CfA: Kausalität und Finalität in der Linguistik
- Ort: Tübingen
- Disziplinen: Sprachwissenschaft
- Sprachen: Französisch, Italienisch, Portugiesisch, Spanisch, Sprachenübergreifend
- Frist: 30.06.13
Energeia: CfA Discussion forum: Causality and finality in linguistics
One of the central aims of contemporary linguistics is to find causal explanations of linguistic activity (language use) and language change. The two major arguments advanced in this context are the following:
– linguistic research has finally – theoretically, experimentally and quantitatively – achieved a methodological and theoretical state that allows linguists to provide causal explanations;
– linguistics is finally able to apply – both theoretically and methodologically – the standards and criteria that have long been generally accepted in the sciences (above all in the natural sciences, but also in the social sciences).
Does this mean that the criticism of causal explanations of language change (and, in a wider sense, of linguistic activity in general) levelled by Coseriu as early as 1958 is now finally overcome and has altogether lost its importance? Coseriu states: “The very idea of ‘causality’ in the so-called ‘evolution’ of language is a residue of the old conception of languages considered as ‘natural organisms’ as well as of the positivistic dream to discover the ‘laws’ of human speech (or languages) and to transform linguistics into a ‘science of laws’ analogous to physics.” (Coseriu 1958, 101, our translation).
Coseriu draws on the classical, Aristotelian distinction of four different kinds of causes. He claims that the dynamics of language use and language change can only be properly understood in terms of finality, i.e. if the object of linguistic research is conceived as an intentional phenomenon in the Aristotelian sense of a “causa finalis”: as a product of individual, free, goal-oriented action (enérgeia), subordinating the other causalities to the final cause. According to Coseriu, the telos, the goal of linguistic activity, is not (at least not in general) the modification of a language but, quite simply, successful communication.
This is what Rudi Keller tried to separate in his theory of “the invisible hand” in language change. On the one hand, Keller stated that pure causal theories are not adequate to explain language change and that from the viewpoint of the individual engaged in communication only finality is at stake. On the other hand, on the level of language, Keller claims that change is the “causal consequence” of the sum of intentional individual actions. The question that arises is whether this “causal consequence” is really something else than the individual’s finality and whether it makes sense to look at change independently from the speaker’s linguistic activity – in the sense of general “laws of change”, be they culturally or even physically determined. Moreover, can it be the purpose of research into the dynamics of language use and language change to explain causality or even to predict language evolution?
These and similar questions arise with respect to phonology, morphology, semantics, syntax and pragmatics, thus bearing on the theory of language in general. The idea of the discussion forum is not to propose a strict format or limitation of any sort, but to invite interested scholars to participate in the discussion with any kind of relevant contribution, be it a short statement, a discussion note with a few arguments or an elaborate article. All contributors will have access to all contributions prior to publication; they will be given the opportunity to add comments to statements of other scholars so that in the end not only the original points of view but also the outcome of a whole discussion process will be published.
The editors welcome contributions in either of the languages accepted in Energeia (English, German, Romance languages). The deadline for submission is June 30th. The discussion process will be opened once the first contributions have arrived and will be closed on August 31st. The issue of the journal will be published in October 2013.
Selected bibliography
Aristotle, Metaphysics, translated by W.D. Ross, classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.html
Coseriu, Eugenio (1958), Sincronía, diacronía e historia, Montevideo. (German translation: Synchronie, Diachronie und Geschichte. Das Problem des Sprachwandels, Mün¬chen: Wilhelm Fink 1974.)
Coseriu, Eugenio (1988), “Linguistic change does not exist”, in: Ener¬geia und Ergon. Sprach¬liche Varia¬tion – Sprachge¬schichte – Sprachtypo¬logie. Studia in honorem Eugenio Coseriu, Band I: Schriften von Eugenio Coseriu, heraus¬gegeben von Jörn Albrecht, Jens Lüdtke und Harald Thun, Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 1988, 147-157.
Croft, William (2000), Explaining language change: an evolutionary approach. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
Daniel C. Dennett (1987), The intentional stance. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Falcon, Andrea, "Aristotle on Causality", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/aristotle-causality/
Itkonen, Esa (2003), What is Language? A Study in the Philosophy of Linguistics. Turku: Turun yliopisto (Publications in General Linguistics 8).
Itkonen, Esa (2011), “On Coseriu’s legacy”, Energeia 3, 1-29.
Keller, Rudi (2004), On Language Change: The Invisible Hand in Language, Abingdon: Routledge.
Ohala, John (1983), “Cross-language use of pitch: an ethological view”, Phonetica 40, 1-18.
Publiziert von: