Cover not available
Part of
Usage-based and Typological Approaches to Linguistic Units
Edited by Tsuyoshi Ono, Ritva Laury and Ryoko Suzuki
[Benjamins Current Topics 114] 2021
► pp. 39–58

Linguistic units and their systems

Completeness, self-reference, and contingency

ORCID logo | University Blue Quills
A theoretical discussion of units in linguistic theory would be, in a sense, incomplete without a discussion of the systems, whether overt or implied, that the units are associated with. This paper traces conceptualizations of units and their accompanying systems in several disciplines. We identify some important problems with rule-based accounts (Parsons 1937) of social action and discuss the transition to non-rule-based theory afforded by ethnomethodology (e.g. Garfinkel 1963, 1967; Heritage 1984, 2011). We draw direct parallels between these issues and analogous developments in mathematical logic (Gödel 1992) and philosophy of mind (Fodor 1968, 1983; Lucas 1961; Putnam 1960, 1967 etc.), and argue that these stem directly from fundamental properties of a class of all formal systems which permit self-reference. We argue that, since these issues are architectural in nature, linguistic theory which postulates that linguistic units are the outputs of a consistent, self-referential, rule-based formal systems (e.g. Hauser, Chomsky & Fitch 2002) will inevitably run into similar problems. This is further supported by examples from actual language use which, as a class, will elude any theoretical explanation grounded in such a system.
Keywords: units, actions, incompleteness, ethnomethodology, conversation analysis, formal system, rules, norms, Gödel, online speech, contingency, isotropy
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Social action, unit acts, interaction
  • 3.Systems and incompleteness
  • 4.Some deviant utterances
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 April 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.114.03kre
References (46)
References
Braithewaite, R. B. 1992. Introduction. In Kurt Gödel (ed.), On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems. New York: Dover. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. 1968. Psychological Explanation. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. The Mind Doesn’t Work That Way: The Scope and Limits of Computational Psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara A. Fox & Sandra Thompson. 2013. Units and/or Action Trajectories? The language of grammatical categories and the language of social action. In Beatrice Szczepek-Reed & Geoffrey Raymond (eds.), Units of Talk – Units of Action, 13–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold. 1963. A conception of, and experiments with, ‘trust’ as a condition of stable concerted actions. In O. J. Harvey (ed.), Motivation and Social Interaction, 187–238. New York: Ronald Press.Google Scholar
. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Gawne, Lauren & Jill Vaughan. 2011. I can haz language play: The construction of language and identity in LOLspeak. Proceedings of the 42nd Australian Linguistic Society Conference.Google Scholar
Geertz, Clifford. 1983. Local Knowledge. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gödel, Kurt. 1931. Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme, I. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 38. 173–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems. Trans. B. Meltzer, with Intro. by R. B. Braithwaite. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 1979. The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, 97–121. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Grosholz, Emily R. 2016. Leibnizian analysis, canonical objects, and generalization. In Karine Chemla, Renaud Chorlay & David Rabouin (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Generality in Mathematics and the Sciences, 329–356. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hauser, Marc D., Noam Chomsky & W. Tecumseh Fitch. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298. 1569–1579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
. 2011. A Galilean Moment in Social Theory? Language, Culture and their Emergent Properties. Qualitative Sociology 34(1). 263–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopcroft, John & Jeffrey Ullman. 1979. Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1987. Emergent Grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13. 139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Emergent Grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In Peter Auer & Stefan Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, 22–44. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwasaki, Shoichi. 2015. A multiple-grammar model of speakers’ linguistic knowledge. Cognitive Linguistics 26. 161–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, Per. 2009. Rethinking Language, Mind and World Dialogically: Contextual and Interactional Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
. 2013. The dynamics of incrementation in utterance-building: Processes and resources. In Beatrice Szczepek Reed & Geoffrey Raymond (eds.), Units of Talk – Units of Action, 57–90. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lucas, J. R. 1961. Minds, Machines and Gödel. Philosophy 36. 112–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parsons, Talcott. 1937. The Structure of Social Action. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. 1960. Minds and machines. In Sidney Hook (ed.), Dimensions of Mind, 20–33. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
. 1967. The Nature of Mental States. In W. H. Capitan & D. D. Merrill (eds.), Art, Mind, and Religion, 51–58. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.Google Scholar
. 1988. Representation and Reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1999. The Threefold Cord: Mind, Body, and World. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. 1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4. 328–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1975. Universals and cultural specifics in human categorization. In R. Brislin, S. Bochner & W. Lonner (eds.), Cross-cultural Perspectives on Learning. New York: Halstead Press.Google Scholar
1983. Prototype Classification and Logical Classification: The Two Systems. In E. F. Scholnick (ed.), New Trends in Conceptual Representation: Challenges to Piaget’s Theory?, 73–86. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. & C. B. Mervis. 1975. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7. 573–605. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H. 1992. Lectures on Conversation, Volumes I and II. Ed. G. Jefferson with Introduction by E. A. Schegloff. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4). 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996a. Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff & S. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar, 52–133. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996b. Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action. American Journal of Sociology 102(1). 161–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schütz, Alfred. 1959. Type and Eidos in Husserl’s Late Philosophy. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 20(2). 147–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serény, György. 2003. Gödel, Tarski, Church, and the Liar. The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 9(1). 3–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suppes, Patrick. 1957. Introduction to Logic, New York: D. Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
Whitehead, Alfred North & Bertrand Russell. 1910. Principia Mathematica, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1912. Principia Mathematica, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1913. Principia Mathematica, vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Trans. G. E. M. Anscombe. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Zimmer, Benjamin & Charles E. Carson. 2011. Among the New Words. American Speech 86(4). 454–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar