THE HISTORY-WRITING OF LINGUISTICS :

AMETHODOLOGICAL NOTE
P, SWJGGERS
Belgian National Science
Foundation (N. P.W. O. J

1 The last years have witnessed a remarkable interest in the history

of linguistics . Among the most important contributions recently
published one must mention Hymes (ed . 1974) 1 , Sebeok (gen. ed. 1975) 2
Parret (ed. 1976)1 and Koerner (1978) . I have elsewhere discussed
the methodological principles underlying the three latter publica-
tions (Swiggers 1980 a, b, c), and I will refrain from repeating
the critical remarks which can be found in these reviews. The aim
of the present note is to raise a fundamental question and to answer
it . The question is the following one: can the history writing of
linguistics be something more than the accumulation of ' facts in the
history of the language sciences ' ? Or , put in other terms, can the
historiographer of linguistics avoid writing a chronicle (for the
distinction between 'history ' and ' chronicle' , see Collingwood 1946 :
202-203)?

2 I think this question must receive a positive answer: just as the

descriptive linguist can succeed in proposing a structure (one of
the possible restructurations) of a given language, the historio-
grapher of linguistics can provide an insightful picture of the his-
tory of linguistics. Such a history writing will of course require
a model in terms of which the history of a discipline can be struc-
tured . The model has an instrumental value and a cognitive function:
it helps us to distinguish some guidelines in the history of lin-
guistics and it is also a means for understanding the evolution in
linguistic research and for communicating these insights to others .
3 Recently, some historiographers of linguistics have tried to make
the best of Kuhn • s concepts ' paradigm' and ' r"volution ' (see Kuhn
2
1962, 1970 ) in applying them to the history of linguistics . The
adequacy of Kuhn ' s model has rightly been questioned (Hymes 1974,
Percival 1976, Swiggers 1980 c): as a matter of fact, there a re no
definite criteria which allow us to distinguish paradigmatic and
non- paradi gmatic trends or schools and some linguists even seem to
make out ~ paradigm on their own. Moreover, Kuhn's notion of a
' paradigmatic community '-which is t he essen tial condition for the
existence of a paradigm-can hardly be applied to the evolution of
the language sciences in the Greco-Roman period and in the Middle
Ages. The failure to apply Kuhn's model to the history of linguis-
~'~'U)
GENERAL LINGUISTICS, Vol. 21, NO. 1. Published by The Pennsylvania
State University Press , University Park and LOndon.

