Historical Romance Linguistics: The Future of a Discipline

Abstract

HISTORICAL ROMANCE LINGUISTICS: THE FUTURE OF A DISCIPLINE Franz Lebsanñ Ruhr University Bochum According to a German saying, in every discussion there comes the moment when "even/thing has been said, but jierhajis not by everyone". It seems to me that the thought-provoking critical cluster on the jircsuniable death of a discipline (Dworkin 2003) offers an excellent synthesis ofthe arguments that can be put forward to demonstrate that Historical Romance Linguistics is a "vital" and "evolving" discipline. This vitality, it seems, is impressively represented by the recent, multifaceted Lexikon der Romanist¡sehen Linguistik (Holtus, Metzeltin. and Schmitt 1988-2001) and the new Romanische Sprachgeschichte (Ernst, Gießgen, Schmitt, and Schweickard 2003-). So, why continue the debate. iïtout va bien dans le meilleur des mondes} As I see it, there is a discrepancy between the "vitality-" of excellent research represented by the work of distinguished scholars, and the uncertainties that, surround the discipline in its epistemological and academic surroundings - not only in the US, but also in Europe. Considerations about the "vitality" ofour discipline should include these two aspects. The 2003 debate forms part of a tradition of défenses et illustrations which goes back, at least in Germany, to the 1985 discussions ofthe Deutsche Romanistentag on Romance Philology as an "impossible discipline" (Nies and Grimm 1988). At that moment, even the most enthusiastic defenders ol Romanistik admitted the "difficult unity" of the discipline; and two of the most distinguished German scholars of Romance Philology, Harald Weinrich and Hans RobertJauß, described their scientific autobiography as an intellectual way out ofthe discipline. At the same moment, the Romanistentag set up a "section" on die histon of Romance studies (Nieclerehe, and Schlieben-Lange 1988). In 1986. the international congress of the Société de linguistique romane held at Trier did the same (Christmann 1989). This now twenty-year Li corónica 34.1 (Fall, 2005): 202-207 Historical Romance Linguistics: The Death of a Discipline?203 historiographie debate (widi antecedents that go back to the very beginning of die twentiedi century: see Gröber's 21904-1906a history ofRomance Philology) is, at least in part, die reaction to die increasing methodological and institutional uncertainties about our discipline. The passionate debate on die "pre-" or "proto-history" ofRomance studies has helped sharpen our deeper understanding ofits epistemologica ! principles. The establishment and rise ofour discipline is due as we all know - to die development of "historical thinking" and its application to the study of languages (Schlegel 1808; Christmarrn 1977). The scientific and even public triumph ofdie historic paradigm in die nineteenth century is die basis ofdie extraordinary development of Historical Comparative Linguistics (Foucault 1966, Part II). After a long period of anti- or ahistoric approaches to the humanities during a good part of the last century, we do not witness, at the outset of this new century, the returning of historical, but of evolutionary thinking. From an evolutionary point ofview, die contingencies of linguistic history do not show "anydiing new under die sun", but only "die eternal return ofdie same". Therefore, the epistemological answer ofHistorical Romance Linguistics to the "cognitive turn" must be a reaffirming of genuine historic research. Cognitive "Historic" Semantics should be completed and counter-balanced by authentic diachronic research (Lebsanft and Gießgen 2004: 23-25). This can be shown by the following example. From a cognitive point ofview, Blank (1997: 386) explains the semantic change of Old French viande 'nourishment for people' to Middle French 'meat' as a semantic restriction caused by prototypical organization. Though meat was certainly not the most usual part of a medieval meal, it was according to Blank's conjectural history of the word- the most important element ofan "ideal" medieval meal. From a more traditional diachronic perspective and using all die available historic information, Artur Greive (1968) explains the change as an effort to distinguish between 'flesh' (chair) and 'meat' (viande), i.e., between the 'soft substance of an animal body' and this substance 'used as food'. From the perspective of Cognitive Sciences, Historical Romance Linguistics is only an auxiliary discipline (Meisel/Schwarze 2002). To illustrate the cognitive unity and diversity of linguistic developments, the abundance of Romance data may be (and certainly is...