on the epistemological nature of historical linguistics...

[benji wald]

I found the message by Gonzalo Rubio on the subject topic charming and
thought-provoking.
 
I particularly appreciated the pride of discipline (and I do mean
"discipline") implicit in his passage:
 
>If I tell my father I have a new interesting
>contribution to some surgical procedure (he's a physician), he would look
>at me with a very ironic smile and say "don't you have anything better to
>do?".  Within this context, one may wonder what is the true epistemological
>nature of historical linguistics.
 
With regard to the last sentence appended to the main thought of this
passage, I would like to respond to it in combination with his later
comment:
 
>... about this amazing
>phenomenon: hundreds of well-intentioned dilettanti devoting their time
>and energy to the search for the Grail of linguistic filiations. Actually,
>somehow I admire them. Aren't they "the last Romantics"...?
 
Indeed the word "Romantic" is well chosen.  It is a tribute to historical
linguistics that it has captured the imagination of so many dilletantes
that they have devoted so much of their spare time to their pet theories.
I assume "spare time", because their naive methodologies suggest that they
have not had the privilege (if I can use that word) of studying or
appreciating the methodological issues which have evolved out of the
original insight of the "genetic hypothesis" over the last 200 years.  I
say it is a tribute to historical linguistics, because it is the success of
its methods that has given the genetic hypothesis its prestige and
scientific standing -- considerations which encourage the dilettantes to
want to make a contribution, though their lack of training/discipline
prevents them from appreciating what is involved.
 
Having said that, I also want to draw attention to the fact that those
scholars who developed the methodology to back up the genetic hypothesis,
most notably the method of comparative reconstruction, were inspired by the
same EXTRA-linguistic impulses that motivate the dilettantes.  The
developers of Indo-European, most indefatiguably various German-speaking
scholars of the 19th c., were inspired in an era which is generally called
the "Romantic" era (or movement) in (European) history.  They were
particularly concerned with establishing the historical roots of their own
nations (i.e., cultures) and legitimising their sense of nationalistic
identity.  As scholars they were driven, actually compelled by scholarly
criticism, to go beyond mere assertion to develop the methods which give
meaning to the genetic hypothesis and the phenomena underlying it.  In this
they departed from the dilettantes.  They were interested in acquiring
knowledge, not simply in egotistically claiming to possess it.  This is
where they differ from prophets proclaiming revealed truths and kindred
myth-propagators.
 
As in all sciences (as Richard M. Alderson III reminds us in his response
to Gonzalo's message), a gap develops between those who simply appreciate a
problem, and those who seriously develop methods to solve it -- and respond
to criticism in so doing (and I don't mean to suggest that scholars resent
criticism of their ideas any less than the dilettantes, but that scholars
respect the criticism enough to do something about it -- in fact, they
respect themselves and their desire for secure knowledge enough to do
something about it.  Of course, their concern for their standing within the
community of scholars also forces them to do something about it.  This is
an advantage they have over the dilettantes who can be content to make
excuses dismissive of criticism,  So, scholars, be happy that you are
criticised by other scholars.)
 
Thus, it is not "amazing" that there are so many dilettantes interested in
residual problems.  Historical linguistics grew out of that originally
dilettantish interest (which has various, probably even universal, cultural
roots in concern with social identity).  The difference is that scholarship
has passed the dilettantes by.  They only dimly understand the reasons for
the success of historical linguistics, and are hardly aware of the problems
which had to be overcome.
 
Getting back to the motives for development of the genetic hypothesis, I
suppose to some extent historical linguists are still driven by
extra-linguistic considerations, having to do with a concern about human
(cultural) history, and even the more specific challenges of isolated
languages contrasting with the numerous successes of the genetic hypothesis
and partial historical reconstruction of so many distinct language
families.   However, this is obviously NOT the guiding motivation for those
historical linguists who continue to explore and reformulate the nature of
Indo-European and various other language families which have already long
been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.  Possibly in the back of their
minds is the hope that if they can get these details right, they may have a
chance to extend genetic affiliations further.  Fine, as long as it stays
in the BACK of their minds (until it deserves to come to the fore, which is
not yet).
 
Meanwhile, as the methodology of the genetic hypothesis and historical
reconstruction developed, other INTRA-linguistic issues emerged which are
the SUBSTANCE of historical linguistics but are hardly ever appreciated,
much less addressed, by dilettantes, who remain uniquely inspired by the
original notion of genetic relationship.  These intra-linguistic issues
involve the notion of "possible linguistic change" or "constraints on
linguistic change".  Reconstruction is not possible without this notion,
and the genetic hypothesis is not meaningful without reconstruction.  At
this point, reconstruction no longer becomes an end in itself for the
historical linguist, but a means to develop methodology and ideas about
possible linguistic changes and constraints on linguistic change.  These
become of intrinsic interest, rather than just means to an end.
Reconstruction becomes more than "recovery" of a proto-language,
proto-state, or proto-historical situation, but reconstruction of a PATH of
historical evolution from that proto-whatever to the observable present.
It seems to me that without this consideration, interest in recovery of
proto-whatevers is relatively trivial, an old-fashioned concern originally
motivated by establishment of cultural "legitimacy", ancestor-worship,
etc., and, in any case, not trust-worthy.
 
Historical linguistics is a journey, not a known destination.  It's just
like any other science in this respect.
 
It would be nice if we could get this message down to the dilettantes.
Then what they do with their spare time might be more interesting and
useful, and we would not have to deal with the professional barrier that
separates us from them and breeds mistrust on both sides.            --
Benji