11
 11
:..ics is however not a sufficien t reason for denying the possibility
>f a restructuring of the history of linguistics. I have attempted
:his in a forthcoming history of linguistics (Swiggers, for thcoming).
[ will try to elaborate here on the methodological principles under-
tying this work. Further reflec~ion on, and discussion of, the
>rinciples of linguistic historiography will probably contribute to
' better understanding of the development of linguistic science . I
1ope this paper contains sufficient material for such a reflection
.nd discussion .
4 Instead of describing the.history of linguistics only in terms of
chools, or in terms of theories proposed by one author or by a
·ather homogeneous group of scientists, it is perhaps more interest-
ng to describe the history of linguistic thought in terms of ' pro-
rams'. '• A program is a complex cognitive system which makes possi-
le some particular operations and results, while excluding other
ossibilities. One program can subsume several theories which, de-
pi te technical and terminological differences, have the same con-
ept oi how the object of the discipline must be investigated. Both
bjo.:.•t and method are defined intra-theoretically; but the unity of
program resides in the similar conception of how a certain method
us t 'deal with' the object of a particular discip li ne. In order to
void abstract discussion, I wi ll enumerate now the four programs
hich can be distinguished in t he history of ling uistics:
5 1. The ' c•nrrRnpondt:t~rcn pt•nrn··am ' . This proqram aims at clari fyinq
10 correspondences between la nquage, thought and world . It incl udes
linquists' such as Plnto, Aristo tle, Varro, Priscian, the specula-
lve qrRmmarians (modists), Sanctius, the Port- Royal authors (Arnauld
td Lan ce lot l, J ames llarris, Beauzee, Humboldt, Brunet and Chomsky,
> name i ust a few. II common assumption within this program is that
ln<fllll<IC is a means for expressing our ideas (our thouqh t s) and that
te scqmentatio n of our thouqhts (mostly correspondinq to 'divisions
tich the mind is capab l e of perceivinq jn t he world') commands the
:omcntntion of linquistic units .
6
2. Th~ ' d,~ t:c'Y' ir,t ioni r:t J•'I•O(tt•am 1
• The aim of this proqram is t o
·esent, in an intelliaent way, formal f acts about languaqe . With
ois proqram one can associate the names of Paryini, Dionysius Thrax,
•olloni us Dyscolus, Donatus, the Carolinqian ora~narians, Evrard
Bethune, L. Valla, t he 'qramma tistes ' o f the Modern Period~, the
oqrammarians, Bloomfield, Martine t , ?.. Harr i s a nd t hose who have
1.3
carried out within this program is basically concerned with the
description of linguistic forms, either in a purely 'formalist' way
or in a more 'functional ' way (the functional approach aims at ex-
plaining forms--or formal changes--by an appeal to their functions
within the linguistic system). The grammatical school texts of the
Sumerians and the Akkadians (Assyrians and Babylonians) also belong
to the second program.
3. The 'eocio-outtural program'. This program studies language 7
in its socio-cultural context. Although several authors belonging
to the third program have also made contributions to the second or
the first, I would like to mention here the na.mes of Dante, Rivarol,
Max Muller, Boas, Wharf, Weinreich, Labov. One could also include
Saussure, although the Swiss linguist never carried out the program
he announced in his Co urs de tinguistique generate: 'On peut done
concevoir une science qui etudie ta vie des signes au sein de ta vie
sociale; elle formerait une partie de la psychologie sociale, et par
consequent de la psychologic genera le; nous la nommerons e emiotogie
(du grec semei.on, "signe"). Elle nous apprendrait en quoi consis-
tent les Signes, quelles lois les regissent. Puisqu'elle n'existe
pas encore, on ne peut dire ce qu'elle sera; mais elle a droit a
! 'existe nce, sa place est d~terminee d'avance. La linguistique
n'est qu'une partie de cette science g~n~rale, les lois que d~couv­
rira la semiologie seront applicables ~ la linguistique, et celle-ci
se trouvera ainsi rattach~e ~ un domaine bien d~fini dans !'ensemble
des faits humains' (1968 : 47-49). The purpose of this program is
not to write grammars, nor to study the way in which we express our
thoughts, but to analyse the variation of linguistic forms, within
one linguistic community, and within the speech performances of one
speaker. 6 This approach has been integrated within semiotics and
has led to a change of perspective within semiotics. Traditionally
the study of signs focused on lingu istic signs; but when it was
recognized that the meaning (or, in some cases, the s i gnatum) of a
sign is determined by a larger (pragmatic) context and by the com-
municative society within which the sign functions, there was no im-
pediment for studying the signs (and the languages) of communities
which do not use human language (Sebeok 1974) . Considerable attention
has been paid to communication by images and written symbols (music,
grammatology , cybernetics) and to zoosemiotics (Sebeok 1976: 83-93).
The integration of the 'socio-cultural program ' within semiotics has
 - - · ·--r;-.._.._ .._.., '-JI.
J..C .L dLJ.UII o IJUr nOtl
-·--·--J ...... , ....... u~...~J\.CL, \,.:Cess-
program is logically and historically ~ore riqid than Kuhn's n
well and their respective continuators. The aim of this program is of paradigm. On the one hand, the not ion of proqram a llows us
to project a formalized system (a categorial language constructed by bring together certain theories (sometimes historically very d
the linguist-logician) on certain fragments of a particular language persed) under one program, because they are based on the same
(eventually 'normalized', as in the case of Saumjan's 'hybrid lan- ception of 'what is the right way to do linguistics'. On the
guage fragments'). Although it seems to me that this program raises hand, the notion of program allows us to recognize and to situ
serious methodological questions 7 which are largely neglected by the epistemological differences between (simultaneous) theorie
those working within it, it must be clear that we are dealing here
longing to different programs.
with a separate program, which can not be reduced to one of the fore- The notion of program can be used by the historiographer of 10
going. This fourth program is not concerned with the social context guistics and by the epistemologist of linguistics (and we can
of language use, nor with the analysis of the correspondences be- ably assume that every general linguist comes in for browsing
tween language, thought and world. And if linguistic f o rms are con- 1
both fields). Although this sketch is rather untechnical ' , I
sidered within this program, they are never studied for themselves to have provided some material for further reflection and disc
(as is the case within the second program): here, linguistic forms
are studied in so far as they fit within a formal abstract model.

