Call for Papers Language as a Scientific Tool. Managing Language as a Variable of Practice and Presentation, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, 29th-30th November 2010
Call for Papers
Language as a Scientific Tool. Managing Language as a Variable of Practice and
Presentation
Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, 29th-30th November 2010
Organizers:
Institute for Culture Studies and History of Theatre, Austrian Academy of Sciences
Working Group “History of Science”, History Department, University of Vienna
Department of Political Science and Sociology, European University at St. Petersburg
English and German Departments, University of Granada
Language has played an important and extended role in the history and philosophy of
sciences, with language itself also becoming the subject of scholarship. Linguistic
environments of scientists have unavoidably affected scientific research at various levels
by, for instance, imposing cultural constraints and preconceptions, and by affecting the
bounds of communication that structure science as social engagement. Despite the
relevance of this phenomenon, insufficient historiographical and philosophical
consideration has been paid to scientists’ own thoughts on language as the essential
medium of their practice, and as a malleable element that can be shaped to suit their
goals.
The aim of this conference is, thus, to consider the history of language as an object of
scientific concern, whether for epistemological or semantic reasons, stemming from
scientists’ understanding of language as a tool for conceptualising the world, from
concerns on successfully communicating within the scientific community among
specialists or merely between scientists and the general public. In either case the
examination of the historical circumstances that have motivated such reflection appear
paramount.
Language can also be considered as a consciously modelled tool for achieving definite
scientific and political goals. Indeed, Bacon began his natural philosophy explicitly
criticising scholastic ideas on language, which for him obscured nature instead of
clarifying it. Therefore, it seemed to him that language had to be reformed and properly
redefined to serve in the natural philosophic endeavour. Locke gave specific attention to
language as a prior question to setting an epistemological basis to natural philosophy, in
turn enforcing a separation between word and meaning that put natural philosophers in
direct control over their language. This revolution in language was also one of the key
points of the new science hailed by members of Royal Society such as John Wilkins, who
was appointed a treatise on a new philosophical and universal language. Other voices
argued that gaining explicit control over language was the only way to free it from past
misconceptions. The claim that science needed to formulate a theory of language able to
underwrite scientists’ epistemic activity recurs right up until logical positivism.
At the same time, the Renaissance witnessed the struggle between Latin and the
vernacular languages as means for the written codification of knowledge. From a
dominant and hegemonic position, Latin gradually ceased being the only appropriate
means for learned discourse, the vernaculars taking its place. Then, language critics
displayed diverse arguments intertwining language with politics. In Germany, for
instance, the main argument in linguistic change at the universities was the need of the
introduction of a “new science” requiring a language distinct from scholastic Latin
(Christian Wolff, Christian Thomasius), and thus not pervaded with scholastic ideas.
This conference focuses on the question of how the process of linguistic change was
effected, perceived, and conducted by scientists. From the field of philosophical
discussions, to the field of “language in use”, it is possible to pose crucial questions such
as the following:
• How has science sought to manage language through philosophical conceptions or
rhetorical techniques to obtain particular goals, epistemic or otherwise? To what extent
have scientists engaged in linguistic argumentation to criticize competing paradigms?
• Has language been considered to be perfectly manageable? How have influences
from e.g. other languages been coped with? Can it be said that linguistic purism relates
only to alien words, or also to changing reality such as technology or geographical
discoveries?
• How has the communication of science been discussed in relation to both the
“existing world” and the learned community? Has science been seen as corresponding
more accurately with the “reality” (following Herder) if written in the national language of
a community? How has the communication of discoveries with other scientists been
perceived if this was the case? Which were the points of conflict between perfect
translatability and innate and unique features of natural languages in this respect?
• In what contexts have issues of language been raised and to what ends? Is it a
purely philosophically-driven debate for the purpose of articulating science, or are
political and social factors (co)responsible for the crises of languages commonly used in
the past?
• Who were the actors of linguistic change? Did scientists/natural philosophers play
only a minor role, or did the impulses and crises of used languages come from other
sources?
• Did scientists try to develop their own definitions of language as competing with
philosophical ones? How did the endeavors for perfection of language differ among
different groups?
Postgraduates are particularly encouraged to submit proposals for twenty-minute papers.
The language of the conference is English. The organizers plan to publish a selection of
papers from this conference.
Please e-mail 300-word abstracts or proposals with a brief CV to Rocío Sumillera:
sumille@correo.ugr.es
by Monday, March 1st 2010.
