In most branches of science, research means to formulate a hypothesis that can be tested, and then test that hypothesis. For a hypothesis to be testable, it needs to be falsifiable. This means that it has to be possible, at least in theory, to find data and results which prove the hypothesis wrong. If it is not possible even in theory to falsify a hypothesis or an idea, the “correctness” of the theory is typically determined by its rhetorical qualities and its appeal to subjective impressions and “common sense”.
This course will address why it is both important and possible to formulate and test falsifiable hypotheses within philology and linguistics, and will demonstrate with actual examples how this method has been applied.
Another question is how one chooses between two competing hypotheses when they both seem to be supported by the data. A methodological principle generally known as Occam’s razor is widely applied in science, which says that the simpler of the two hypotheses is to be preferred. The course will address what is means to be “simpler”, why a simpler theory is better, and how this principle can be applied in philology and linguistics.
This course will consequently focus on these two aspects of applying a theory:
(1) Ideas need to be tested through falsifiable hypotheses.
(2) A simpler theory is a better theory.
To earn the 1 ECTS credit for this course, candidates will need to submit a one-page essay in which they briefly explain to what extent and how these methodological principles can be applied and implemented in their own PhD project.
Sign up for the course, the registration opens on 20 September, at noon.
Literature
- Fulk, R. D. (1996). “Inductive Methods in the Textual Criticism of Old English Verse”, Medievalia et Humanistica, 23, 1–24
- Fulk, R. D. (2003). “On Argumentation in Old English Philology, with Particular Reference to the Editing and Dating of Beowulf”, Anglo-Saxon England, 32, 1–26
- Fulk, R. D. 2016. “A Philological Tour of HEL”. In Don Chapman, Colette Moore, and Miranda Wilcox (Eds.), Studies in the History of the English Language VII: Generalizing vs. Particularizing Methodologies in Historical Linguistic Analysis (11–27). Beaverton: Ringgold
- Gauch Jr., Hugh G. 2012. Scientific method in brief. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 174–197.
- Haukur Þorgeirsson. (2017). “The Dating of Eddic Poetry – Evidence from Alliteration”. In: Kristján Árnason et al. (Eds.), Approaches to Nordic and Germanic Poetry (33–61). Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan
- Males, Mikael. (2022). “Hear No Sievers, See No Sievers. Metrics and the Eddic Commentary Tradition”, Neophilologus, XXXX
- Males, Mikael. (2023). “The Dating of Hávamál”, Maal og Minne, XXXX
- Popper, Karl. 1968. The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson. Selected pages.
- Stausland Johnsen, Sverre. 2015. Vowel reduction in verbs in King Alfred’s Pastoral Care. In Dag Haug (ed.) Historical linguistics 2013. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 19–40.
- Stausland Johnsen, Sverre. 2016. Språkendringar langs Oslofjorden. In Helge Sandøy (ed.) Talemål etter 1800. Oslo: Novus. 125–158.
- Stausland Johnsen, Sverre. 2016. Null subjects, preproprial articles, and the syntactic structure of Old Norwegian pronouns. Norsk lingvistisk tidsskrift 34(2): 183–217.
- Stausland Johnsen, Sverre. 2019. Grunnleggjande spørsmål om språkendring og norsk språkhistorie. Norsk lingvistisk tidsskrift 37(1): 77–138.