Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics

791

Published on

The subject of the presentation is a methodological comparative analysis of philosophical assumptions in two linguistic approaches, i.e. in cognitive and generative linguistics. Presentation will …

The subject of the presentation is a methodological comparative analysis of philosophical assumptions in two linguistic approaches, i.e. in cognitive and generative linguistics. Presentation will focus on ontological assumptions. The method used in the presentation is idealization theory.

Published in: Education, Spiritual, Technology
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
791
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Philosophical assumptions in cognitive and generative linguistics
    Barbara Konat
    Institute of Philosophy
    Adam Mickiewicz University
    Poznań
    PLM 2011
    1
  • 2. Agenda
    1) Whyphilosophy?
    2) Philosophicalasummptionsaccording to Carnap, Popper and Kuhn
    3) IdealizationTheory
    Language and ontologicalperspective
    Structure of science
    4) Conclusions -ontology of GG and CL
    2
  • 3. Objectives
    This presentation adopts metascientificperspective (philosophy of science).
    The aim of a presentation is to reconstruct internal structure of linguistic research.
    First step: ontologicalassumptions.
    3
  • 4. 4
  • 5. Do we need to talk about philosophy?
    Empirical data and philosophical speculations
    Theories
    5
  • 6. Even if philosophical assumptions are present in our theories, do we have to talk about them? The interaction between philosophical base and empirical work – CDA and values
    „valuesenteredthediscourse”
    „valuesarenegotiated”
    6
  • 7. Why can’t we just eliminate philosophical assumptions from thescience?
    ViennaCircle
    Rudolf Carnap Pseudoproblems of philosophy(1928):rejection of metaphysics
    verificationism
    K. R. Popper: Theories are nets cast to catch what we call 'the world'
    7
  • 8. Kuhn - paradigm
    Mature science:
    Keytheories
    Instruments
    Values
    Metaphysicalassumptions
    8
  • 9. Agenda
    1) Whyphilosophy?
    2) Philosophicalasummptionsaccording to Carnap, Popper and Kuhn
    3) IdealizationTheory
    Language and ontologicalperspective
    Structure of science
    4) Conclusions -ontology of GG and CL
    9
  • 10. IdealizationTheory – L. Nowak
    If not to offer any workablecriteria of essentiality, what is the purpose of the method of idealization?
    Simplyto reconstruct the way science works.
    Nowak 1992
    10
  • 11. IdealizationTheory – L. Nowak
    According to the idealizational methodology, there are three main stages of scientific conduct:
    I. pre-theoretical stage: postulation of essentialist hypotheses putting forwardpossible images of the essential structures of considered magnitudes;
    II. theoretical stage: postulation of a body of idealizational hypotheses whichsubsequently undergo the process of concretization;
    III. empirical testing of the theory.
    Nowak 1992
    11
  • 12. What will this reality consist of?
    1) Language
    2) Ontologicalperspective:
    A) Stratificationprinciples
    i. Classification principles
    ii. Ordering principles
    B) Ontological relations principles
    i. Positive
    Ii. Negative
    Nowak 1976
    12
  • 13. Ontological perspective 1:Language
    Both natural languages and those inherited from previous traditionscreatecertainontological types
    Nowak 1976
    13
  • 14. Stratificationprinciples
    i. Classification principles: variables L are significant for variables Z
    ii. Ordering principles: variables K are less significant than variables Y for variables Z
    Nowak 1976
    14
  • 15. Ontological relations
    i. Positive: variables L are in relation Qwith variables Z
    ii. Negative: variables L are not in relation D with variables Z
    Nowak 1976
    15
  • 16. Ontological
    perspective
    Accumulatedtheoreticalknowledge
    Complextheory 1
    of domainy
    Complextheory 2
    of domainy
    Complextheory 3
    ofdomainy
    Simple theoryof variable Z
    Empirical data
    modification (correction) of explanations------> generatingexplanations
    Nowak 1977
    16
  • 17. Agenda
    1) Whyphilosophy?
    2) Philosophicalasummptionsaccording to Carnap, Popper and Kuhn
    3) IdealizationTheory
    Language and ontologicalperspective
    Structure of science
    4) Conclusions -ontology of GG and CL
    17
  • 18. Ontologicalassumptionsin GG and CL - similarities
    Historicallg GG CL
    mind
    mind
    lf
    language
    language
    language
    18
  • 19. What exists as a subject matter?
    19
  • 20. Ontology of relations in GG and CL
    Generativism
    Semantics and syntax are autonomous and do not influence each other therefore can be explored independently.
    Language faculty is autonomous from other faculties of human mind. (Hauser, Chomsky, Fitch 2002)
    Cognitivism
    (Generalization commitment)Semantic, syntax and pragmatics are not clearly delimited modules. Semantic influences syntax. They have to be researched together. (Lakoff 1991)
    (Cognitive commitment)Cognitive skills interact with language. Linguistics research have to be in accord with psychology, neurology and other cognitive disciplines. (Lakoff 1991)
    20
  • 21. Furtherresearch
    Work still in progress
    How ontological assumptions of GG and CL were influenced by empirical research? -> 2011!
    socialturnin CL
    Development of Chomskyanapproach
    21
  • 22. Possibleapplications
    Operationalization of crucial notions ofCL
    Formulating more falsifiable hypotheses in CL
    Areas of possible integration between CL and GG
    22
  • 23. Thankyou
    23
  • 24. References
    Carnap, R. (1928). Pseudoproblems in Philosophy.
    Chomsky, N. (1982). Zagadnienia teorii składni. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Zakład Narodowy Imienia Ossolińskich.
    Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction.Edynburg: Edinburgh University Press.
    Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2007). An Introduction to Language. Boston: Thomson Wadsworth.
    Grucza, F. (1983). Zagadnienia metalingwistyki. Warszawa: PWN.
    Harder, P. (2010). Meaning in Mind and Society. Berlin/NowyJork: Walter de Gruyter.
    Lakoff, G. (1991). Cognitive versus generative linguistics: how commitments influence results. Language & Communication, 11 (1-2), strony 53-62.
    Muszyński, Z. (2006). Założenia filozoficzne w koncepcjach językoznawczych. W P. Stalmaszczyk, Metodologie językoznawstwa. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
    Nowak, L. (1973). Filozoficzne podstawy teorii naukowej. Studia Filozoficzne (3).
    Nowak, L. (1977). Wstęp do idealizacyjnej teorii nauki. Warszawa: PWN.
    24
  • 25. Appendix
    25
  • 26. Ideal speaker/listener
    ‘Linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker/listener, in a completely homogeneous speech-community, who knows his language perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in actual performance’ (Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax.)
    26
  • 27. Sentence
    Thefundamentalaiminthelinguisticanalysis of a language L is to separatethegrammaticalsequenceswhicharesentences of L fromtheungrammaticalsequenceswhichare not thesentences of L and to studythestructure of grammaticalsequences (Chomsky SyntacticStructures, p. 13)
    27
  • 28. Productivity
    The centralfact to which any significant linguistic theory must address itself is this: a mature speaker can produce a new sentence of his language on the appropriate occasion, and other speakers can understand it immediately, though it is equally new to them. (Chomsky, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)
    28
  • 29. Modularity
    Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how does it evolve? Science, 298, 1569–1579.
    29

×