Philology to Linguistics: Constructive to Literary Study

Abstract

A prominent current concern at celebration of two anniversaries is relationship between linguistic and literary studies. One of these commemorations, marking bicentenary of founding, in January 1784, of Asiatic Society of Bengal, is associated with beginnings of linguistics as a separate discipline, for in his address at third meeting of Society Sir William Jones delivered his influential insight into close relationship between Sanskrit and languages of Europe.1 As implications of this observation were explored in nineteenth century, linguistics developed independently from study of texts-philology-and from study of Likewise, founding of Modern Language Association, which marks beginning of its second century in 1984, served to widen gap between literary and linguistic study. While embracing anniversary mood, or mode, or madness, I wonder if Jones would have found such separate disciplines constructive-a word that can scarcely be uttered in a literary context today with only its literal meaning. In first part of this paper that is how I use it, in keeping with my title without final punctuation. When taken as an autonomous text-as a statement, exclamation, or question-my title itself is open to interpretation, even deconstruction, an activity of great interest in interpretation of texts, as we shall see. Jones did not set out to separate linguistics from its parent discipline, philology. His first publication was a Persian grammar, which is highly praised as innovative by foremost authority on Jones, Garland Cannon.2 Whatever its merits as a linguistic work, grammar was designed to prepare its users for study of Persian Linguistics has an ancillary role; Jones says in his grammar that the only office of a grammarian is to open mine of literature. And to Sir John Shore, in his eulogy after Jones's death, the judgment of Sir William Jones was too discerning to