In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • The language myth in Western culture ed. by Roy Harris
  • Alan S. Kaye
The language myth in Western culture. Ed. by Roy Harris. London: Curzon Press, 2002. Pp. vii, 228. ISBN: 0700714537. $90.00.

The editor is no stranger to linguistic mythology, having published a book in 1981 called The language myth (London: Duckworth). In the introductory chapter of the present work, he tries to resurrect the need to discuss this so-called language myth (‘The role of the language myth in the Western cultural tradition’, 1–24), by telling us that ‘my original choice of the term myth was provocative, and what I hoped to provoke was a debate among linguists concerning the theoretical basis of their discipline’ (3). Unfortunately, Harris then admits that this attempt proved unsuccessful. Perhaps Daniel R. Davis recapitulates H’s thesis best (‘The language myth and mathematical notation as a language of nature’, 139–58): ‘Harris’s point is not merely that the myth shapes the science of language for better or worse. It is also that the myth shapes other areas of intellectual endeavor (science, scientific method, philosophy and the popular understanding of these) and the behavior [End Page 655] based on them’ (140). According to H, the language myth can be explained as follows: ‘knowing the meaning of sentences enables those who know the language to identify the thought just expressed’ (2).

Eleven authors (including the editor) have come together to produce what should prove to be a controversial volume. They all in their own way examine the language myth in terms of a different field of scholarly endeavor. Nigel Love’s ‘The language myth and historical linguistics’ is typical (25–40). Although it does contain some fascinating thoughts on the history of English, I do not agree that English speakers have any doubts as to the plural of a computer ‘mouse’ (37). Either mice or mouses is correct, although Steven Pinker maintains that the latter is rare among native speakers (Words and rules, New York: HarperCollins, 2000, p. 174; yet I feel that mouses is becoming more and more common as acceptable).

Hayley G. Davis’s ‘The language myth and Standard English’ (41–54) affirms (and I concur) that Standard American English is an ideal variety which no one speaks (42).

Edda Weigand’s ‘The language myth and linguistics humanized’ (55–83) asserts that one should not, indeed one cannot, reduce the intricacies of human language to rules, and further that ‘linguistics must redefine itself as a human science, as some sort of “quantum” linguistics’ (81). This perspective is most difficult to justify.

Philip Carr’s ‘The mythical, the non-mythical and representation in linguistics’ (84–99) concludes that ‘Chomsky’s Radical Internalism faces insurmountable conceptual difficulties, difficulties which Chomsky himself alludes to’ (98).

Talbot J. Taylor’s ‘Folk psychology and the language myth: What would the integrationist say?’ (100–17) poses philosophical questions of the following sort: ‘Am I conscious?’, ‘Do you believe you are reading this sentence?’ (100). These queries have little relevance to the interests of most mainstream linguists.

Christopher Hutton’s ‘The language myth and the race myth: Evil twins of modern identity politics’ (118–38) examines, among other topics, ideas found on the subject of language and race in the works of Heymann Steinthal (1823–1899) and Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913).

The final three chapters are tangential to modern linguistics: Michael Toolan, ‘The language myth and the law’ (159–82); Anna Tietze, ‘The language myth and Western art’ (183–200); and George Wolf, ‘The language myth, Schopenhauer, and music’ (201–20).

The editor himself observes in his essay: ‘then sooner or later—and sooner rather than later, in my experience—someone is bound to ask: “Is this a myth at all?”’ (3). My sentiments precisely!

Alan S. Kaye
California State University, Fullerton
...

pdf

Share