8.1472, Disc: review of Yngve

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-8-1472. Sun Oct 12 1997. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 8.1472, Disc: review of Yngve

Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>
            T. Daniel Seely: Eastern Michigan U. <seely at linguistlist.org>

Review Editor:     Andrew Carnie <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Associate Editor: Ljuba Veselinova <ljuba at linguistlist.org>

Assistant Editors:  Martin Jacobsen <marty at linguistlist.org>
                    Brett Churchill <brett at linguistlist.org>
                    Anita Huang <anita at linguistlist.org>
                    Julie Wilson <julie at linguistlist.org>
                    Elaine Halleck <elaine at linguistlist.org>

Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
                      Zhiping Zheng <zzheng at online.emich.edu>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/


Editor for this issue: Andrew Carnie <carnie at linguistlist.org>

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:           Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:29:29 EST
From:  MILLSC at UCENGLISH.MCM.UC.EDU
Subject:        Disc: Discussion on Prof. Yngve's Views

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:           Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:29:29 EST
From:  MILLSC at UCENGLISH.MCM.UC.EDU
Subject:        Disc: Discussion on Prof. Yngve's Views

Having just completed a review, for a hardcopy venue,  of Victor Yngve's book
>>From Grammar to Science:  New Foundations for General Linguistics, I have
read with interest the minor flood of comments that have followed in the wake
of Vic's reply to Pius ten Hacken's review.  Interestingly, nearly all of the
dozen or so posts that I have read have consisted of conversations among
persons who have not read the book.  Not that there is anything wrong with
this, but ...

Colin Harrison knows Yngve's work, and his comments are interesting, but I
think there is more at work here than just dividing into theoretical camps.

To his credit, ten Hacken has read the book.  His review falls easily into
two parts.  The first is a good summary of a book that is not easy to
summarize in an internet post.  The second part of the review consists of a
critique of Yngve's view of science.  In it ten Hacken relies on the work of
numerous philosophers of science, most of whom have been (quite wisely)
ignored by working scientists.  At least since the days of the logical
positivists, philosophers (and now others in the postmodern intellectual
junkyard known as "Science Studies") have been telling scientists how
scientists do science or how they should do it.  Yngve is a scientist and his
views on science are worth reading.

Steven Schaufele's comments are interesting, but they illustrate why people
should read the book before commenting on it.  Yngve is not opposed to
abstract entities or to theoretical constructs, nor is he interested in
bringing linguistics closer to "directly observable phenomena."

A measure of how far comments can get from the book is reflected in the
mis-titling of the book:  "From Grammar to Language."  As Scott Stirling
noted in his correction, the title actually is "From Grammar to Science."
What Scott did not note explicitly is that LANGUAGE is one of the main
objects that Yngve thinks should be eliminated from linguistics.  Until quite
recently, Yngve referred to linguistics as he conceived of it as "Human
Linguistics," which he contrasted with "the Linguistics of Language."

For Yngve, linguistics went wrong with the Stoics.  According to Yngve, the
Stoics divided their philosophy into three domains:  the physical, the
logical, and the ethical.  All the modern sciences have developed, in one way
or another, out of the physical domain.  Language, however, was placed by the
Stoics within the logical domain.  Modern linguistics has consisted of an
attempt to develop a science out of a logical domain field of study.  This
leads to what Yngve calls "domain confusions" and "mixed domain theories."
Among the mixed domain theories Yngve would place all current approaches to
linguistics, from Chomskyan linguistics to the alternatives, e.g. cognitive
linguistics, suggested in the discussion currently going on.

I can't attempt to present Yngve's views with any degree of completeness or
clarity in a post.  People who want to know why Yngve replied as he did to
ten Hacken's review would be well advised to read From Grammar to Science.
Not everyone will agree with Yngve's views, but those who read the book will
know what those views are.

Carl Mills
University of Cincinnati

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-8-1472