30.1467, Review: Historical Linguistics: Lehmann, Malkiel (2017)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-30-1467. Wed Apr 03 2019. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 30.1467, Review: Historical Linguistics: Lehmann, Malkiel (2017)

Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Jeremy Coburn
Managing Editor: Becca Morris
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Robinson, Peace Han, Nils Hjortnaes, Yiwen Zhang, Julian Dietrich
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Jeremy Coburn <jecoburn at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2019 18:53:49
From: Matteo Tarsi [matteo.tarsi88 at gmail.com]
Subject: Directions for Historical Linguistics

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36466097


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/28/28-3481.html

AUTHOR: Winfred P.  Lehmann
AUTHOR: Yakov  Malkiel
TITLE: Directions for Historical Linguistics
SUBTITLE: Reprint of the 1968 Original
PUBLISHER: Brill
YEAR: 2017

REVIEWER: Matteo Tarsi, University of Iceland

SUMMARY

“Directions for Historical Linguistics” is a collection of five papers
delivered at a 1966 symposium at the University of Texas, Austin. The authors
of the contributions are as follows: Winfred P. Lehmann, Yakov Malkiel, Jerzy
Kuryłowicz, Émile Benveniste, and Uriel Weinreich, William Labov and Marvin
Herzog. The book, originally edited by Winfred P. Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel,
was published in 1968 but had long been out of commerce until Hans C. Boas
(University of Texas at Austin) and Marc Pierce (University of Michigan) made
it available in print again for the benefit of a new generation of readers
(the 1968 volume had already been made available on-line on the website of
University of Texas).

The 2017 reprint is introduced by a short, yet informative, preface by the
editors where the historical background for the aforementioned conference, and
subsequent proceedings, is outlined, together with the motivation for choosing
to reissue this particular book, namely the popularity it had enjoyed in the
years as a freely accessible version on website of the Language Resources
Center of the University of Texas at Austin (LRC). The historical background
which prompted the organization of the 1966 symposium was that historical
linguistics was rapidly giving way to the young generative paradigm. This is
further remarked in the preface by the original editors who say that the
inadequate attention given to historical linguistics by the middle of the
sixties created the need to “restore historical studies to their position of
leadership among the primary linguistic disciplines.” Thus, there was a need
to organize a symposium whose main aim was to trace clear guidelines for
further research in the field of historical linguistics. The red thread which
links the five contributions is that of providing a different perspective on
key-issues and methodological problems of historical linguistics.

Winfred P. Lehmann’s contribution analyzes Saussure’s structuralist approach
to linguistics, which advocates a clear dichotomy between diachronic and
synchronic linguistics. Starting from a critical discussion of this dichotomy,
Lehmann explores its implications and the influence it has had on the study of
linguistics. In a fair critical discussion, Lehmann recognizes the merits of
Saussure’s dichotomic approach but subsequently proposes a new approach which
would overcome the theoretical shortcomings present in Saussure’s
structuralism, above all the massive importance given to phonological change
over morphological and semantic change, together with the focus on states
rather than operations in the study of linguistic phenomena. What Lehmann
speaks in favor of is thus a clear paradigm shift, and that is in fact what
had happened at that time, and whose reflexes we still enjoy today, a sort of
“Humanism of linguistics”, i.e. “an approach ... which deals with language
from the point of view of the participant ...” (p. 13). Lehmann inscribes this
paradigm shift in the approach taken in the research activities of his
colleagues and fellow conference delegates, Kuryłowicz, Weinreich, Labov,
Herzog, Malkiel, Benveniste. “The departures which have been introduced,”
Lehmann concludes, “may lead to elimination of shortcomings in his [i.e.
Saussure’s] linguistic theory, in somewhat the same way as were those of Bopp
and his successors by Saussure, without leading to positions which disregard
the achievements of past theory.” Lehmann’s epistemological position is thus a
positive one, i.e. it sees the development of science as a continuum albeit
there must be some sort of critical rupture with the past for a paradigm shift
to take place, for example a change in research focus and thus in set of valid
research questions.

