Introductory comments ‘Communication’: A Fundamental Concept in Linguistic Metatheory

1

1. ‘Communication’: A Fundamental Concept in Linguistic Metatheory

1.1. Introductory comments

Most studies conducted within the field of linguistics are justly described as linguistic studies. They offer analyses or discussion of some element of language. While conducted from within the field of linguistics, this study is not so much a linguistic study as it is a study of linguistics. In general terms, it is an examination of how linguists go about their trade. And, importantly, it is an examination conducted by an insider—by a participant—rather than simply a collection of observations made by an outsider. Spe- cifically, the study is a review of the history of a particular idealized model of commu- nication, which has been employed within the discipline for nearly fifty years. It is an examination of how that model developed, spread, and gained influence within the discipline, and how, on some fronts, that influence has begun to wane. The model in question has been called the code model of communication. 1 It is a basic model of communication and expresses the idea that communication is the transmission and reception of information between a human source encoder and receiver decoder using a signaling system. David Crystal, in the standard reference work, A Dictionary of Linguistics Phonetics, even employs the model in defining communication, noting that “in theory, communication is said to have taken place if the information received is the same as that sent” Crystal 2003 :85. Edmondson and Burquest 1998 :95–96 comment that, as proposed in this view, “language is a kind of code, and communicating is the process of encoding concepts and its inverse decoding. The notion is quite familiar and so intuitive that the question may be asked whether there is any conceivable alternative to it.” This study asserts that the code model concept of communication has been fundamental to the metatheory of contemporary linguistics see Crystal 2003 :85. The notion of metatheory itself bears some discussion, for in some circles, meta- theory is taken to signify theory-free or theory-neutral elements in a research tradition. On philosophical grounds this study must reject the assertion that any element of a research tradition could be theory-free or theory-neutral. Obviously then, this is not the sense of metatheory employed here. Rather, by metatheory is meant the “underlying beliefs that generate a particular approach.” This use of the term metatheory is analogous to “ideology” or “theoretical presupposition” Figueroa 1994 :4. In exploring similarities and differences between schools of thought within lin- guistics, this study goes beyond the means of analysis or description employed by various 1 The neologism seems to have originated with Sperber and Wilson 1986 :2. 2 1. ‘Communication’: A Fundamental Concept in Linguistic Metatheory schools. While their differences in method or technique are quickly identified, their similarities often go unstated. Their similarities involve metatheory, and to fail to approach such similarities from a metatheoretical perspective would be neglectful. As Figueroa points out, such a shortsighted study would be at best shallow, for it would not “add much insight to understanding general developments in the field of linguistics” Figueroa 1994 :17. The necessity of a metatheoretical perspective may seem intuitively obvious to some; however, such a perspective has too often been lacking within linguistics. Perhaps a reason for this neglect lies in the elusive nature of metatheoretical “data.” Metatheoretical concepts are embodied in models and theories, and taught via the canonical problems and examples of their respective disciplines. Such concepts are commonly presupposed within the community embracing them and, accordingly, they typically accompany the model as implicit knowledge. They are rarely discussed in an explicit manner. Nevertheless, they are crucial to the conceptual structure of their respective disciplines. This is the situation for most metatheory, and it is true of concepts of communication within linguistics as well. As Roy Harris has stated: Every linguistic theory presupposes a theory of communication …. However minimal or inexplicitly formulated such a theory of communication may be, it has an essential role to play because nothing else can provide the conceptual underpinnings necessary for a more detailed account of how an interactive social activity like language works. Harris 1987 :204 While the code model is now firmly entrenched within linguistic metatheory, in terms of the history of science and philosophy it is, in fact, a relatively recent innovation. This claim stands in contrast with those of certain other theoreticians, who suggest that the model predates even Aristotle Sperber and Wilson 1986 :2. Indeed, an ancient model is evident there, and to some extent it does continue through the present age. However, rather than regarding the code model as simply the continuation of an ancient idea, it is better for one to understand it as a contemporary integration of three models: 1. The conduit metaphor a folk model of communication 2. Saussure’s speech circuit the model of communication expounded in Saussure’s Cours de linguistique générale 3. Modern information theory a model and theory