LINGUIST list 9.741Mon might 18 1998Disc: Philology vs. LinguisticsEditor for this issue: Brett Churchill> Directorymanaster, Re: 9.721, Disc: Philology vs. LinguisticsChris Beckwith, Re: 9.685, Disc: Philology vs. LinguisticsMessage 1: Re: 9.721, Disc: Philology vs. LinguisticsDate: Sat, 16 may 1998 00:58:49 -0400 (EDT)From: manaster>Subject: Re: 9.721, Disc: Philology vs. LinguisticsI dont check out what Prof. Chandler-Burns"s discussion ofthe ill-definition that the ax morpheme has to dowith the concern of just how different civilization use theterm philology. If he bemoans the reality that manylinguists have actually turned far from historic linguistics,I agree, but to strike Bloomfield or Saussure ~ above thispoint is inappropriate provided that they were amongst thethe leading historical linguists of their times andindeed of all time and also moreover like Sapir, Paul,Whorf, Humboldt, Greenberg, and also others, they stood for preciselythe kind of linguistics, so rarely exercised todaybut through no way extinct, in i m sorry the leader ofthe field were always BOTH comparativists ANDtheoreticians. Saussure"s views on the subjectof synchrony and also diachrony are a technological subjectalthough no a difficult one, and there is no relationbetween them and the bowdlerization, developed Isuspect by world who have actually not check out a word of whathe released in his lifetime, i beg your pardon holds that heerected some kind of barrier between lock or thathe in any means denigrated diachrony. As some of youdo know, every solitary thing he published was actuallyon in other words comparative linguistics. That is additionally kind the ironic to see that in thisday and age, when in fact there is a shortage ofpeople favor that and also historical linguistics isunder siege, we need to have critiques the Bloomfieldor Saussure, whose functions hardly any student of lingis ever introduced come in the first place. Ifsomeone is unhappy with the state the linguisticstoday (as i am certainly), (s)he must pray fora couple of Saussures or Bloomfields come come toour rescue.AMRMessage 2: Re: 9.685, Disc: Philology vs. LinguisticsDate: Sun, 17 may 1998 16:28:26 -0500 (EST)From: chris Beckwith>Subject: Re: 9.685, Disc: Philology vs. LinguisticsThere have actually been several exciting postings in this discussion, butperhaps the see of someone who is both a philologist and a linguist wouldbe relevant.First, mine background: I began out in "linguistics" (CharlesFillmore to be my first linguistics teacher) and also Chinese, then moved into"philology" (Helmut Hoffmann--an Indologist and Tibetologist; Denis Sinor,an "Altaicist"; and G.N. Kiyose, a specialist in Japanese and Tungusic,were my main teachers), climate after some ten year doing largely thephilology the Old Tibetan and also other at an early stage medieval language of CentralEurasia, I began doing "linguistics" again (especially the typology ofclassifiers and also the trouble of "Sino-Tibetan"). This nomadic mentallifestyle has, inexplicably come me, bewildered plenty of of my CentralEurasianist historian colleagues. (To them i am a historian!) So, what is the difference in between philology and also linguistics (and, how cana philologist/linguist be--or be considered to be--a historian)? Thedifficulty in specifying the difference is that the two fields partlyoverlap. Philology is essentially the study of texts, for whateverpurpose the investigator has actually in mind. There are certain techniques,more or less scientific (i.e., including measuring and also counting), together aspaleography and vital edition, the are greatly used only bywell-trained philologists--and thus, not by linguists. Also, the textsare almost always pre-modern (the author--and regularly the languages--aregenerally dead), and also the investigation can, and often does, usepractically any kind of disciplinary strategy known to contemporary academia--fromanthropology to zoology--in order to elucidate the texts and languages ofthe texts. Conclusions attracted from this empirical examine are regularly used byphilologists in "comparative philology" or "historical-comparativephilology," a sub-branch of the field which is, essentially, purelinguistics (I"m comes to that). I.e., these specialists room interestedin the restoration of earlier stages the the language they work-related with,and use strictly linguistic methodology--"Basic etymological Theory," asI think it"s dubbed by R.M.W. Dixon in his recent publication The Riseand loss of Languages, incidentally an impressive, thoughtful publication thatcovers both "linguistics" and "comparative-historical philology".However, countless philologists work mostly in literature, or history,or--most frequently--in a international language department, i.e., some otherviable scholastic field whereby they can uncover work, since philologytoday has actually retreated so much under the press of linguistics that the is nolonger stood for as an scholastic unit every se in American universities (atleast no to mine knowledge). The is, instead, teach in languagedepartments. For example, Indo-European comparative-historicalphilology--i.e., an ext or much less the same field as comparative-historicallinguistics--is usually a topic that may be learned by taking coursesin the Romance, Germanic, Slavic, etc. Language departments of auniversity, which generally encompass one or an ext historical linguists whohave specialized in the respective language family members within Indo-European,and ideally have actually themselves learned Indo-European historicalphilology/linguistics too. (In part cases, even non-Indo-Europeanlanguage departments include one or more historicalphilologists/linguists.) that course, in some universities the modernistswere a small too successful, and such things may not be teach at all, orat the very least not taught sufficiently fine so that a young student deserve to learnwhat needs to it is in learned.Now, because that linguistics. The discipline of grammars is a moderndevelopment, together someone in the conversation has currently noted. Althougheven Saussure to be a historic philologist, the split in between linguisticsand philology would certainly seem to have begun approximately his time. (Perhaps ahistorian the linguistics can clarify this point.) back theNeogrammarians--the Indo-European historic philologists that developedthe very first "linguistic" theory--were essentially simply historicallinguists, the idea of grammars as something various from philologyTODAY is based upon the idea that "linguists" have theoretical andmethodological training in the "scientific study" of language, both"Language" in general and languages, especially contemporary spoken languages.The emphasis on theoretical rigor--an idea actually established by theNeogrammarians, though most linguists today room unaware the the fact--isprimarily what, come linguists, differentiate them from philologists.While this is absolutely untrue today, when historical philologists aresimply the same as historical linguists--both use essentially the samemethodology and theoretical framework, nevertheless of quibbles--it is noteworthy that linguistics has emerged many subfieldsdevoted come questions mainly ignored by the earlier (not modern)historical-comparative philologists, such as syntax, typology, pragmatics,semantics, and so forth. Many of these subfields have developed their ownjargon and also theoretical frameworks, together that other linguists space unable tounderstand their work at all. (This is, that course, not accidental in theacademic world...) it is most likely safe to say that most of thesesubfields space of tiny interest come the vast bulk ofcomparative-historical philologists, whose main interest corresponds withthe main interest of many comparative-historical linguists, namely,reconstruction that the previously stages of languages they are interested in.There is much more that have the right to be said, so ns may have overlookedsomething important, but I think that basically covers it. In short,philology concentrates on the examine of TEXTS, and also includes manydisciplines (linguistics , study of certain languages andlanguage families, language pedagogy, literature, history, art, music,anthropology, etc.), when linguistics focuses on the research of LANGUAGE,and includes many subdisciplines (phonology, syntax, pragmatics, typology,historical linguistics, examine of particular languages and languagefamilies, used linguistics , etc., to the exclusion of various other disciplinessuch together those listed above under philology).As a final note come those wondering exactly how to do it today, in mostcases a student must be recommend to do a dual Ph.D., i.e., asimultaneous Ph.D.

You are watching: Philology vs linguistics

See more: An Irregular Area Of Purplish Discoloration Due To Bleeding Under The Skin Is Called:

In the grammars department and one in the languagedepartment the choice. This should carry out the best professional trainingfor an scholastic career.Chris Beckwith