Historical Romance linguistics: past, present and potential

HISTORICAL ROMANCE LINGUISTICS: PAST, PRESENT AND POTENTIAL Douglas C. Walker University of Calgary Examination of die current status or future viability of disciplines (or perhaps better, subdisciplines) is a reairrent feature ofthe academic landscape, linked, at least partially, to die vagaries of academic (and other) fashion. One recent occurrence has focused on Historical Romance Linguistics, a collaborative and ultimately optimistic scrutiny in diisjournal ably coordinated by Steven Dworkin that drew a number ofinsightful responses from a baker's dozen ofscholars in bodi Europe and North America (2003, 31.2: 7-125). These surveys were then themselves dioughtfiilly reviewed Martin Maiden (2004), and it is no doubt ¡iresumptuous to think diat dramatic new insights will emerge here. Nonetheless, "fools rush in..." Before diat venture, however, one caveat is in order: my remarks will bear primarily ifnot exclusively on the Nordi American situation and more specifically on Canada and the United States, die context I know best. This is obviously not to say that the discipline is not international in scope, nor that other, particularly European, scholars find themselves divorced from the North American milieu (or vice versa). But in the issues I intend to address, I believe that there are sufficient differences between die Old and New Worlds to justify a more focused examination.1 One need 1 Parallel examinations could profitably focus as well on comparative Germanic and Slavic linguistics, both ofwhich appear to raise similar questions and which appear less robust in North America than their Romance cousins. I am indebted to my colleagues Robert Murray, an accomplished Germanist, and Olga Mladnova, a scholar ofcomparative Slavic, for discussing these matters with me. I am indebted to Olga Mladenova in particular for discussions which have illuminated several ofthe matters I consider here with parallel Slavic examples and for broadening my appreciation ofthe issues. La corónica 34.1 (Fall, 2005): 253-256 254ForumLa colònica 34.1, 2005 simjily refer, for examjile, to the length of time the discijiline (and universities) have been established in Eurojie or to the differing intellectual traditions (jiarticularlv one linked to if not rooted in more classicallv-oriented instructional content) to see that clilferences might exist desjiite the globalisation of knowledge and intellectual activity. Eurojiean scholars, moreover, may find themselves geograjihically and culturally closer to the full range of the languages in question than their North American counterjiarts. who can count on access to major communities of French and Sjianish sjieakers but lesser direct contact with the other Romance languages.As the La corànica discussion so far has made eminently clear, historical and comparative Romance scholarship in North America is in a healthy and jiroductive state (even if the comjiarative comjionent ajijiears to have waned more or less recently). To demonstrate this one need onlv cite, in addition to the weighty list of contributors to the Im corànica discussion, such names as Thomas Cravens, José Ignacio Hualde, Jürgen Klausenburger, Yves-Charles Morin or Mario Saltarelli.' Romance scholarship in North .America also contributes to and benefits from a range of infrastructural sujijiort: conferences such as the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, access to scholarly journals such as (need one sav it?) Lc/ colonica or an ajijiarentlv struggling Romance Philology, and various tv jies of bibliographic or electronic sujijiort such as that provided bv the Comparative Romance Linguistics Newsletter, an offshoot ofthe Comjiarative Romance Linguistics Section of the Modern Language Association in existence since 1951 and now reinvigourated by Brian Imhoff of Texas A &.· M University. None of Those with longer memories raav be reminded ofthe malaise that arose in the 1970s when, following the initially negative imparl ofgenerative grammar on histoi irai studies, il was leared that histoi irai linguistics itself was under severe threat, at least in North Ameiira (cf. Kocrner 1'JcSJ). Reiben Murray has reminded me of these events and lhe eventual positive outcomes that have- slowly re-established and reintegrateci diaclirouic studies. - As l)olh Craddock (1'(HKi: Ü2) and Maiden ('JljO-t: '_'17|. riling Lausberg. note, the necci lo master seveial ol the relevant languages ran also discourage new North American adherents to the discipline, a ? eliirtanre rrinforc cci bv geogi apliir isolation, lhe disappearance of Latin from...