Form and meaning, surface and substance

• 

  Posted by Ivana Durovic on November 22, 2016 at 11:54 am

  Today’s topic is of particular importance to me at this point in my budding career as a linguist, as I try to locate my place in the field. With everything I do, I try to keep the bigger picture in mind as much as possible and therefore sometimes I am in danger of wandering away from the main topic. However, today, more than usually, I think a potential digression might be warranted, so please bear with me.

  The dichotomy of form (or surface) and meaning (or substance) has probably been of interest to humanity very soon after the first copying error of the genome that resulted in the crucial distinction between humans and our closest primate kin – consciousness (and subsequently the language faculty). More recent history, which includes the last couple of millennia, illustrates well this ongoing battle between the two concepts and the way they capture the experience of our species. Western philosophy for (please forgive me this euro-centric) example has, since its inception, been a battle between schools of thought that prioritize form and meaning alternately (the stoics and the epicureans, the idealists and the materialists, the rationalists and the empiricists, etc.), as has been the history of arts (the middle ages and the renaissance, the classicism and the romanticism, etc.).

  Given such opinionated predecessors, it is no wonder that today’s academia also seems to want to weigh in on this almost archetypal opposition. I would very much like to hear other opinions, but in my experience western academia (or the individuals who comprise it), purports to be above the bodily, the carnal, if you will, not only in the way it approaches its subject matters but the whole system. Perhaps my own opinion is skewed by the fact that my graduate school life has for years now been primarily within generative linguistics departments. And generative linguistics, more so than any other linguistic theory nowadays, insists on the abstract substance of the mind (competence), disregarding and even disparaging any potential academic interest in its surface manifestations (performance).

  Like the history of human interests, so have my own interests vacillated between the two oppositions, and they still do. That fact frequently puts me in situations in which I have to defend my “other” interests and the hostility that emerges is not negligible. As if the very idea of one concept threatened the existence and validity of the other.

  I think that humanity has been dealing with a false dilemma, and that it is time we do away with it. Furthermore, linguistics could be the scientific field that lays the foundation to the new era of less divisiveness and competition, and more solidarity and cooperation among sciences, humanities, arts and technologies. However far fetched or even ludicrous this socialist academic heaven sounds, let me just point out that it is actually already happening – as Finland decides to do away with school subjects. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/finland-schools-subjects-are-out-and-topics-are-in-as-country-reforms-its-education-system-10123911.html

• Ivana Durovic

  Participant

  November 22, 2016 at 12:52 pm

  Perhaps I shouldn’t be allowed to blog because I seem to hijack every opportunity in order to talk about whatever I want, and not necessarily always right in the bull’s eye of the topic of the day. Makes me look like a politician who is evading a question at a press conference. Although digressing in class is much less dangerous than doing it in front of the Congress or a Parliament, I still want to point out that I am aware of what I am doing and that I will try not to waste too much time, and that after raising my question, I will discuss the B&H paper.

  When, I started reading the Bucholtz&Hall paper, I had an uncontrollable train of thought that turned into a blog post. Mary and Kira open with a brief discussion of how divided the field of linguistics and even sociolinguistics is when it comes to the extra-linguistic and its relevance to our subject of study. Well, I have been trying to answer the question of its relevance myself, and that is exactly how I entered grad school again – by realizing there is a divide between the abstract and the palpable in the study of linguistics and I wanted to look and see what this division stands for, who profits off of it and how, why there is so little understanding among the sub-disciplines and theories, is there any merit to it and if not, how we can bridge it.

  I’m sure that Linguistics program people know what I’m talking about, because we live in that gap in our own department and we considered outcasts for our interests and that also makes us feel superior sometimes, and it’s a dance that we are used to. And it is not just linguistics, there is a whole hierarchy in academia: philosophy, math, physics, chemistry, biology… And it is all based on this contrast between idea and matter, meaning and form, substance and surface. Linguistics since Chomsky has been in an era in which the abstract governs the whole field and wishes to leave no room for the concrete. Thankfully, being a rebel is also very highly regarded in academia, so it is possible to establish room for oneself even if your subject of interest is considered less valuable.

  My crucial question in the discussion today is probably whether this division has merit, and I’m sure you know by now what I think what the answer might be. In fact, I project that today’s whole will be one huge argument in the favor of no – there is no merit. Today, I believe, we will be bringing up and showcasing evidence to prove that the division is artificial and not only useless but that it hinders the development of academia, this supposed forefront of human intellectual activity.