The history of linguistics offers a fascinating field of study in its own right, as well as providing an important layer of reflexivity to current debates in linguistic theory. This paper argues for the complementary interest of the study of the circulation, diffusion and impact of linguistic and related scholarly concepts beyond the realm of academia. This approach involves the study of a wider range of texts, including popular scholarship, writings for the educated public, political writings and debate, literary texts and law reports. The discussion offers a preliminary sketch of the diffusion of Caucasian and Aryan in the United States, noting how contradictions in scholarly discourse brought confusion into mainstream or 'ordinary' English. A process of definitional blurring can be observed between these categories and others, such as Anglo-Saxon, Teutonic, Germanic and Nordic. One domain where disambiguation was necessary was the law, given that white was a statutory term in naturalisation law.

This chapter argues that integrationism, rather than being an isolated set of critical voices within linguistics, actually reflects the preoccupations of broad currents of thinking on language and representation in the twentieth-century West. These include modernism and its various strands (Symbolism, Primitivism, Vorticism, Futurism, Cubism, Dada, Surrealism, etc.), the popular intellectual movement, General Semantics (most commonly associated with its slogan: "The map is not the territory"), interacting lines of conceptual art, popular Orientalism, Zen Buddhism, and therapeutic semantics (Edward de Bono), as well as post-structuralism and deconstruction. This point is illustrated with reference to the Toronto School of Communications, and its most notable figure, Marshall McLuhan. The chapter tracks attitudes to orality, literacy, and communications technology within the School, noting Roy Harris's responses, which are often critical, yet also align in key respects. Twentieth-century thinking on the image and representation, on space, time, and linearity, and on indeterminacy and fragmentation offers an intellectual context for understanding the emergence of integrationism, and this offers insights that escape an exclusive focus on the history and disciplinary formation of linguistics.

This chapter discusses theoretical and ideological issues raised by the metalanguage of sociolinguistics. The relationship between specialist and lay vocabulary in the social sciences and humanities is an under studied topic, and it arguably cuts to the heart of many of the key questions that these disciplines confront. Technical terms may eventually circulate in mainstream usage, and lay terms are sometimes selected for “disembedding” as technical terms. It is argued that stipulated definition is a fundamental form of conceptual engineering and that it follows that disciplinary metalanguages are in unstable and dynamic interaction with lay discourse. There are strong arguments for a detached or “alienated” metalanguage, since social analysis requires distance from the social mainstream; yet this very alienation threatens to delegitimate disciplinary metalanguages since they are at cross purposes with the conceptual world under investigation. Sociolinguistics has never taken up a clear position on this, moving between a universalist commitment to social engineering, the evocation of Romantic authenticity, and an embrace of postmodern fluidity. Southern Theory poses a radical challenge to sociolinguistics since it brings the decolonizing perspective to an already fraught relationship between academic metalanguage and the social realities under study.

This paper considers the at-first-sight puzzling presence of Nazi linguistics as sources in two post-war sociolinguistic works, authored by Joshua Fishman and Uriel Weinreich respectively. It offers an account of who these Nazi linguists were and the basic ideological positions they represented. The argument is made that the presence of these sources reflects a wider problem in post-war sociolinguistics, namely a lack of awareness of the nature of interwar language politics. The question of Umvolkung (‘assimilation’, ‘transethnization’, ‘ethnoconversion’) in interwar Europe concerned state boundaries and the status of ethnolinguistic minorities. In the post-war United States, assimilation was understood in the context of indigenous and migrant languages and cultures, within a language ecology dominated by English. Post-War US identity politics concerned social and institutional space, rather than the ownership and occupation of territory. The same concept may be potentially toxic in one sociopolitical context and progressive in another.

La question centrale que l'on se posera dans cet article est la façon dont les relations perçues entre la diversité physique et la diversité linguistique de l'espèce humaine ont été comprises dans le contexte du national-socialisme. On soutiendra que, même en Allemagne nazie, où l'idéologie raciale a joué un rôle si fondamental, il y avait un rôle potentiellement significatif pour une conception de l'identité humaine reposant sur le langage ou la langue maternelle.

This paper explicates T.J. Taylor's understanding of normativity and the constitutive power of lay metadiscourse and juxtaposes it to Harris's concept of supercategory. It looks at the alignment between these two approaches, as well as the tensions, explaining their place within integrational theory. It then focusses on law as a supercategory, surveying briefly what integrationists have said about legal interpretation. The focus in the discussion is on the role of ordinary language arguments. In illustration of how this category works, the judgment in n United States v Bhagat Singh Thind (1923) is analyzed, noting how the judge elected to deploy the ordinary rather the specialist meaning of Caucasian in explicating the statutory term white person. It is argued that ordinary language is a legal fiction, and therefore that it makes no sense to debate how better to give it empirical content. Any new approach to ordinary language (such as the use of corpora) needs to be domesticated within the interpretative culture of law in order to be accepted by judges. Integrationism is not designed to tell people how to decide contentious linguistic and interpretative issues, though there is no barrier to its appropriation. In conclusion, the point is made that both Taylor's and Harris's perspectives offer valuable insight in relation to ordinary language in law. (c) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Integrationism, unlike Southern Theories, lacks an overtly political agenda, and in general reflects the assumptions of Western liberal individualism. The founder of integrationism, Roy Harris, at points gestured toward a politics of language at the societal level, but this was never fully articulated. Integrationism opposes the systems theory model that underlies modern linguistics, in which agency is subordinated to system, and proposes in effect agency without system. Integrationism's "lay" orientation can be read as a form of anti-elitism as well as anti-essentialism, as the claims of modern linguistics to special insight or expertise are rejected. In this paper, language politics is discussed in terms of competing discourses of reification and de-essentialization, arguing that there is no one-to-one relationship between essentialization or de-essentialization and progressive politics. For example, essentialization may be part of progressive politics in the advocacy of indigenous languages, whereas de-essentialization may be central to the critique of ideologies associated with dominant languages such as English. Arguably, the lay-oriented stance of integrationism complements the language politics of Southern Theories, in that integrationism's lay orientation could in principle open the door to the recognition of hitherto ignored or marginalized voices.

