<Language> McCray Review & Discussion

[H. Mark Hubey]

<><><><><><><><><><><><>--This is the Language List--<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

This is not a review. Comments may be posted. When comments get
posted, then it can be considered to be a review.

------------------------cut here ---------------------------------
McCray, Stanley, (1988) Advanced Principles of Historical Linguistics,
American University Studies,  Linguistics, Vol. 6, Peter Lang
Publishing, New York

p.1

Linguistics, like any other science, has been riddled through with
various dogmatic practices and methodological subdivisions. Although it
may be claimed that the formulation of theories ultimately contributes
to new insights about language, it seems nevertheless that the
proliferation of models which are sometimes repetetive, sometimes
contradictory, sometimes meaningless, has done little to alleviate the
linguist's frustration over the lack of a cogent way of looking at
languages which is at least as impressive in its treatment of the data
as it is in its metatheoretical elegance.

p. 3

First, if any universal principles about language are to be unearthed,
how wide a body of evidence should be used? Obviously, no one person is
competent to deal with all the world's languages. Yet even within a
particular group of languages, the question is how much to include in an
analysis comes up again and again. Second, how far can linguistics
progress beyond explaining ungrammatical utterances or reconstructing
isolated pieces of language? Third, what is the source of the
methodological limitations in constructing linguistic theories? Finally,
how well does linguistic science fit into the overall structure of
scientific and philosophical discourse?

...
The goal of this work is to suggest at least a "methodological mindset"
which may ultimately provide some answers.

p.6
It is a well-known fact that, even though the word "system" dominates
many discussions of present day linguistics, the concept is one that is
not always easy to make precise....Therefore if the motto of modern
synchronic linguistics must be `language is both a system', the motto of
of diachronic linguistics must be `language is both a system and not a
system'. The desire to reject the notion of system in language is
documented in more recent proclamations. Note, for example, Lass 1980:
"In fact, even though `system' is used very loosely in describing
various aspects of language, it seems doubtful that the term in  the
mathematical sense, is appropriate; its use in linguistics can never be
anything more than a false -- if sometimes useful -- metaphorical
extension.

I do not think that languages are systems in the technical
(systems-theoretical) sense, or that they can be profitably viewed
diachronically if they were."

Based on these two citations, it seems that the only difference in these
views separated by twenty years (in which both general and linguistic
science have seen many advances) is that whereas Steblin-Kamenskij views
the notion of system as a "vague" concept (a strange statement from an
obviously well-educated man who must have been aware of the history of
science), Lass, on the other hand, feels that it is not the concept
itself that is vague, but rather the way linguistics uses it that leaves
something to be desired. Both scholars, however, appear to agree that it
is impossible to talk about system in historical linguistics. Obviously,
both men offer their statements in reaction to the time-honored
principle of the systematicity of language which was emphasized for the
first time (at least by Western scholars) by de Saussure in his outline
of a series of constructs for synchronic linguistics. Given though the
enormous amount of research about language structure, and in view of
well-attested rule-governed linguistic phenomena, it seems rather odd
that in our age two such scholars should reach the rather depressing
conclusion that language, in certain significant manifestations, may not
represent a system at all. Such a conclusion, if valid, causes out the
common assertion that linguistics is indeed a science.

I find particularly interesting the comments of Lass, whose thesis
against the systematicity of language is made, at least in part, with
reference to some of the ideas expressed in an important work by Ludwig
von Bertalanffy (1967). Writing on the development of what he calls the
general systems theory, he outlines a series of axioms he views
applicable not only to the physical sciences, but to the social sciences
as well.

