(De-)Socializing Historiography of Lingusitics

1
(De-)Socializing Historiography of Lingusitics

• Frank Vonk
• Arnhem Business School
• The Netherlands

2
Werner Hüllens Treatise

• 63. Deliberations about plausibility in support
  of historiographical reconstructions draw on the
  systems of arguments and experience of the
  historiographical, not the historical subject.
• 78. Every historiographical subject turns into a
  historical one for coming generations every
  historiographical text does the same.
• 79. Within the conditions of historiographical
  work, the historiographical subject is free in
  relation to history. There is no objective
  reconstruction, just as there is no objective
  recollection.
• 80. Reflecting on the schemata of historiography
  has the aim of defining the liberty of the
  historiographical subject vis-à-vis history
• (Werner Hüllen 2005 17-19)

3
Sociology and historiography

• Todays statement The game of historiography of
  linguistics can do without a specific object,
  because of its linguistic and scientific
  peculiarity
• Sub question If and how relate discussions in
  the historiography of linguistics to social
  power, priorities, status, changes or
  developments?

4

• Koerners (1974) overview of historiographical
  work in linguistics
• a goal that has been reached in a particular
  science. There seems to be no longer any need
  for a revision of the methodology or the approach
  to the subject matter under analysis (Koerner
  1974 1). In linguistics the historiographical
  works by Theoder Benfey (1809-1881), Rudolf von
  Raumer (1815-1876) or Holger Pedersen
  (1867-1953)
• a campaign opposing previously cherished views
  and still prevailing doctrines (Koerner 1974
  2). These are works by a new generation of
  historians like Berthold Delbrück (1942-1922),
  Hermann Paul (1846-1921) or Noam Chomsky (b.
  1928), proposing new theories and replacing older
  ones
• a fairly personal motivation for writing this
  history, like the one offered by Hans Arens
  (1911-2003). The history of linguistics is based
  upon a personal choice, which might also mean
  that this choice is based upon personal interests
  and expertise, leading to histories of phonetics,
  psychology of language or morphology
• the presentation of our linguistic past as an
  activity founded on well-defined principles which
  can rival those of normal science (Kuhn) itself
  with regard to soundness of method and rigour of
  application
• (Koerner 1974 4)

5
R.H. Robinss (1967 1976) contribution

• Continuities and discontinuities
• The existing state of a science, the starting
  point for any change, is the product both of
  external and internal factors. The general
  contemporary intellectual and social context,
  whether favouring stability or encouraging
  change, is largely external to the particular
  science itself, although each science and branch
  of learning is part of the whole context along
  with all the others and along with the general
  cultural attitude towards learning

6
Changes in historiographical practices (Robins
1976)

• the logical extension of existing theory and of
  practice sanctioned by that theory,
• the genesis of new concepts and methods in
  partial conflict with existing theory, as the
  result either of reflection or of trying to cope
  with recalcitrant observed facts, and
• the effects of new aims, applications, or
  external motivations (Robins 1976 18).

7

• Metahistoriography
• Not focus too much on detailed reconstructions
• Narrativity
• Philosophical approach
• Careful with new material/linguists etc.
• Historiographical statements do not represent
  historical realities

• Types of history writing
• -Qualifications of historiographers
• Quality of historiographical work
• Empirical research / data / positivistic
• Naive realism

8
L.M. de Rijks historiography

• Empirical facts we perceive in historiography
• Mental or physical entities
• Past or present entities
• Speaking about the past includes a contradiction
• (a) The past itself does exist
• (b) The past itself did exist
• (c) The past itself did and does exist
• (d) The past itself did, does and will exist.
• (De Rijk 1981 45)
• If b is true then a, c and d are false
• If a is true then b, c and d are irrelevant, part
  of the present historiographical discourse