of communication from electrical engineering that has provided essential terminology for the code model account of communication Each of these three constituent models and their integration will be addressed in detail in chapter 3 . For now, suffice it to say that through the integration of these constituent models, which are the contributions of disparate sources, linguists have created and maintained several paradoxes that continue to haunt the discipline. As will be addressed in chapter 5 , these paradoxes fundamentally limit the potential of associated theories and analyses. Readers should take care to note, however, that use of and dependence upon the code model is not to be attributed to any single school of thought in linguistics. Rather, it is 1. ‘Communication’: A Fundamental Concept in Linguistic Metatheory 3 more realistic to see this dependence upon the code model as an expression of the paradigm which dominates contemporary schools of thought. As used here, paradigm refers to a constellation of commitments to particular ways of viewing the method and the subject of inquiry. Such commitments depend upon and extend from metatheoretical conceptual axioms. This notion of paradigm, as has been developed by Thomas Kuhn 1996 [orig. 1962 ; 2nd edition 1970 ], proves a useful tool in the analysis of the code model and its significance to each of the various schools, as chapter 4 will demonstrate. Only by recognizing anomalies inherent in the code model may linguists hope to overcome certain weaknesses and inconsistencies that have plagued the discipline since its inception. Some linguists and schools of linguistics have indeed been wrestling with these anomalies, and have been attempting to “redefine linguistics,” as Roy Harris has provocatively put it 1990 . Attention will be given to such developments in chapter 4 . Applying Kuhn’s paradigm theory to the discipline of linguistics, one may conjecture concerning where metatheoretical shifts may fit within the life cycle of the discipline. Is linguistics experiencing one of Kuhn’s revolutions? Of course, this question can be answered confidently only by those who will write our history. Furthermore, if the question of paradigm shift were to be directed toward the discipline as a whole, as if it were a homogenous unit, then that question could easily lead to simplistic answers and violate the distinctive contributions of the constituent schools. As Kuhn 1993 :xiii points out in a later writing, scientific revolutions “should be described not in terms of group experience but in terms of the varied experiences of individual group members.” It should also be made clear that this discussion is not intended to serve as the harbinger of a revolution or “paradigm shift.” As Makkai suggests, there have been enough “paradigm mongerers” in linguistics 1993 :2. Individuals do not create paradigm shifts in their colleagues. 2 If there is any single element of Kuhn’s theory that must not be neglected, it is the proposition that science is a community enterprise. While this study includes a limited review of the history of the discipline where it involves the code model, it is not a goal of this study to write or rewrite as the case may be the history of the discipline. Rather, the goal is to identify metatheoretical conceptual axioms commonly held within the discipline and anomalies those axioms support, for in so doing, one might better propose where the discipline may or should go. 3 In that regard, motives are shared with Andresen, who states as follows her purpose for linguistic historiography: 2 In an interview with Horgan, Kuhn recounted his continued disappointment when one or another young theoretician would contact him asking for help in starting a revolution. Horgan writes: Kuhn was also upset that he had become the patron saint of all would-be scientific revolutionaries. “I get a lot of letters saying, ‘I’ve just read your book, and it’s transformed my life. I’m trying to start a revolution. Please help me.’” Horgan 1996 :45 3 It is important here to distinguish the notion of metatheoretical conceptual axioms from the more common notion of presuppositions. In conducting a study of historical literature, it is nearly impossible for the researcher to examine presuppositions, for presuppositions typically go unstated. However, the literature does display, by collective weight of repetition, statements which are universally accepted as true. These are better described as axioms. 4 1. ‘Communication’: A Fundamental Concept in Linguistic Metatheory Our aim, among others, is to lay bare the sometimes unconscious assumptions that linguists bring to their theories of language and to follow the consequences of those assumptions through the elaboration of the theories, often over long periods of time. If we so choose, we might also simultaneously reconstruct the philosophical and sociological contexts within which particular periods of linguistic activity take place. Thus, examination of the historical record provides us with a broad perspective on the variety of factors which contribute to the construction of a theory of language. Andresen 1987 :647 Looking back while looking ahead allows us to evaluate rather than simply react. Newly developing perspectives may not always fulfill the objectives of communities, but they may serve to open new horizons.

1.2. Discussion plan