.. [von Bertalanffy's ideas]

First and foremost is the notion of system in general and the structure
of language in particular. A system may be defined as a set of elements
tied together by empirically verifiable interrelations. This is,
obviously, a loose and general definition. Von Bertalanffy defines it
thus: "A system can be defined as a set of elements standing in
interrelation. Interrelation means that elements p stand in relation R,
so that the behavior of an element p in R is different from its behavior
in another relation R'. If the behaviors in R and R' are not different,
there is no interaction, and the elements behave independently with
respect to the relations R and R'". It is evident that human languages
are systems in this regard. For example, while any two languages may
share certain features (such as front rounded vowels, genitive case,
perfective aspect, etc.), the precise relation of these features to
other elements will differ in the two languages. Such a notion of
interrelation lies at the heart of linguistic science because it defines
the structural integrity around which a language is constructed.
Moreover, it is the concept of systemic integrity which is, as we shall
see in the course of this book, one of the most important ideas for
linguistics, comparative or otherwise.
...

p.10
For example, Hamp (19740 observed: "Most instances of really interesting
linguistic change involve multiple changes of various sorts:
phonological, syntactic, semantic" (141). In a later (1981) piece, he
observed that reconstruction must take into consideration all levels of
grammar: "At present, we know relatively little about the relation
between changes in different areas of linguistic structure", (1984:301).

p. 11
Linguists are quite fond of citing Kuhn in the hope of giving scientific
legitimacy to their theorizing; rejection of the alternative
possibilities offered by the general systems approach runs counter to
Kuhn and scientific thinking in general. It has happened too often, in
both synchronic and diachronic studies, that, once certain
methodological lines have been drawn, communication between various
factions becomes at best polemic, if it continues at all.

p.12
it is important, given this, to review some basic facts about language:
1. Language represents a rule-governed system. The subsystemic
components may be described under phonology, morphology, syntax,
semantics, and the lexicon.

2. Although the notion of interrelation amongst elements has not been
overtly stated, it is nevertheless within common parlance to discuss
such notions as morphophonemics, morphosyntax, phonotactics, etc

3. Many of the relationships (and let it be known here that I use the
term "relationship" as a generic term denoting both relations and
functions, which must be distinguished) described under 2 may be
accounted for by means of laws and rules. Some of these latter, however
are problematic.

4. In addition to the pure linguistic subsystems and their interactions,
tehre exist several other important systemic components which are at
least as complex in their own right. These are the psycho-biological and
the socio-linguistic.

5. The nature of interaction between elements described under (1) and
(4) may be accounted for in formal terms.

p.14
The reader will note, I hope, that I shun a distinction between
"description" and "explanation" in this work - I believe that a more
general "accounting for" is more useful. I do this because most of the
discussion regarding the difference between description and explanation
in linguistics is quite trivial when compared to the task at hand.
Extended debate over whether we should be trying to describe or explain
something leads merely to another proliferation of essentially useless
metatheory of the type: "How does one go about talking about something?"
Such ruminations, when carried to the ridiculous extremes documented in
present-day linguistics and semiotics, only give rise to
pseudo-intellectual, quasi-scientific circumnavigation of the core of
data that should constitute the focus of the discussion.

p. 62
Now, the use of typology is a difficult thing. For one, what constitutes
plausible typology? Again, there is the danger of relying too heavily
upon those with which one is most familiar... Note, for instance, the
use of typology as seen in Schmalstieg(1980). One of the most intriguing
aspects of this study is his use of examples from outside of
Indo-European, Sino-Tibetan, Georgian, etc - in judging the validity of
his statements regarding PIE structures. Yet, in defending his view that
PIE developed, rather than lost inflection, he makes this rather curious
statement: "On the grounds of language typology, it will probably be
objected that languages we know tend to lose inflectional endings rather
than to gain them. As I have pointed out.....language typology and
universals are very weak arguments" (23). Thus, here he has suddenly
grown suspicious of the very type of argumentation he had employed quite
effectively (and which he goes on to employ) throughout his work.....
But, I believe that his hesitation in categorically accepting
typological arguments results from two facts. The first is that
typological evaluations should be carried out from inside out, i.e. we
should compare the reconstruction first to the typology of the
particular language family under legitimate investigation, thence to a
macro-group closer in structure, and finally to a more remote one, and
so forth. Thus typologies radiate out, from the most known linguistic
structures to the least. This procedure is especially valuable in
reconstructing remote periods of a language, since random sampling of
world langauges may cause on to reconstruct something that has little
relevance to the original structure of the macro-dialectal group in
question. Second, the use of typologies in itself is not sufficient as
an evaluative principle, since it seems that several methods should be
used in any sytematic evaluation for the purposes of cross-checking.
The implementation of typological evidence can be unreliable because too
wide a body of comparative evidence may at once confirm and refute
various arguments, as we have already seen. And, even if we believe that
there exists an overwhelmingly convincing typological trend, who can say
whether or not that trend was always in force in an earlier stage of the
language.

