Edge and universalism vs. particularism

[Matthew Dryer]

I have often commented informally to other linguists that there are two 
kinds of typologists, those who are more interested in the way that 
languages are similar to each other and those who are more interested in 
the way that languages are different from each other.  Of course, many 
typologists fall in between, but at least many typologists “lean” more 
in one direction.

Frans is quite right of course, that the mission of LT is both 
enterprises.  It may, however, be the case that there is some imbalance 
in papers in LT, an imbalance that may reflect current fashion.  I read 
Frans’ email as lamenting this imbalance rather than a suggestion that 
one enterprise is more important than the other.

But I see no need for chauvinistic comments like those of Christian. 
The idea that the search for diversity is somehow less scientific than 
the search for similarity is nonsense.  Science is the pursuit of truth, 
whether that truth involves diversity or similarity.  Some of the recent 
swing toward diversity is precisely a reaction to a tendency for 
linguists to make false claims about similarity and hence is precisely 
making linguistics more scientific.

It is also very misleading to suggest that the search for typological 
diversity is similar to the famous view of Joos.  For one thing, the 
very question of how languages might differ with respect to some 
phenomenon was not a question that interested Joos.  Second, the search 
for typological diversity is, contrary to what Christian suggests, 
impossible without abstraction.  One cannot recognize that some 
phenomenon in a given language is unusual without abstracting over 
phenomena across languages.

I see nothing in Frans’ comments to suggest he thinks the search for 
diversity is unscientific or that that search is not an essential part 
of typology.  I read his email as lamenting that there is too little 
attention paid to similarities.

Matthew
_______________________

Matthew Dryer, Professor
Department of Linguistics
616 Baldy Hall
University at Buffalo (SUNY)
Buffalo NY 14260
Phone: 716-645-0122
     FAX: 716-645-3825
dryer at buffalo.edu

On 3/10/14 11:30 AM, Prof. Dr. Christian Lehmann wrote:
> Dear Frans and fellow typologists,
>
> I would like to second Frans in every respect. Some specialists have
> been confounding the theory of universal grammar with linguistic
> universal research. As far as empirically based knowledge goes, there is
> no universal grammar. But since grammar does not exhaust language, that
> does not entail that nothing about language is universal.
>
> Apparently the history of our discipline is doomed to follow the motion
> of a pendulum: after North American structuralism ("languages could
> differ from each other without limit and in unpredictable ways" [Martin
> Joos 1957]), we have had Generative Grammar ("Grammatica una et eadem
> est secundum substantiam in omnibus linguis, licet accidentaliter
> varietur" [Roger Bacon 1244]); and apparently it is now time to swing
> back to Joos. Wilhelm von Humboldt had already gotten it right: The task
> of science in the field of the humanities, especially linguistics, is to
> seek the unity in the diversity (thus, sinngemäß, Humboldt 1836). This
> task requires abstraction. In some fundamental sense, linguistic
> particularism alias relativism is a refusal of abstraction. Maybe some
> colleages have to be asked to take our task as scientists more seriously.
>
> Best wishes to all of you,
> Christian Lehmann
> -----
> Prof. Dr. Christian Lehmann
> Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft
> Universität
> D - 99092 Erfurt
>
> www.christianlehmann.eu