The Impact of Research on Linguistic Mysteries

Background

Linguistic mysteries have been a prominent feature in the field of linguistics, not just from their allure but also because scholars seek to advance their knowledge of language processing as a whole. Through the cases presented here, the varied attempts at deciphering still-unsolved mysteries demonstrate that there is, often, little direction for drawing conclusions with widespread agreement about a problem. It is from this that this paper will not attempt to devise any solutions. Rather, the primary focus will be on other studies’ methods. The mysteries that will be explored in this paper include the Voynich Manuscript, Rongorongo, and the Indus Script. 

Methodology

Studying linguistic mysteries so closely has proven to be valuable, in the sense that there is a heightened understanding of the methods that researchers have used. The past century has seen rapid developments in linguistic methodology — particularly within this subfield of attempted decipherment. Analyzing how methods have changed over time, in conjunction with observing if any methods have remained despite new developments, can provide useful insight not just about advancements in this subfield but also in the field of linguistics as a whole. The primary method that will be employed to do so is a meta-analysis of the existing most prominent works for each mystery. By directly comparing methodologies within the historical and modern periods of the works’ research, and then juxtaposing these conclusions, meaningful truths about linguistic methodology will be derived.

Conclusions & Significance

The meta-analysis reveals that there is no overarching method that was utilized across all three linguistic mysteries – both in the historical and modern periods of research. This reinforces the idea that working within the context of each respective mystery, and its body of research thus far, is more important than following a broader trend of methodology seen in other linguistics research. The results of doing so are varied, as outlined in the analysis, but can include anything from sticking to historical methods in the modern day or being a pioneer for new methods (such as advanced statistical analysis) — purely based on the specific needs that emerge from the lack of a satisfying decipherment within each case.

While this conclusion may seem underwhelming, in the sense that there is no proven method to be particularly effective or invigorating for researchers of linguistic mysteries, it provides an enhanced understanding of research in linguistics as a whole. The vitality of context to a researcher’s inquiry — including the broader context of a culture’s language and history — is clearly illustrated from the analysis of the mysteries. Though scholars can always use foundational principles and methods to start going about their work, it is ultimately of the utmost importance, both to their success and for the sake of their research’s focus, to operate within context. This idea is consistent across all of the mysteries observed, and is an important takeaway for future researchers of the mysteries to consider (and continue) employing.