9
Feynmans conceptualization of science

• There was on this planet an evolution of life to
  the stage that there were evolved animals, which
  are intelligent. I dont mean just human beings,
  but animals which play and which can learn
  something from experience (like cats). But at
  this stage each animal would have to learn from
  its own experience. They gradually develop, until
  some animal could learn from experience more
  rapidly and could even learn from anothers
  experience by watching, or one could show the
  other, or he saw what the other one did. So there
  came a possibility that all might learn it, but
  the transmission was inefficient and they would
  die, and maybe the one who learned it died, too,
  before he could pass it on to the others.
• The question is, is it possible to learn more
  rapidly what somebody learned from some accident
  than the rate at which the thing is being
  forgotten, either because of bad memory or
  because of the death of the learner or inventors?
  (Feynman 1999 184)
• SCIENCE IS TO BE CRITICAL ON WHATEVER HAS BEEN
  HANDED DOWN TO US AND EVEN THAT.

10

• Every context will find its own history and
  historiography. The history of linguistics is
  the observers product ? fits in in his or her
  frame of reference.
• Science encourages the transfer of mistakes,
  errors, biases. These are the necessary
  preconditions of science and scientific research
  (Feynman)
• What are the relevant (necessary) mistakes,
  errors, biases in the historiography of the
  language sciences?

11
Sociology of scientific knowledge

• Twenty-five years ago it was a truth almost
  universally acknowledged that there might be a
  legitimate sociological understanding of
  scientific error, of the blind alleys entered by
  science, of the state of scientific
  institutionalization, and, perhaps, of the
  overall dynamics of scientific foci, but that
  there could be no such thing as a sociology of
  authentically scientific knowledge (Ben-David
  197111-13). Now, while assent to the validity
  of SSK is scarcely universal, a number of central
  claims have quietly passed into common academic
  currency, and the recent paths of the history and
  philosophy of science, technology, and medicine
  have been fundamentally shaped by practitioners
  appreciation of opportunities opened up or
  problems posed by SSK research.
• (Steven Shapin, 1995 Here and Everywhere
  Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. Annual Review
  of Sociology, Volume 21 290)
• lthttp//www.compilerpress.atfreeweb.com/Anno20Sha
  pin2020Here20and20Everywhere20Sociology20of
  20Scientific20Knowledge.htmgt

12
Hobbes and Boyle on experiments

• A different perception of the status of
  experiments.
• Boyle wanted a mechanical defence of knowledge
  based upon a broad as possible support, whereas
  Hobbes saw experiments as artificial and
  unreliable not leading to a true insight into
  real nature at all. So, physical reality as such
  and creating broadly accepted knowledge are
  irrelevant in Hobbess view on scientific
  knowledge but they are part of creating and
  maintaining a social order

13

• The sociology of knowledge focuses on the
  distribution of belief and the various factors
  which influence it. For example how is knowledge
  transmitted how stable is it what processes go
  into its creation and maintenance how is it
  organised and categorised into different
  disciplines or spheres? (Bloor 1976 5)
• A sociologist takes an indifferent position
  towards the truth-question and focuses on the
  social relations. (Lokhivi 2003 3)

14
Golem science

• Creation
• Contains the errors and mistakes of society
• Is what happens with all related problems,
  conditions, effects etc.
• Error is the basic dimension of science

15
Social construction of facts and artefacts
artifact construction
social group
problem
solution
PinchBijker 1987 30, 37
16
Conclusions

• Historiography of the language sciences creates
  its own field of research initiated by output,
  stakeholders, problems and solutions sometimes
  dilemmas
• Thus, sociological aspects have a decisive impact
  on the ways we do historiography as added value
• Without broad (interdisciplinary) descriptions
  of historiographical practices we cannot
  adequately communicate any historiographical
  output.

17

• Historiography of linguistics
• Context type(s) of history writing
• Soci(ologic)al practice ?creating value(s)
• As a science ? scientific practice
  methodological rules and reflections
• Problems in writing the history of linguistics
• Story character of historiography
• Terminology
• Object of historiography and the
  historiographical subject
• Method(s) of research ? selection,
  conceptualization and interpretation
• Classification(s)
• Laws in linguistic developments / changes
• Interdisiplinary approach ? creating
  intersections
• Change or development
• Power relations
• Identity of historiographical research
• Anthropological and regional factors ? relevance