The code model and alternative model in social context

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

The models of communication addressed in this study obviously exist in disciplinary environments. They also exist in a broader social environment. The linguists who have worked with these models undoubtedly brought their broader experience and perspective to their work. Harris discusses the role of such context on Saussure’s development of the speech circuit model of communication. Having noted certain inherent weaknesses in Saussure’s model, Harris comments: That [an attempt to promote the model] was [made], however, bears witness to the extent to which the plausibility of this general picture of speech-communication is indebted to the cultural paradigms of a particular phase in Western civilization. Whether it would appear at all convincing if seen against a totally different cultural background must be doubtful. Its persua- siveness derives essentially from the fact that, at a particular time and place in human history, all the relevant analogues and justifications—metalinguistic, philosophical, technological and 232 5. Developing an Alternative political—came together to provide what could be seen in that context as a necessary and sufficient conceptual framework for the analysis of speech. Harris 1987 :218 Contemporary practitioners of the Saussurean paradigm have, of course, integrated Saussure’s speech circuit with the information theoretic model proposed by Shannon. This event is also an expression of broader context; the code model of communication was developed in the academic context shaped by cybernetics, information theory, and a growing interest in machine translation. The mathematical and engineering analogies so evoked had an obvious effect. One may question, for example, whether Chomsky’s mathematical account of language would have been accepted in a different social context. What, one may ask, are the cultural paradigms of contemporary Western civilization which would give rise to revolutionary linguistics and an alternative model of commu- nication such as that presented in this study? As a broadly embraced cultural paradigm, poststructuralism may greatly influence the perceived mortality of the code model and the potential validity of an alternative model. 117 Together, such perceptions may precip- itate the completion of this paradigmatic life-cycle and hasten the onset of another. But as Joseph notes: “Within linguistics, the effects of poststructuralist thought are only beginning to be felt; the field in which structuralism began is the last to let it go” 1994 :3669. 117 Readers unfamiliar with poststructuralist perspectives may find in Osborne 1991 :366–396 a concise and useful overview of relevant issues. Also see Lakoff and Johnson 1999 :463ff. for a discussion of how cognitive linguistics may be seen as holding in check certain radical? premises of poststructuralist philosophy. The notion of usage and understanding being grounded in the context of experience may create a constraining effect on the possible that is, plausible interpretations to be attributed to any particular utterance. In this regard, the view of experiential semantics may be physically represented by a hanging mobile. A mobile is “a piece of abstract sculpture which aims to depict movement, as by an arrangement of thin forms, rings, etc. suspended and set in motion by air currents” Neufeldt 1989 . The mobile provides opportunity for movement, but only within a limited range, depending upon the points at which it is anchored. This differs, of course, from the tension-grid sculptures which may be used to represent Saussure’s langue. The tension-grid sculptures are not anchored to any points outside their own system. See again chapter three, note 26, of the present study. 233

6. Summary and Concluding Comments

This chapter provides a brief summary of chapters 1 through 5 , as well as concluding comments for the study as a whole. The concluding comments are presented in conjunc- tion with the summary material for respective chapters.

6.1. Chapter 1

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 This study has provided a detailed analysis of a particular model of communication which has been employed in linguistics for nearly fifty years. The model in question has been called the “Code Model of Communication.” It is a basic model of communication and expresses the idea that communication is the transmission and reception of infor- mation between a human source encoder and receiver decoder using a signaling system. Of this model Edmondson and Burquest 1998 :95–96 comment that in that 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 has asserted that the code model concept of communication has been fundamental to the metatheory of contemporary linguistics see Crystal 2003 :85.

6.2. Chapter 2

The second chapter of the study has addressed the fact that models are metaphors. Within linguistics, as within any discipline, models play an important role in metatheory. Metatheory, defined as “the underlying beliefs which generate a particular approach” and as “ideology or theoretical presupposition” Figueroa 1994 :4, is typically assumed within a given discipline, and therefore rarely discussed. Metatheory can be examined vicariously, however, through examination of the metaphors employed by linguists. As Lakoff and Johnson suggest in regard to their own study of metaphor, “language is an important source of evidence for what the [conceptual] system is like” 1980 :3. In examining the language used by linguists, one finds a recurring theme reflected in use of a particular theoretical model, the code model of communication. As a means of documenting this recurring theme, the study presented a selection of quotations spanning nearly fifty years of linguistic literature. One need not look far to determine that, indeed, most linguists employ some version of the code model, even though they may vary in regard to the details of its conceptualization and application.