The contribution by Yakov Malkiel gives an insight into inflectional paradigms
as causes of language change. Malkiel starts his article by giving a critical
account of the state of research in historical linguistics and laments the
lack of large-scale coordination in the efforts of “brilliant, dauntless
individuals”. In aiming at inscribing his critique into a programmatic,
constructive contribution, Malkiel sets out seventeen “very pressing problems”
for historical linguistics (pp. 25-33) and subsequently focuses on one, i.e.
“the paradigm as a stimulus for language change.” Malkiel’s analysis departs
from the consideration that a not common consonant cluster could appear in a
specific group of verb forms and be replaced by analogical forces in
comparison with the paradigm of other, more pervasive, verbs. This new
replacement could, with time, affect secondary analogical changes in other
parts of speech. Malkiel exemplifies his theoretical consideration by
examining the case of -rǵ-, -lǵ- and -nǵ- consonant clusters in Romance. In
particular he takes into consideration the influence that verbs which
historically show the outcome of such clusters have undergone from the
paradigm of other verbs by force of analogy and have thus caused the
phonological structure of the former verbs to diverge from the historically
expected (and in some cases attested) forms.

Jerzy Kuryłowicz’s paper mediates between phonemics and morphology and
proposes an entity midway between phoneme and morpheme, i.e. the
morpho(pho)neme. Whereas the morpheme is by definition a carrier of meaning,
morpho-phonemes are defined as morphs which do not carry morphological
function, i.e. they are “semantically void” (p. 80). The point of departure of
Kuryłowicz’s paper is offered by the consideration that there may be
“limitrophous border problems engaging both domains, phonemics and
morphology.” This is further exemplified by considering few problematic cases
in different branches of Indo-European, e.g. the function carried out by
apophony in Indo-European or that of metaphony in German plural. The
conclusion reached by Kuryłowicz is that whereas there of course are morphemes
proper, in the cases cited above the thematic vowels on the one hand and the
plural ending -er on the other, there is another entity whose function is
redundant, and that is the morpho-phoneme. The redundant nature of this entity
is evident when the distribution of its single manifestations is considered,
i.e. neither ablaut in IE nor metaphony in the formation of plural in German
is a clear distinctive mark of the morphological function it appears in
combination with. In other words, plural in German is never carried out by
metaphony alone (and in fact the appearance of metaphony is conditioned by the
quality of the root vowel and the phonemic structure of its morphological
surroundings, p. 70), nor is aorist in IE exclusively marked by apophony, and
in fact it is always paired with affixation. This state of affairs need of
course not be static as morpho-phonemes can, with time, become morphemes and
vice versa.

Benveniste’s contribution tackles the issue of mutation of linguistic
categories. These can be of two kinds: innovating and conservative. Mutations
of the former kind consist in the loss or addition of formal categories, i.e.
such mutations modify the entire stock of available categories by adding or
removing one or more categories (e.g. disappearance of neuter, elimination of
the dual etc.). Mutations of the latter kind, which are labelled as
conservative, are instead those that modify a given category. Such mutations
are exemplified by the substitution of a morphemic structure by a periphrastic
structure with the same function. Benveniste focuses on this latter case by
analyzing two cases: 1) the emergence of the periphrastic perfect in Romance,
the stages by which it came into existence and the conditions it originally
was subject to; and 2) the periphrastic future in Romance and the related case
of Greek. In the final section of the article Benveniste provides the reader
with further examples also from outside Indo-European.

