204 5. Developing an Alternative
traditional split between semantics and pragmatics. That is, semantics addresses the meaning of the words, while pragmatics addresses the way in which those words are
employed in context.
The reality of the situation, however, is that language is not a fixed-value system see Harris 1987
:219ff.. To use the restaurant analogy again, if the problem is considered from a broader scope, it is apparent that the cost of the meal does vary according to
context. A lobster dinner may cost twenty-five dollars at one restaurant, fifteen at another, and five on the pier. Furthermore, the price of the meal is negotiated, although
rarely by the individual working alone. The cost of the meal is certainly negotiated behind the scenes by the restaurateur, who estimates what he thinks his customers will
pay. And it is negotiated nonverbally by the customer, who peruses the menu and determines what he is willing to purchase. The cost of the meal also fluctuates according
to supply and demand. In other words, it is grounded in context and varies according to context. The same may be said of meaning.
Words do not consistently mean the same thing from place to place, independent of context of usage. Rather, meaning is negotiated, although rarely by the individual work-
ing alone. That is, meaning fluctuates according to general usage. Just as the restaurant customer has a range of prices he is willing to pay, the user of language will normally
have a range of meaning he will be willing to associate or accept as associated with a particular word or expression. Over time and across space, the range of such accepted
meaning shifts according to the “supply and demand” for a particular “exchange.”
As stated previously, Saussure was well aware of semantic change and variation. He writes: “The first thing which strikes one on studying linguistic facts is that the language
user is unaware of their succession in time: he is dealing with a state” Saussure
1983 :[117]; italics added. Saussure was not ignorant of reality when he proposed a
fixed-value, context-independent approach to language. Rather, as he saw it, objectivist science and the synchronic approach made a fixed-value system a theoretical necessity.
As stated previously, for contemporary linguists focusing on the problem of real language and real communication, it is not a theoretical necessity, but rather, a theoretical stum-
bling block.
5.2.3.3. Revolutionary response to the problem of meaning
It is important to understand that revolutionary linguistics does not plunge the study of language into semantic nihilism. It simply takes a different view of the relationship
between meaning and context, and thereby meaning and communication. Various revo- lutionary linguists recognize that meaning cannot be divorced from context. Accordingly,
revolutionary theories do not isolate semantics and pragmatics. Revolutionary linguists may differ in their theorization regarding how meaning works in the mind, but they agree
that notions of meaning must incorporate context. This is a significant contrast with the Saussurean paradigm.
5. Developing an Alternative 205
As Saussure instructed, most linguists working in the Saussurean paradigm have made the study of linguistic structure the primary concern, relating all other manifes-
tations of language to it see Saussure 1983
:[25]. As the Cours states: “Indeed, amid so may dualities, linguistic structure seems to be the one thing that is independently
definable and provides something our minds can satisfactorily grasp” Saussure
1983 :[25]. In an academic context so defined, semantic concerns have been relatively
neglected. Accordingly, the relationship of semantics and communication has also been relatively neglected. Nevertheless, “It is obvious, or has appeared so to many seman-
ticists, that there is an intrinsic connexion between meaning and communication, such that it is impossible to account for the former except in terms of the latter”
Lyons 1977
:32. Awareness of this fact is a major factor driving the work of revolutionary linguists.
As mentioned previously, from the view point of revolutionary linguistics, the language user’s view that language is semantically static should be understood as an
expression of naïve realism. Spradley describes naïve realism as the belief that, “human languages may differ from one society to the next, but behind the strange words and
sentences, all people are talking about the same things”
Spradley 1980 :4.
In reality, language only has the appearance of being semantically static because, in general, change only comes about slowly, and thereby sometimes imperceptibly. But
slow movement and fixed status are not the same thing. The movement of the hands on a clock also move slowly, and thereby sometimes imperceptibly. But, again, slow move-
ment and fixed status are not the same thing. One would regard a theory of clocks which described the hands as fixed and immovable as being inadequate, to say the least. The
same may be said of a theory of language and communication which regards semantics as being of fixed status. The relegation of structural and semantic change to the domain of
diachronic linguistics is an inadequate solution to this problem.
From the perspective of revolutionary linguists, the problem is a matter of equilib- rium. Saussure addresses this equilibrium via the concept of collective inertia:
Collective inertia resists all linguistic innovations. We come now to a consideration
which takes precedence over all others. At any time a language belongs to all its users. It is a facility unrestrictedly available throughout a whole community. It is something all make use of
every day. In this respect it is quite unlike other social institutions. Legal procedures, religious rites, ship’s flags, etc. are systems used only by a certain number of individuals acting together
and for a limited time. A language, on the contrary is something in which everyone partici- pates all the time, and that is why it is constantly open to the influence of all. This key fact is
by itself sufficient to explain why a linguistic revolution is impossible. Of all social institutions, a language affords the least scope for such enterprise. It is part and parcel of the
life of the whole community, and the community’s natural inertia exercises a conservative influence upon it.
None the less, to say that a language is a product of social forces does not automatically explain why it comes to be constrained in the way it is. Bearing in mind that a language is
always an inheritance from the past, one must add that the social forces in question act over a period of time. If stability is a characteristic of languages, it is not only because languages are
anchored in the community. They are also anchored in time. The two facts are inseparable.
206 5. Developing an Alternative
Continuity with the past constantly restricts freedom of choice. If the Frenchman of today uses words like homme ‘man’ and chien ‘dog’, it is because these words were used by his
forefathers. Ultimately there is a connexion between these two opposing factors: the arbitrary convention which allows free choice, and the passage of time, which fixes that choice. It is
because the linguistic sign is arbitrary that it knows no other law than that of tradition, and because it is founded upon tradition that it can be arbitrary.
Saussure 1983 :[107–108]; italics
added
While some theorists, including both normal and revolutionary linguists, differ somewhat with Saussure regarding the arbitrary nature of signification, few venture to
argue with Saussure’s proposals regarding collective inertia. Revolutionary linguists agree with the general notion of collective inertia.
99
Where they differ with Saussure and thereby depart from the Saussurean paradigm is in regard to how one should respond to
this reality. In Saussure’s view, in light of collective inertia, it is entirely plausible that one
would treat language as a fixed system. In his view, language is fixed by being anchored in the speech community, across both community-space that is, the speech community
spread across geographic space and time.
In the view of revolutionary linguists, however, these same facts are used to argue that language should not be treated as a fixed system. In that view, if language is so
anchored in the speech community, across both community-space and time, then a model of communication should account for the contextual influence of the community and the
influence of time. It simply will not do to support a model of communication which regards these anchors as only having a constraining effect, but which does not account for
the active affect of these same anchors. Again, as Lyons writes, “… there is an intrinsic connexion between meaning and communication, such that it is impossible to account for
the former except in terms of the latter”
Lyons 1977 :32.
5.2.4. The problem of discourse
