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.

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