The last article in the volume is also the longest and most articulated. The
paper is valuable among other things because it is the last scholarly
contribution by Uriel Weinreich, who prematurely died at the age of forty and
to whom the volume is dedicated. The article by Weinreich, Labov and Herzog
tackles a fundamental problem for the study of language change, namely the
empirical  foundations underlying a theory of such a branch of knowledge. The
article encompasses three sections plus an introductory chapter: In section 1
(“The isolation of the idiolect”)  the discussion is framed in its historical
dimension. The authors discuss at length Hermann Paul’s approach, on which
Lehmann also expressed himself in the first paper of these proceedings.
Saussure’s fundamental contribution to the field of the area of linguistics
under scrutiny is thus discussed and thence that of Bloomfield, followed by
the generative approach. This is further criticized and its foundations
debunked in Section 2.41 of the article. In particular, the fondative
assumption of the generative model that language is homogeneous is deemed as
unrealistic and not in accordance with fact. Section 2 (“Problems of changing
structure”) in fact devolves into the discussion of admissible problems, i.e.
the research questions that a theory of linguistic change should address. 
Section 3 (“Language as a differentiated system”) analyzes the question of how
a language can continue to function efficiently as it undergoes change. Here,
different sets of problems are taken into consideration. In particular, the
importance of the embedding of language into a social structure is assessed.
In conclusion, seven programmatic general principles of language change are
given. Here, the importance of considering language as heterogeneous is
stressed and the view of language as a social phenomenon advocated.

EVALUATION

It is impossible for me to criticize the views of the scholars who have
contributed to “Directions for Historical Linguistics”. These scholars have
laid the cornerstone for the discussion and subsequent development of
historical linguistics by reassessing previous fondative contributions and
providing material for a general paradigm for historical linguistics. The
epistemological approach detectable throughout the five contributions is thus
crystal-clear, and the final contribution by Weinreich, Labov and Herzog is a
manifesto of this paradigm. The generative approach is coherently criticized
and a partly new approach to historical linguistic problems proposed, namely
that it take into consideration the social dimension of language as opposed,
among others, to the God’s-eye view of generative linguistics.

As for other reprints, the question that a review should seek to answer is
thus whether such a publication was worth the effort. We can exclude in this
case that the reprint has been motivated by mere economical matters, as is
often the case with reprints of (especially etymological) dictionaries, where
so-called new editions rarely constitute any real advancement. The case in
point here is instead that of proposing again a collection of scholarly pieces
in the same format as the original publication. In a world where it is
possible to access scholarly contributions from all over the world in one
click, it is worth asking whether a fifty-years old volume, as prestigious as
its authors may be, is still useful and, if yes, to what kind of readership
the volume most appeals to. The volume under discussion here strikes me as
interesting for two kinds of readers. On the one hand there are general and
historical linguists, especially in the field of Indo-European, who might
enjoy such a publication which has laid the foundations for a better
understanding of contemporary historical linguistics and is thus a point of
departure from the “classical” approach to historical linguistic matters, as
is that of e.g. Hermann Paul. On the other hand there are historians of
linguistics and even philosophers of science: the volume is in fact a
milestone in tracing the history and dynamics of a paradigm shift inside
historical linguistics, a paradigm which, albeit not being in total contrast
with its predecessors, puts forth a largely enriched set of research questions
which constitute to a large extent the cornerstone of contemporary research.
For example, a field such as that of historical sociolinguistics could hardly
have come into being without the advancement in theoretical thinking which
shines through Weinreich’s contribution. Of course there is no direct line
between the volume under discussion here and the historical linguistics we do
research in today, as the contemporary paradigm has come into being also
thanks to other major advancements. At any rate, the importance of the
theoretical foundations which underlie the essays in the volume is crucial, if
one is to understand the history of linguistic thought. In this respect it is
worth stressing that this must have been clear to the authors, and especially
Lehmann and Weinreich, for their contributions are clearly set up with a
historical setting in mind. In a nutshell, the evaluation of a reprint of a
volume such as “Directions for Historical Linguistics” cannot be anything but
positive.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

I am a Ph.D​ student in Icelandic Linguistics at the University of Iceland,
Reykjavík. My research focuses on the interplay between loanwords and native
words in Old and Middle Icelandic. Among my other research interests are:
history of linguistics (especially in the 18th century), etymology, loanword
studies, and language planning and policy studies.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***************************    LINGUIST List Support    ***************************
 The 2019 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
  to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
     ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
               https://iufoundation.fundly.com/the-linguist-list-2019

                        Let's make this a short fund drive!
                Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
                    https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-30-1467	
----------------------------------------------------------