Cover not available
Part of
Columbia School Linguistics in the 21st Century
Edited by Nancy Stern, Ricardo Otheguy, Wallis Reid and Jaseleen Sackler
[Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 77] 2019
► pp. 73–104

The object of explanation for linguistics

Diver’s radical proposal for the foundations of linguistic theory

| Rutgers University
What is the ultimate object of explanation in linguistics? What are the pre-analytical observations, the observations against which all theoretical constructs are tested? Columbia School (CS) proposes a radical answer: the observations in linguistics, and hence its ultimate object of explanation, are the acoustic asymmetries of the speech continuum. This fact is responsible for the paradoxical status of meaning and communication in CS theory. CS theory takes the communicative function of language as key to the nature of linguistic structure, yet it does not offer a theory of communication. It analyzes linguistic structure as consisting of inventories of meaning-bearing signs; yet it does not offer a theory of meaning which maps utterances to interpretations. This paper articulates the reasons that CS linguistics declines to treat the interpretations of utterances as linguistic objects in need of explanation. It also provides a detailed description of how a CS grammatical analysis accounts for features of the acoustic asymmetries of a spoken English text, and provides an explanation for them.
Keywords: linguistic theory, linguistic categories, empirical base of linguistics, linguistic units, Columbia School
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A new foundation for linguistics
    • 2.1The special case of the data of linguistics
    • 2.2The introduction of the communicative orientation
    • 2.3Communication as essential rather than accidental to language
    • 2.4The actual starting point of grammatical analysis
    • 2.5The Diverian deduction and the exclusion of traditional constructs
  • 3.An actual analysis of the sound stream
    • 3.1Two systems of grammatical number
    • 3.2The two Number systems and the observable sound continuum
    • 3.3From theoretical categories back to observational categories
    • 3.4Why explanatory constructs must precede objective description
    • 3.5Summary
  • 4.Formless messaging and Columbia School theory
    • 4.1Linking sound to sense: The practical problem
    • 4.2The conceptual impossibility of linking sound to sense
    • 4.3Messages are artifacts of the validation procedure
    • 4.4No objects of thought
    • 4.5The autonomy of grammar
  • 5.Concluding discussion
    • 5.1The theoretical status of ‘meaning’
    • 5.2Summary conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 October 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.77.03rei
References (30)
References
Chomsky, Noam. (2012). The science of language: Interviews with James McGilvray. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, & Halle, Morris. (1968). The sound pattern of English. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Contini-Morava, Ellen. (1989). Discourse pragmatics and semantic categorization: The case of negation and tense-aspect with special reference to Swahili. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Davis, Joseph. (2006). Phonology without the Phoneme. In J. Davis, R. Gorup, & N. Stern (Eds.), Advances in Functional Linguistics: Columbia School beyond its origins (pp.163–176). Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2017). The substance and value of Italian si . Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diver, William. (1969/2012). The System of Relevance of the Homeric verb. In A. Huffman, & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior. The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp.135–160). Leiden /Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
. (1974/2012). Substance and value in linguistic analysis. In A. Huffman, & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior. The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp.23–46). Leiden /Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
. (1975/2012). The nature of linguistic meaning. In A. Huffman, & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior. The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp.47–64). Leiden /Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
. (1987/2012). The dual. In A. Huffman, & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior. The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp.87–99). Leiden /Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
. (1992/2012). The subjunctive without syntax. In A. Huffman, & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior. The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp.183–194). Leiden /Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
. (1995/2012). Latin voice and case. In A. Huffman, & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior. The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp.195–246). Leiden /Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Diver, William, Joseph Davis, & Wallis Reid. (2012). Traditional grammar and its legacy in twentieth century linguistics. In A. Huffman, & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior. The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp.371–444). Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, F. Scott. (1925/1994). The Great Gatsby. Scribner Paperback Fiction. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
García, Erica. (1975). The role of theory in linguistic analysis: The Spanish pronoun system. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
. (2009). The motivated syntax of arbitrary signs: Cognitive constraints on Spanish clitic clustering. Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hauser, Marc D., Fitch, W. Tecumseh, & Chomsky, Noam. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve. Science 298 (November 22, 2002).Google Scholar
Huffman, Alan. (1997). The categories of grammar: French lui and le . Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2002). Cognitive and semiotic modes of explanation in functional grammar. In W. Reid, R. Otheguy, & N. Stern (Eds.), Signal, meaning, and message: Perspectives on sign-based linguistics (pp.311–338). Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joos, Martin. (1957). Readings in linguistics: The development of descriptive linguistics in America, 1925-1956 (v. 1). University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick. (1999). Some remarks on the functionalist-formalist controversy in linguistics. In M. Darnell, E. Moravcsik, F. Newmeyer, M. Noonan, & K. Wheatley (Eds.), Functionalism and formalism in Linguistics, Volume 1: General papers (pp.469–486). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2003). Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language 79, 4. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Otheguy, Ricardo. (2002). Saussurean anti-nomenclaturism in grammatical analysis: A comparative theoretical perspective. In W. Reid, R. Otheguy, & N. Stern (Eds.), Signal, meaning, and message: Perspectives on sign-based linguistics (pp.373–404). Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reid, Wallis. (1979). The human factor in linguistic analysis: the passé simple and imparfait. Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University.Google Scholar
. (1991). Verb and noun number in English: A functional explanation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. (2011). The communicative function of English verb number. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29, 1087–1146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2018). The justification of linguistic categories. In N. L. Shin, & D. Erker (Eds.), Questioning theoretical primitives in linguistic inquiry. Papers in honor of Ricardo Otheguy (pp.91–132). Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sabar, N. (2018). Lexical meaning as a testable hypothesis: The case of English look, see, seem, and appear. Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand. (1916/1972/1986). Cours de linguistique générale. Publié par Charles Bally et Albert Séchehaye. Avec la collaboration de Albert Riedlinger. Edition critique préparée par Tullio de Mauro. Paris: Edition Payot. Translated by Roy Harris as Course in general linguistics. La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Classics, 1972/1986.Google Scholar
Smiley, Jane. (1987). Long Distance. The Atlantic, January 1987.Google Scholar
Nancy, Stern. (2018). Ditransitives and the English System of Degree of Control: A Columbia School analysis. In N. L. Shin, & D. Erker (Eds.), Questioning theoretical primitives in linguistic inquiry. Papers in honor of Ricardo Otheguy (pp.157–188). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar