[FUNKNET] Query on structural properties
Wolfgang Schulze
W.Schulze at LRZ.UNI-MUENCHEN.DE
Sat Dec 19 08:17:37 UTC 2009
Dear Dan, Tom and others,
[obviously, both FUNKNET and LINGTYP are involved in this discussion, so
please excuse double posting]:
Whether or not the three 'domains' language (here in terms of grammar),
cognition, and culture are seen as being related or mutually
conditioning the 'shape' of the domains (in which direction so ever),
naturally depends from how these 'domains' are defined. I have to admit
that in quite a number of proposals that map 'language' (>'grammar')
onto 'culture' (or vice versa), the term 'culture' is hardly ever
defined or defined in a way that would be compatible with proposals
stemming from contemporary 'culturology' and sociology (here, I use the
term 'culturology' in a very trivial sense that should not evoke
commitment to a special 'cultural theory'). 'Culture' is often used in a
rather pre-scientific, folk-philosophic sense, entailing lots of biases
and prejudices concerning the properties, values, and relevance of
'culture' and being themselves again part of the 'cultural paradigm' of
a community, both in terms of folk-ideology and scientific/philosophic
debates (compare for instance the discussion on 'culture' in times of
Johann Gottfried Herder as opposed to that initiated e.g. by the
proponents of the Eurasianic Hypothesis (Trubetzkoy and others) soon
after the October Revolution). There are so many ways of approaching the
domain of 'culture' (or of dismissing it at all!), that any speculation
about the type of relationship present (or not) in the above-mentioned
triad should at the very first fix the/ locus observandi/ of the
scientific 'spectator'. This is also relevant because the 'spectator'
has to make sure that (s)he does not simply perpetuate often highly
problematic, nevertheless 'lived' folk-models of 'culture'. Also, the
'spectator' should make clear that his/her theoretical model as well as
his/her methods of classifying, delimiting, defining, and generalizing
culture and cultural features is compatible with those methods applied
for doing the same with language and/or cognition.
The dyadic tableau proposed by Dan in fact is a triad (or even more,
in case you include domains like 'environment' or 'habitat' [which
reminds me of some kind of Neo-Lamarckism] and sociology in a broader
sense). If ever these domains can be kept apart, we would logically
arrive at at least 13 different models, as listed below (L = language
(here > Grammar/Lexicon), T = Cognition ('Thought'), C = Culture), ->
conditioning/effecting/hierarchical 'higher', || = not relation.
L
->
T
->
C
L
->
C
->
T
L
->
T
||
C
L
->
C
||
T
L
||
C
||
T
T
->
C
->
L
T
->
L
->
C
T
->
C
||
L
T
->
L
||
C
C
->
T
->
L
C
->
L
->
T
C
->
T
||
L
C
->
L
||
T
This tableau is not exhaustive, because it neglects the parameter of
'identity'. That means that some models may say that Language /is/
Cognition or Culture, not just a separate phenomenon related to one of
them (or vice versa). Hence we should add:
C=T
||
L
C=L
||
T
C=T
->
L
C=L
->
T
L=T
||
C
L=C
||
T
L=T
->
C
L=C
->
T
T=C
||
L
T=L
||
C
T=C
->
L
T=L
->
C
This would give us 12 additional models (now 25 in total). The thing
becomes even more complex, if we specify the type of dependency: "-> "
may e.g. be described in terms of one or more of the four Aristotelian
causa-types (/causa efficiens, causa finalis, causa formalis, causa
materialis/) [again 22 options, according to my calculus]. All this
would end up in at least 25*22 models (if my rather basic knowledge of
mathematics is correct), disregarding the different definitions (and
hence descriptive 'types') of Language, Cognition, and Culture that may
affect the choice of the relevant causa-types as well as the final
description of a given dependency. To make it even more complex: We have
to 'decide' whether an assumed relationship is given synchronically or
just a 'petrified' reflex of older mechanisms, no longer 'active' within
the dynamics of the actual domains. This naturally includes the unproven
hypothesis that whatever we think of characterizing Language, Culture,
or Cognition today has been the 'same' since human language (etc.) has
arisen. But it is a matter of debate to ascertain the possibility and
plausibility of such a projection (top put it into simple terms (for
Culture): The concept of Culture is a cultural fact, and as cultures
change, the concept of Culture changes too, both in cultural practices
and the corresponding folk-models - with the effect that one [practiced]
concept of Culture may influence e.g. Language, while others do or did not.
In other words: There still is lot to do (albeit much has been done so
far) to reach a theoretically and methodologically 'sound' basis for
describing effects (what kind soever) among the three domains Language,
Cognition, and Culture and to avoid impressionistic and intuitive
statements. All this also presupposes some kind of 'reification' of the
domains at issue, that is to turn the observed phenomena (Language,
Cognition, Culture) into describable, more or less time-stable 'objects'
with properties agreed upon by the scientific community (without
neglecting to fix and make public one's own /locus observandi/).
One final point: we all know that our own scientific thinking is not
only driven by our personal history, by our scientific traditions, by
the 'scientific habitat' we [have to] live in, and the data we deal with
etc., but also by the (covert or overt) assimilation of actual models of
the 'world', that is of those global paradigms that are current and
sometimes trendy. The revitalization of the concept of Culture (itself
being 'detected' in th late 18th century and popularized as a social
(~political) model in the 19th century) is grounded in the growing
relevance of relativistic models since the 1980ies, both in Western
societies and Western concepts of science. Just as the orientation
towards Cognition has developed into a clandestine 'must' since the
declaration of the 21st century as the 'Century of the Brain', Culture,
and, more specifically, Cultures have become a new societal model
serving as a highly visible landmark in public and scientific discourse.
This reminds me of the historicism and 'culturalism' in the 19th
century, deeply engraved in the paradigm of Romantics. A nice example of
how these two perspectives are even linked together is given by the
recent program of /Cultural Neurosciences/. I know that we cannot escape
from being being shaped in our 'thinking' by such public paradigms, but
we should at least try to formulate this impact and to describe it as
being part of our thinking (with all its consequences). Linguistics is a
'cultural and societal fact', and hence it is not amazing at all that it
changes just as the paradigms present a given culture change....
Best wishes,
Wolfgang
--
*Prof. Dr. Wolfgang
Schulze *
----------------------------------------------------------
/Primary contact:
/
Institut für Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft
Dept. II / F 13
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Ludwigstraße 25
Postanschrift / Postal address: Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1
D-80539 München
Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486
(Secretary)
0049-(0)89-2180-5343
(Office)
Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-16567 //
0049-(0)89-2180-5345
Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de
<mailto:W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de> /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de
<mailto:Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de>
Web: http://www.ats.uni-muenchen.de/personen/professoren/schulze/index.html
http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com
----------------------------------------------------------
/Second
contact:
/
Katedra Germanistiký
Fakulta humanitných
vied
Univerzita Mateja Béla / Banská
Bystrica
Tajovského
40
SK-97401 Banská
Bystrica
Tel:
(00421)-(0)48-4465108
Fax: (00421)-(0)48-4465512
Email: Schulze at fhv.umb.sk
<mailto:Schulze at fhv.umb.sk>
Web: http://www.fhv.umb.sk/app/user.php?user=schulze
----------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20091219/18f532ab/attachment.htm>
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list