8 Having thus distinguished these four programs in the history of
linguistics, we may ask ourselves what is their f unct i on.
that programs are responsible for the uniformization of certain
types of research, and for imposing specific restrictions on work
carried out within a particular program. Programs have an irrevers-
ible aspect: once they have been introduced, they support certain
patterns of action, while eliminating others . This is probably due
to the fact that a program offers the scientist a particular language
(which, in the case of linguistic theories, is a meta-language)
'scientific activity'. Although the notion of 'program' has inter-
~sting8 links with Kuhn's notion of 'paradigm' (Kuhn 1962), it must
)e stressed that these notions are ' not coextensive:
9 1. Whereas Kuhn's paradigms are historically dispersed, programs
1ay coexist (and, as a matter of fact, do coexist). This difference
'an perhaps be explained by the fact that Kuhn is primarily con-
erned with the history of the natural sciences, where the evolution
s much more discontinuous and where 'paradigms' a re much more dic-
atorial, whereas our notion of program has been introduced for the
is tory writing of linguistics (from a 'structur r>l ' n,-,i M+-
NOTES
This important volume is a collection of papers presented
It seems 1.
posia held in Austria (1964) and in Chicago (1968). The b
was reviewed by R. Robins in HL (Historiographia Linguisti
2, 1975, pp . 244-249, by P. and V. Salmon in Lg. (Language)
1976, pp. 499-502, and by P. Swiggers in Orbis (forthcomin
2 0
The two volumes were issued in 1976. For reviews see P. F
in BSLP (Bulletin de la Societe linguistique de Paris) 72:
1977, pp. 75-77; N. Collinge in Lg. 55:1, 1979, pp. 207-21
P. Matthews in JL (Journal of Linguistics) 14:1, 1978, pp.
122.
3 0
This collection of thirty-five articles has been reviewed J
for Sljusareva-V. Kuznecov-v. Straxova in Obscestvennye nauk :
rubezom, serija Jazykoznanie, 1977, 5, pp. 15-25 and 6, pp
and by H. Arens in HL IV:3, 1977, pp. 319-382.
4 0
Weizenbaum (1976) compares scientific programs to cataclysr
just like cataclysms change the world, in the same way sci!
programs transform societies, cultures and world-views.
In the linguistic literature of the XVIIth and XVIIIth cen1
5.
we can note a strict opposition between the 'grammairiens-I
sophes' and the 'grammatistes', who compiled school gramma1
conversation books.
6 0
The program has been extended for diachronical investigatic
see Weinreich-Herzog-Labov (1968).
7. E.g. what is the justification of the formalized s y stem whi
projected on some 'fragments of language'?; can the results
these studies be verified or falsified? what is the status
""' ......... _... , , -- -· -- .. -
~" ··' -··'
attention to the specific interpretations of each program: doxo-
graphy of the nihil novi sub sole (Qohelet) type must be avoided.
On the other hand, the variegated picture which the history of lin-
guistics offers us, must be understood, and this seems impossible
without a (reductionist) model for the history writing of linguistics.

REFERENCES

Collingwood, R. G. 1946. The Idea of History. Oxford: University

Press.
Eco, Umberto. 1976. A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington-London: I
Indiana University Press. _
Hymes, Dell. 1974. 'Introduction: traditions and paradigms'. \
Hymes ed. 1974. 1-38.
----~--~~· ed. 1974. Studies in the history of linguistics.
Trad1tions and paradigms. Bloomington-London: Indiana Univer-
sity Press.
Koerner, E. F. K. 1978. Toward a historiography of linguistics.
Selected essays. Ams2erdam: J. Benjamins.
Kuhn, Thomas; 1962 (1970 ). The structure of scientific revolu-
tions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Parret, Herman, ed. 1976. History of linguistic thought and con-
temporary linguistics. Berlin-New York: W. de Gruyter.
Percival, Walter Keith. 1976. 'The applicability of Kuhn's para-
digms to the history of linguistics'. Lg. 52:2. 285-294.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1968. Cours de linguistique generale.
Edition critique par R. Engler, tome 1. Wiesbaden: 0. Harras-
sowitz.
Sebeok, Thomas. 1974. 'Semiotics: A survey of the state of the
art'. Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. 12. Linguistics and
Adjacent Arts and Sciences, 211-264. The Hague: Mouton.
1976. Contributions to the doctrine of signs. Bloom-
1ngton: Indiana University Press.
, ed. 1975. Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. 13
----~H~1~s~t-o~riography of Linguistics. The Hague-Paris: Mouton.
Swiggers, P. 1980a. 'Histoire et historiographie de la linguisti-
que'. semiotica 31: 1/2 107-137.
1980b. review of Parret ed. 1976. LB (Leuvense
B1Jdragen) 69:1. 70-99.
1980c. 'The historiography of linguistics'. Linguis-
t1cs (fod:hoomin;l. /1. ?ol•?-to.
1980d. 'La grammaire de Port-Royal et le parallelisme
log1co-grammatical'. Orbis (to appear in the issue of 1982).
forthcoming. Geschiedenis van de taalkunde [History
of l1nguistics]. Antwerpen-Utrecht: Het Spectrum.
Weinreich, Uriel, Marvin Herzog, William Labov. 1968. 'Empirical
foundations for a theory of language change'. In: Lehmann--
Malkiel eds. Directions for Historical Linguistics. A sympo-
sium, 97-188. Austin-London: University of Texas Press.
Weizenbaum, J. 1976. Computer power and human reason. New York:
Freeman & Company.