Knowledge and ignorance of earlier research
Between subservience to authority and anarchic self-sufficiency
The history of science has seen all conceivable shadings of the behavior of scientists with respect to the contrast evoked by the section heading, including, in particular, the extreme positions themselves: science is, in the first place, continuation of a valuable tradition of knowledge or, on the contrary, the generation of innovative ideas. Entire research traditions have found their place near one or the other of these poles: On the one hand, scientific research in ancient Rome, in the European Middle Ages and the modern Near East gravitates towards the traditionalist pole; science in the U.S.A. since the middle of the 20th century has been closer to the progressist pole.
The two attitudes are nicely manifested by the opposite reactions of a researcher who learns that his most recent insight was published a century ago by a prominent scientist of that time: The traditionalist will find the value of his insight enhanced and will invoke his predecessor as a key witness for its truth. The indivualist will ignore this finding and even try to suppress it as it detracts from his originality.1
In view of this, it seems necessary to recall a truism: Human activity finds its optimum in a balance between conservatism and progressiveness. The aim of scientific research to improve the conditio humana can only be reached if two complementary subordinate aims are kept in mind:
- Scientific achievements have to be codified and to be passed on to younger generations until they are superseded by something better.
- Established truths have to be questioned, and ways of solving new problems have to be developed.
Ignoring the former maxim leads to the reinvention of the wheel and to arbitrariness.2 Ignoring the latter maxim leads to petrification of science and its irrelevance for the life of the society. Thus, ignorance of either maxim leads to stagnation. Therefore, wherever behavior based on either of the extreme positions is observed, it deserves strong opposition.
Consideration of Non-English literature
At the end of the 20th and the start of the 21st century, usage-based linguistics advocates a conception in which usage of language is responsible for changes and creates the linguistic system. This is exactly the Neo-Grammarian position of the end of the 19th century. Many claims raised in Croft 2010, Bybee 2010, 2015 are almost literal repetitions of assertions found, e.g., in Paul 1920, except that the authors give no sign of knowing this. In this particular case, it must be added that there has been an English version (Strong et al. 1891) of Paul 1920, so these are also examples of the ignorance of earlier research.
One may consider it a progress in scientific communication if all scientists use the same language – presently, English. However, this does not entail that there are no scientific publications written in other languages. Aristotle, Descartes and Humboldt are not going to write in English. If they are not read in their language, a break in scientific tradition results.
Monolinguism is obnoxious both to progress and to tradition in science. If the scientists are linguists, limitation of the scope of their reading to one or two languages is ridiculous and unworthy of this discipline.
1 I have witnessed both of these reactions by colleagues of my discipline. One of the extra-scientific factors influencing scientists' behavior is vanity.
2 Van der Auwera 1997 demonstrates this by a linguistic thesis of the last quarter of the 20th century.
References
Bybee, Joan L. 2010, Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ch. 3
Bybee, Joan L. 2015, Language change. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics) (Reprint: 2016).
Paul, Hermann 1920, Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer (5. Auflage; 1. Auflage 1880).
Croft, William 2010, "The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience." Linguistics 48:1-48.
Strong, Herbert Augustus & Logeman, Willem Sijbrand & Wheeler, Benjamin Ide 1891, Introduction to the study of the history of language. London etc.: Longmans, Green & Co. (New York: AMS Press (Language, man and society), 1973).
van der Auwera, Johan 1997, "Pragmatics in the last quarter century: The case of the conditional perfection." Journal of Pragmatics 27:261-274.