The code model of communication: a powerful - SIL International

1. ‘Communication’: A Fundamental Concept in Linguistic Metatheory 3
more realistic to see this dependence upon the code model as an expression of the
paradigm which dominates contemporary schools of thought. As used here, paradigm
refers to a constellation of commitments to particular ways of viewing the method and
the subject of inquiry. Such commitments depend upon and extend from metatheoretical
conceptual axioms. This notion of paradigm, as has been developed by Thomas Kuhn
(1996 [orig. 1962; 2nd edition 1970]), proves a useful tool in the analysis of the code
model and its significance to each of the various schools, as chapter 4 will demonstrate.
Only by recognizing anomalies inherent in the code model may linguists hope to
overcome certain weaknesses and inconsistencies that have plagued the discipline since
its inception. Some linguists and schools of linguistics have indeed been wrestling with
these anomalies, and have been attempting to “redefine linguistics,” as Roy Harris has
provocatively put it (1990). (Attention will be given to such developments in chapter 4.)
Applying Kuhn’s paradigm theory to the discipline of linguistics, one may conjecture
concerning where metatheoretical shifts may fit within the life cycle of the discipline. Is
linguistics experiencing one of Kuhn’s revolutions? Of course, this question can be
answered confidently only by those who will write our history. Furthermore, if the
question of paradigm shift were to be directed toward the discipline as a whole, as if it
were a homogenous unit, then that question could easily lead to simplistic answers and
violate the distinctive contributions of the constituent schools. As Kuhn (1993:xiii) points
out in a later writing, scientific revolutions “should be described not in terms of group
experience but in terms of the varied experiences of individual group members.”
It should also be made clear that this discussion is not intended to serve as the
harbinger of a revolution or “paradigm shift.” As Makkai suggests, there have been
enough “paradigm mongerers” in linguistics (1993:2). Individuals do not create paradigm
shifts in their colleagues. 2 If there is any single element of Kuhn’s theory that must not be
neglected, it is the proposition that science is a community enterprise.
While this study includes a limited review of the history of the discipline where it
involves the code model, it is not a goal of this study to write (or rewrite as the case may
be) the history of the discipline. Rather, the goal is to identify metatheoretical conceptual
axioms commonly held within the discipline and anomalies those axioms support, for in
so doing, one might better propose where the discipline may (or should) go. 3 In that
regard, motives are shared with Andresen, who states as follows her purpose for
linguistic historiography:
2
In an interview with Horgan, Kuhn recounted his continued disappointment when one or another young theoretician
would contact him asking for help in starting a revolution. Horgan writes:
Kuhn was also upset that he had become the patron saint of all would-be scientific revolutionaries. “I get a
lot of letters saying, ‘I’ve just read your book, and it’s transformed my life. I’m trying to start a revolution.
Please help me.’” (Horgan 1996:45)
3
It is important here to distinguish the notion of metatheoretical conceptual axioms from the more common notion of
presuppositions. In conducting a study of historical literature, it is nearly impossible for the researcher to examine
presuppositions, for presuppositions typically go unstated. However, the literature does display, by collective weight
of repetition, statements which are universally accepted as true. These are better described as axioms.