Historical Linguistics in a Postmodern World / La linguistique historique dans un monde postmoderne
– Sometimes, the pensive linguist may think that Saussure did more harm than good by divorcing synchrony from diachrony. It is certainly reassuring to think of language as permanent and unchanging, of life as a steady state. However, nothing lasts forever: Diversity and change characterize all living systems. The pursuit of linguistic universals reflects our deep-seated desire to the understand the past, simplify the present, and make the future predictable. Some sociolinguists argue that the primary rôle of language history is to illuminate current linguistic diversity. Since Labov, however, no sober linguist would suggest that change cannot be observed or analysed. For an overview of how linguists study change in progress, cf. Aitchison (1991:32-46).
– Still photographs are moments frozen in time, but many prefer moving images. Likewise, language cannot be fully understood as an artifact characterized by immutable forms and rules. Linguists formulating neat synchronic descriptions sometimes evade the very features crucial to the understanding of language change, anomalies that contradict the perfect generalization. In practice, one always encounters problems handling data that fall short of the ideal, be it simple variation (I brought ~ brang ~ brung ~ bringed it), or issues of grammatical acceptability (He gots some; I am being haved! [= behaving]. But such facts may reveal the inability of standardized grammars to cope with “aberrant data”. By contrast, “fuzzy grammars” may capture evolving patterns or allow the observer to describe degrees of grammaticality, e.g., good (acceptable), gooder, goodest (almost acceptable), *more gooder, *most goodest (unacceptable).
– No doubt one could advance many plausible explanations for the mid-20th c. recession of historical linguistics, most of them going well beyond Saussure: a) Latin, Greek and Sanskrit are little studied now, as are the histories of most living languages; b) Communicative competence is the goal of most language learners; all else may be deemed excess baggage; c) For decades, Eastern Europe was cut off from the West; during that time, concern for relationships between the IE languages all but vanished from the horizon; d) As linguistic leadership passed from Europe to North America, the discipline was redefined in ways that privileged synchronic description and a markedly theoretical orientation. Despite these circumstances, the pursuit of simple linguistic truths and “universal rules” reflects a deep-seated desire to understand the past, to simplify the present, and make the future predictable. Happily, recessions often give way to booms. The late 20th witnessed a substantial resurgence of interest in historical linguistics, an interest that shows no sign of abating as the new millennium advances (cf. Anttila 1989 ix & 29-30).
– Postmodern culture exalts the present and future to the detriment of things past. In North America, the emphasis on production and consumption privileges a present-and-future orientation, while proponents of neo-conservatism urge us to fix attention on output and income. A market-driven economy seeks to eliminate impediments to performance and profit. In this context, social and cultural values, personal relationships, family ties and devotion to past practices may be seen as obstacles. Need we act surprised if Corporate Capitalism touts the individual — freed from all encumbrances — as the model to be emulated?
– Has the Marketplace always been society’s most compelling metaphor for Life? Do market values dictate intellectual, moral and social values? Are there not more inspiring views of the human condition? If so, why do they seem to have vanished so suddenly from western society? Does the craze for “family values” reflect a nostalgic pursuit of security? Or is it a reaction to rampant individualism? Is social and political unrest the natural response to the displacement of life by commerce? Will environmental degradation in the pursuit of profit eventually bring us to better appreciate those ancient religions that venerated the elemental forces of Nature?
– Truth to tell, postmodern society sets a premium on present performance and future potential. Only in the notions of reputation and track-record does a vestigial sense of history persist: In that lively genre known as the curriculum vitae, ambitious professionals are wont to chronicle their past achievements, with an eye to future promotion. In a world so structured and strictured, why would any individual not devote all of his energy to present concerns and future profits? In the postmodern environment, “winners” are expected to predict and manage change. Failing that, they will languish forever in an economic “Slough of Despond,” in company with society’s misfits and “losers”. And, as technology redefines the nature of literacy and intelligence itself, coping with change becomes everyone’s central challenge.
– Significantly, the range of IE verbal categories suggests that the human species is capable of manipulating sophisticated parameters of time (present, past and future), of mood (indicative, subjunctive, optative, conditional, desiderative, imperative) and of aspect (stative, perfective, resultative, imperfective, prospective, retrospective, punctual, iterative, inchoative, progressive and terminative). We doubt that North Americans are less sophisticated than the rest of humankind, or that languages, events and realities beyond their immediate experience are totally irrelevant. Nor does it make sense to suggest that better understanding the present, or seeking to anticipate the future, somehow means caring less about the past.
– Not only does historical linguistics reveal genetic and typological relationships, it also permits us to understand how meaningful structures and processes evolve through time, all the while retaining a certain constancy. Over the recent decades, sociolinguists have been highly receptive to language history, using it to illuminate their analyses of current diversity. Clearly, a full understanding of contemporary languages cannot exist in a historical void. Unless the historical linguist wants to practise art for art’s sake, he or she must confront the present-rootedness of postmodern culture, and enrich it with historical insight. Fresh readings of the past inevitably produce new interpretations of the present, and suggest novel orientations for the future. When all is said and done, the present is the sum of all things past. And the future inevitably builds on that inheritance. In a dynamic society such as ours, past and present “realities” are always open to challenge, redefinition and redirection.