Further contacts:
Johannes Feichtinger (Institute for Culture Studies and History of Theatre, Austrian
Academy of Sciences): johannes.feichtinger@oeaw.ac.at
Miles MacLeod (Konrad Lorenz Institut, Vienna): miles.macleod@kli.ac.at
Ekaterina Smirnova (Department of Political Science and Sociology, European University
at St. Petersburg): esmirnova@eu.spb.ru
Jan Surman (History Department, University of Vienna / Center for Austrian Studies,
University of Minnesota): jan.surman@univie.ac.at
Language as a Scientific Tool. Managing Language as a Variable of Practice and
Presentation
Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, 29th-30th November 2010
Organizers:
Institute for Culture Studies and History of Theatre, Austrian Academy of Sciences
Working Group “History of Science”, History Department, University of Vienna
Department of Political Science and Sociology, European University at St. Petersburg
English and German Departments, University of Granada
Language has played an important and extended role in the history and philosophy of
sciences, with language itself also becoming the subject of scholarship. Linguistic
environments of scientists have unavoidably affected scientific research at various levels
by, for instance, imposing cultural constraints and preconceptions, and by affecting the
bounds of communication that structure science as social engagement. Despite the
relevance of this phenomenon, insufficient historiographical and philosophical
consideration has been paid to scientists’ own thoughts on language as the essential
medium of their practice, and as a malleable element that can be shaped to suit their
goals.
The aim of this conference is, thus, to consider the history of language as an object of
scientific concern, whether for epistemological or semantic reasons, stemming from
scientists’ understanding of language as a tool for conceptualising the world, from
concerns on successfully communicating within the scientific community among
specialists or merely between scientists and the general public. In either case the
examination of the historical circumstances that have motivated such reflection appear
paramount.
Language can also be considered as a consciously modelled tool for achieving definite
scientific and political goals. Indeed, Bacon began his natural philosophy explicitly
criticising scholastic ideas on language, which for him obscured nature instead of
clarifying it. Therefore, it seemed to him that language had to be reformed and properly
redefined to serve in the natural philosophic endeavour. Locke gave specific attention to
language as a prior question to setting an epistemological basis to natural philosophy, in
turn enforcing a separation between word and meaning that put natural philosophers in
direct control over their language. This revolution in language was also one of the key
points of the new science hailed by members of Royal Society such as John Wilkins, who
was appointed a treatise on a new philosophical and universal language. Other voices
argued that gaining explicit control over language was the only way to free it from past
misconceptions. The claim that science needed to formulate a theory of language able to
underwrite scientists’ epistemic activity recurs right up until logical positivism.
At the same time, the Renaissance witnessed the struggle between Latin and the
vernacular languages as means for the written codification of knowledge. From a
dominant and hegemonic position, Latin gradually ceased being the only appropriate
means for learned discourse, the vernaculars taking its place. Then, language critics
displayed diverse arguments intertwining language with politics. In Germany, for
instance, the main argument in linguistic change at the universities was the need of the
introduction of a “new science” requiring a language distinct from scholastic Latin
(Christian Wolff, Christian Thomasius), and thus not pervaded with scholastic ideas.
This conference focuses on the question of how the process of linguistic change was
effected, perceived, and conducted by scientists. From the field of philosophical
discussions, to the field of “language in use”, it is possible to pose crucial questions such
as the following:
• How has science sought to manage language through philosophical conceptions or
rhetorical techniques to obtain particular goals, epistemic or otherwise? To what extent
have scientists engaged in linguistic argumentation to criticize competing paradigms?
• Has language been considered to be perfectly manageable? How have influences
from e.g. other languages been coped with? Can it be said that linguistic purism relates
only to alien words, or also to changing reality such as technology or geographical
discoveries?
• How has the communication of science been discussed in relation to both the
“existing world” and the learned community? Has science been seen as corresponding
more accurately with the “reality” (following Herder) if written in the national language of
a community? How has the communication of discoveries with other scientists been
perceived if this was the case? Which were the points of conflict between perfect
translatability and innate and unique features of natural languages in this respect?
• In what contexts have issues of language been raised and to what ends? Is it a
purely philosophically-driven debate for the purpose of articulating science, or are
political and social factors (co)responsible for the crises of languages commonly used in
the past?
• Who were the actors of linguistic change? Did scientists/natural philosophers play
only a minor role, or did the impulses and crises of used languages come from other
sources?
• Did scientists try to develop their own definitions of language as competing with
philosophical ones? How did the endeavors for perfection of language differ among
different groups?
Postgraduates are particularly encouraged to submit proposals for twenty-minute papers.
The language of the conference is English. The organizers plan to publish a selection of
papers from this conference.
Please e-mail 300-word abstracts or proposals with a brief CV to Rocío Sumillera:
sumille@correo.ugr.es
by Monday, March 1st 2010.
Further contacts:
Johannes Feichtinger (Institute for Culture Studies and History of Theatre, Austrian
Academy of Sciences): johannes.feichtinger@oeaw.ac.at
Miles MacLeod (Konrad Lorenz Institut, Vienna): miles.macleod@kli.ac.at
Ekaterina Smirnova (Department of Political Science and Sociology, European University
at St. Petersburg): esmirnova@eu.spb.ru
Jan Surman (History Department, University of Vienna / Center for Austrian Studies,
University of Minnesota): jan.surman@univie.ac.at