p. 67
Generally, traditional views of PIE phonology have posited larger
phonemic inventories than more recent formulations. The role of
secondary combinatory phenomena is greatly reduced in these
methodologies. This orientation is represented in the work of .....
Szmerenyi(1970).

p.68
The laryngeal theory has come to have as many refutors as it has
followers. Schmalstieg (1980) offers an alternative to both
traditionalist and laryngealist views. This theory depends heavily on
the sequencing of layers of pre-PIE and various slices of PIE before
dialectical differentiation.

p.71
Finally, the typological argument bears against the theory, at least in
the opinion of Szmerenyi(1967) who notes that laryngeal theory assumes
an original vowel system consisting of one vowel. Although it has been
argued that certain Caucasian languages have such vocalic systems, he
argues that the exact patterning is not the same in the two language
families; in fact, he observes that most Caucasian languages possess
more than one vowel.
.....

Thus, Hittite material notwithstanding, few sure confirmation of the
laryngeal theory exist. Nevertheless, the partial confirmation provided
by Hittite does, in some cases, provide, attractive possibilities for
the positing of the existence of certain pre-historic consonants.

p.81
As we have seen above, certain researchers do not believe in an original
separation between noun and verb, and from this point of view the
following conclusions have been drawn: 1) PIE was an agglutinative
language 2) PIE was a reduced-type ergative language 3) PIE was a topic
prominent language. I think that (1) is fairly reasonable to assume if
one believes in an early monothematic structure. The basic assumption
behind (2) and (3) is that traditional distinction between subject and
object is not relevant.


p. 82
>From the standpoints of typology and diachronic recapitulation, these
non-traditional notions may be justified especially as regards (1) since
many IE languages show evidence of agglutination of particles - indeed,
I feel that this interplay with particles is quite important for IE
syntactic and semantic proto-structure ..



Anderson, J.M. and C. Jones (1974) Historical Linguistics I. Amsterdam:
North Holland.

Hamp, Eric (1974) The major focus in reconstruction and change. In
Anderson and Jones, 1974b, 58-67.

Lass, Roger (1980) On explaining linguistic change. Cambridge:
University Press.

Schmalstieg,Wm. (1980) Indo-European linguistics: a new synthesis.
University Park: Penn State Press.

Steblin-Kaminskij, M.I. (1982) Myth: the Icelandic Sagas and Eddas. Ann
Arbor:Karoma.

Szmerenyi, O. (1967) The `new' look of Indo-European, Phonetica, 17.
65-69.

Von Bertalanffy, Ludwig (1967) General systems theory. New
York:Braziller.


--
Best Regards,
Mark
-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
hubeyh at montclair.edu =-=-=-= http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>----Language----<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Copyrights and "Fair Use":     http://www.templetions.com/brad//copyright.html
"This means that if you are doing things like comment on a copyrighted work, making fun of it,
teaching about it or researching it, you can make some limited use of the work without permission.
For example you can quote excerpts to show how poor the writing quality is. You can teach a
course about T.S. Eliot and quote lines from his poems to the class to do so. Some people think
fair use is a wholesale licence to copy if you don't charge or if you are in  education, and it isn't.
If you want to republish other stuff without permission and think you have  a fair use defence, you
should read the more detailed discussions of the subject you will find through the links above."