The End of Linguistics

[Celso Álvarez Cáccamo]

Dear John,

It was not my intention to offend anyone, or to dismiss Halpern (as it
turns out, you) only on the basis of one misused word. I just think that
Halpern's article is poor in that: a) arguments are trivial; b) the
conclusion (linguistics is dead) is a non-sequitor; and c) yes, the style
is not good ("remote peoples", "small and isolated tribes"). Probably my
own answer will also be trivial and poorly written, I know. But we're
talking about Halpern, not me.

Halpern's arguments revolve around:
-the heteroclitous nature of the object of research, language
-research methods and practices are very varied
-the Observer's Paradox
-the scope of the field: too broad, *and* too narrow (?)
-its uselessness (lack of application?), as we all use language without
knowing linguistics

Let's leave aside some inaccuracies about the goal of some linguistic
research (for example, "teaching the rudiments of human language" to apes,
which ever since the failure of the teaching of chimpanze Nim Chimpsky have
consisted mostly of exploring the proto-language module that apes possess).
Simply, Halpern's arguments are trivial, as they don't set linguistics
apart from other disciplines. And the non-sequitor is that, the fact that
linguistics has not been and is not a positive science does not entail its
end as a discipline of knowledge -- just look at philosophy.

As for its ambitious scope, if there's an ambitious science is physics,
isn't it? It deals with nothing but heteroclitous matter in all of its
manifestations, and with the laws that govern its behavior, from particles
(nuclear physics) to celestial bodies (astrophysics).  Thus, paraphrasing
Halpern,

"The only thing that these studies [in physics] have in common is that
they all deal with [matter] in one way or another--and this, it seems
clear, is not enough to make them all part of a recognizable discipline."

  But, isn't matter the "fat" that "marbles" the beef of chemical compounds
(chemistry) and life (biology)? No wonder that biophysics and biochemistry
arose as disciplines. Then, is physics too broad or two narrow?

As for the observer's paradox and reflexivity, ever since the formulation
of Heinsenberg's Uncertainty Principle we know that instrumental data
gathering of  matter alters results. Of course, neutrons cannot reflect
upon their behavior, but, is this what distinguishes a 'hard', positive
science from mere speculation?

Finally, the uselessness of linguistics. Well, most people in daily life
use forks and knives to cut out the meat ;-) of mad-cow-diseased beef, but
we haven't the faintest awareness of the laws that govern molecular
cohesion in the utensils, arm and hand movements across a non-vacuous space
subject to universal gravitation laws, synaptic processes linked to
chewing, enzimatic digestion processes, economic processes involved in the
appropriation of surplus value in the human transformation of animals into
steaks, etc. etc. We don't need the fields of physics, chemistry, biology,
neurology, sociology, economy, politology, etc. to eat a steak, or
linguistics to talk about its taste. True.

If there's a certain problem in research on language is the practical lack
of a relatively unified metalanguage. Even so, linguists can more or less
read across subdisciplines. In my mind, trying to subject linguistics to
other, 'hard' disciplines continues to be unnecessary and futile. Genomics
as a field is possible because of linguistics, not the other way around.
Why doesn't popularizing journalistic press dwell on The End of
Biology  instead of The Unstoppable Emergence of Genomics?

The funny thing is that now more than ever reflexivity on language and
language technologization pervade daily life. One just has to watch TV,
read the press or listen to politicians. If language is not dead,
linguistics can't be, either.

It's my humble, poorly informed opinion.

Regards,

Celso Alvarez Cáccamo              Tel. +34 981 167000 ext. 1888
Linguística Geral, Faculdade de Filologia     FAX +34 981 167151
Universidade da Corunha                          lxalvarz at udc.es
15071 A Corunha, Galiza (Espanha)  http://www.udc.es/dep/lx/cac/