If the nineteenth century belonged to the litterateur, the twentieth saw the triumph of the critic and theorist. For the newly urbanized European nations, literature was understood as constructing ...

Abstract In this contribution, Christopher Hutton discusses how states have historically taken an interest in, and funded, linguistics research. For a range of political purposes – including colonial rule and military strategy – knowing about and learning the language of “others” has been part of the projection and use of power. The specific purposes and forms of state support for research on language, argues Hutton, does vary depending on whether states have authoritarian or liberal democratic regimes.

more specific for the political arrangement and specific political theory that of the institution Dworkin is interpreting. Concrete rights also have to be broken into two varying ideas. First, “They must be institutional rather than background rights and they must be legal rather than some other form of institutional rights”. (Dworkin, 1977 p. 101) Dworkin notes this distinction because it would not be fair to have every person in our political arrangement wanting particular rights simply because they feel their virtue is better than someone else’s. The institution must have rights so that the political arrangement can be talked about and understood. Institutional rights and background rights may diverge from one another. For example, a judge may feel a certain way or that an individual case should be decided in a certain way, but if the institutional rights do not allow for that to be made a decision, then the judge is stuck in a hard place. Without precedent, the judge

The status of modern linguistics within the modern disciplinary order is unclear, as it is neither a recognizable natural science, nor primarily a hermeneutic, interpretative discipline.In seeking to understand the intellectual history of colonial linguistics and its impact on polities such as India, this ambiguous status is a complicating factor, in particular when we confront questions of universalism, cultural difference, and identity politics.The key concept in this history is 'Aryan'.The intellectual confidence with which nineteenth century comparativism sought to map the world's languages, races, and cultures has largely disappeared, under assault from a range of ideological and intellectual opponents.In particular, the racial model of Indian civilization, reflected in Herbert Risley's reading of a bas-relief at Sanchi, has been completely discredited.Yet colonial linguistics, which had arguably a much greater and more long-lasting impact on India, remains largely unchallenged, with the exception of critics associated with Hindu fundamentalism.For these critics, the distinctions drawn within colonial linguistics led to a schism within Indian society, by conceptualizing a historical divide between invading Aryans and indigenous Dravidians.A set of difficult questions arise from this.On the one hand, the rejection of western science is today linked to Hindu fundamentalism, and is driven by a xenophobic form of cultural relativism; on the other, linguistics is not a science in any universal sense, and its role in creating divisions in Indian society has arguably been a highly destructive one.

AbstractThe categoryAryanand the paradigm of ideas associated with it remains highly controversial in contemporary India, and the history, status, and impact of this concept are contested at many levels. This paper starts with the assumption that the genesis of this concept lies in Western linguistic theorizing, and analyzes in outline the reception and impact of Aryan Invasion Theory and the postulation of an Aryan-Dravidian divide. Radical Hindu nationalists reject all aspects of the colonial scholarship of India; other Indian scholars see Western scholarship as authoritative to the extent that it falls within the framework of secular modernity. The argument made here is that the entire Aryan paradigm rests on a faulty set of academic presumptions and that its impact has been more long lasting and destructive than even the application of race theory to the understanding of India. In this sense the paper accepts the criticisms made by radical Hindu nationalists of colonial linguistics, and this raises further complex issues about knowledge production and application, scholarly expertise and authority.

?Linkability? is a technical term in data protection, referring to the ability of a third party to draw a connection between a person and a piece of data. The pattern of linkability may show that two apparently separate identities refer back to the same individual (e.g., a Twitter account and a Facebook account), or reveal a link a credit card and a travel pass, or a myriad of other linkages between data and individual identities. This article argues that linkability offers a more informative way of understanding legal personhood than traditional frameworks. Attempts to find a doctrinal grounding for personhood, for example, in privacy or self-ownership, fall into circularity. The ?natural? versus ?fictional? duality used to characterize the distinction between a person in being and a corporate person has given rise to fascinating but inconclusive ontological debates. It is suggested here that a relational understanding of the affordances that integrate personhood into a jurisdictional order reveals the underlying deep structure of legally constituted and recognized identities. The cases of the United States and India as common law jurisdictions and the People?s Republic of China, a civil law jurisdiction with a Leninist understanding of the state, are analyzed.