Languages are neither fixed nor homogeneous. This article explores how linguistic theories, like those of the physical sciences, adapt to understand the complex dynamics of contemporary language use. Inspired by the work of Mortéza Mahmoudian, and drawn from his original article published in La Linguistique (2009), it revisits the concepts of heterogeneity, openness, and structure. This insightful text offers a scientific reflection on the methodological developments necessary to grasp the richness of human language.
Linguistics, as a scientific discipline, has long relied on postulates of stability and homogeneity. These concepts, inherited from an era when the humanities aspired to adopt the methods of the natural sciences, have enabled significant progress. However, linguistic phenomena prove to be far more complex, necessitating a revision of traditional theoretical frameworks. This revision implies a recognition of the heterogeneity of languages, an openness to their interactions, and a broadening of the functions attributed to language.
The question of heterogeneity is essential. Languages cannot be considered homogeneous systems shared uniformly by a community. André Martinet, in his work, emphasizes that every linguistic community is intrinsically heterogeneous, not only because of geographical and social divisions, but also through the individual practices that unfold within it (Martinet, 1960). This internal plurality challenges the idea of a closed linguistic system, an observation already made by Leonard Bloomfield when he described languages as open systems influenced by their social and cultural contexts (Bloomfield, 1957). This heterogeneity has major implications for linguistic analysis, requiring consideration of variations at all levels, whether macroscopic or microscopic.
Openness is another fundamental characteristic of languages. The constant interactions between languages, dialects, and registers illustrate their permeable nature. These linguistic dynamics have significant consequences for speakers’ practices. For example, in situations of language contact, borrowing, hybridization, and acculturation enrich the system without erasing its internal tensions. This porosity of linguistic boundaries was addressed in the studies of Weinreich, who emphasized the importance of overlapping phenomena between languages (Weinreich, 1953). It also reflects a social reality: the modern individual is often a repository of multiple affiliations, illustrating the idea that languages cannot be isolated from one another.
The questioning of the communicative function of language completes this picture. While structural linguistics has traditionally attributed a central role to communication in the structuring of languages, more recent work shows that social or cultural affiliation can take precedence over mutual intelligibility. This is evident in contexts where identity tensions influence linguistic developments. For example, Milorad Pupovac observed that the differences between Serbian and Croatian, two historically mutually intelligible languages, have intensified under the influence of social and political divisions (Pupovac, 2008). Similarly, in Iran, sociopolitical contexts have led to oscillations between the Arabization and Persianization of the lexicon, illustrating how external dynamics can redefine linguistic priorities (Mahmoudian, 2009).
These observations lead to a rethinking of the methodological tools of linguistics. Classical approaches, often suited to broad descriptions, struggle to capture the nuances of local or individual practices. Martinet emphasizes that the analysis of widely spoken languages can be satisfied with relatively simple models, but that regional varieties, dialects, and idiolects require more refined tools to account for their specificities (Martinet, 1945). This diversification of methods reflects a growing need for descriptive models that adapt to the particularities of different scales of observation.
The physical sciences offer an instructive parallel. As Ilya Prigogine notes, classical deterministic models, while effective for describing simple systems, show their limitations when faced with unstable or complex phenomena. New stochastic frameworks have been developed to address these challenges (Prigogine and Stengers, 1986). In linguistics, this methodological plurality is reflected in the development of complementary models, each adapted to a specific facet of the phenomena under study. The work of William Labov illustrates this approach, combining quantitative and qualitative research to analyze the relationship between language and society (Labov, 1976).
Finally, the breakdown of traditional linguistic frameworks does not signify the abandonment of the notion of structure, but rather its redefinition. In the classical view, a language was conceived as a single, homogeneous entity. Today, it seems more relevant to speak of multiple structures, each adapted to a particular level of analysis. This breakdown reflects not only the complexity of linguistic practices, but also their enrichment by social, cultural, and psychological dynamics (Mahmoudian, 2009).
In conclusion, the evolution of linguistic theories shows that the heterogeneity, openness, and diversification of language functions do not represent ruptures, but rather enrichments. These advances allow us to better understand languages as living systems, in constant interaction with their social and cultural contexts. This broader perspective reinforces the relevance of linguistics as a science, capable of adapting to the complexity of human realities.
Bibliographical references
Bloomfield, L. (1957). A Set of Postulates for the Science of Language. In Martin Joos (Ed.), Readings in Linguistics. Londres et Chicago : Chicago University Press.
Labov, W. (1976). Sociolinguistics . Paris: Minuit.
Mahmoudian, M. (2009). Linguistic theory in the face of the complexity of languages. Linguistics, vol. 45, fasc. 2, pp. 3-30.
Martinet, A. (1945). The pronunciation of contemporary French. Paris: Droz.
Martinet, A. (1960). Elements of general linguistics . Paris: Librairie Armand Colin.
Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1986). The New Alliance. Paris: Gallimard, “Folio-Essais”.
Pupovac, M. (2008). Identity Caused Diglossia on the Balkans. Paper presented at the colloquium organised by the Slavic languages section of the University of Lausanne on the theme “Russia/Germany/France: Crossed intellectual relations”, I: Language and nation, Crêt-Bérard.
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in Contact. New York : Publications of the Linguistic Circle of New York.
Jocelyn Godson HÉRARD, Copywriter H-Translation
