing genera-
tive linguistics. Critics complained that the new grammar was inadequate since it didn’t cover every area that previous theories had addressed. Chomsky is said to have
responded with something to the effect of “We must assume that those areas will be developed in time” Donald A. Burquest 1998, personal communication. A similar
defense may be offered on behalf of approaches presently considered revolutionary.
182
5. Developing an Alternative
5.1. “If you want to end a war …”
It is always easier to offer criticism than solutions. Having read an editorial column offering such “cheap criticism,” reader T. J. Tally wrote the editor. He pointed out that
while the column offered much criticism, it made no suggestions for improvements. Tally, commented: “If you want to end a war, you have to solve the problems the war
solves, without the war. If you want to end a system of taxation, you have to solve the problems it solves, without that system”
1997 :4.
Tally’s words can stand as a trenchant response to any critical review, including a review of the code model of communication. In other words, if you want to solve the
problem of communication without the code model, then you have to solve the problem the code model solves, without that model.
The task is not simple. One must of course identify the problems which the model does solve, as well as those which are not solved. Since, as Kuhn explains, each para-
digm sets for itself the problems it considers important 1996
:148–149, it can be difficult to determine exactly what problems should be solved.
One must also evaluate the options available for replacement. As Kuhn explains, one can’t abandon a paradigmatic perspective until a satisfactory replacement is available
1996 :77–79. Obviously, linguists will respond to available models differently. One may
expect that, in the view of some linguists, none of the currently available replacements will be considered satisfactory.
With these concerns in mind, this chapter provides a critique of the code model and several alternative models, then suggests a composite alternative model. The alternative
model so developed is not proposed as a replacement for the code model, but as an antithesis—an essential element in the evaluation and evolution of linguistic metatheory.
5.2. A critical evaluation of the code model
This section addresses certain anomalies supported by the code model of commu- nication. The discussion addresses four major concerns: variation, abstraction, meaning,
and discourse. Related concerns are subsumed under these major headings. As was briefly reviewed in section
4.4.1 , proponents of code model linguistics may suggest
various patches which, in their view, help to cover these problem areas. A distinction should be maintained, however, between the core model and the patches proposed for its
support, particularly when the patches themselves sometimes violate the basic theory established in that model. Concerning the habit of defending the code model view via
patches, Harris writes:
