Revendo o projeto da linguística
Palavras-chave:
Linguística ortodoxa. Dualismo cartesiano. Holismo. Abordagem bio-sócio-cultural. AutopoieseResumo
Argumenta-se que os pressupostos fundadores da linguística ortodoxa não devem ser aceitos como válidos uma vez que estão baseados no dualismo cartesiano, que impede uma compreensão holística da cognição como fenômeno biológico. Consequentemente, muito do que o pensamento linguístico ortodoxo tem como verdades sobre a língua (e a cognição) não passa de mitos que nunca foram (e parecem não ser) validados empiricamente. Identifica-se uma mudança ideológica na ciência cognitiva contemporânea que consiste em assumir uma postura holística (bio-sócio-cultural) sobre a língua e a cognição. A base epistemológica para essa mudança é provida pela autopoiese como uma teoria do ser vivo que abre novas perspectivas sobre o estudo da capacidade cognitiva humana
Downloads
Não há dados estatísticos.
Referências
ANDERSON, S.R.; LIGHTFOOT, D.W. The language organ: Linguistics as cognitive physiology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
BOECKX, C.; PIATTELLI-PALMARINI, M. Language as a natural object ”“ linguistics as a natural science. The Linguistic Review 22, 2005, p. 447-466.
CANGELOSI, A. Adaptive agent modeling of distributed language: investigations on the effects of cultural variation and internal action representations. Language Sciences 29, 2007, p. 633-649.
CHOMSKY, N. Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger, 1986.
CLARK, A. Being there: Putting brain, body and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997.
CORNISH-BOWDEN, A.; CÁRDENAS, M.L. Complex networks of interactions connect genes to phenotypes. Trends in Biochemical Science 26, 2001, p. 463”“465.
CORNISH-BOWDEN, A.; CÁRDENAS, M.L.; LETELIER, J.-C.; SOTO-ANDRADE, J.; ABARZÚA, F.G. Understanding the parts in terms of the whole. Biology of the Cell 96 2004, p. 713”“717.
COWLEY, S. Why brains matter: an integrational perspective on the Symbolic Species. Language Sciences 24, 2002, p. 73-95.
_______. Contextualizing bodies: human infants and distributed cognition. Language Sciences 26, 2004, p. 565-591.
DEVITT, M.; STERELNY, K. Language and reality. An introduction to the philosophy of language, Second edition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1999.
DIJK, T. van. Introduction: discourse, interaction and cognition. Dis-course Studies 81, 2006, p. 5-7.
DIRVEN, R.; VERSPOOR, M. (Eds.). Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1998.
ECKARDT, B. von. 1993. What is cognitive science? Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Everett, D.L. Biology and language: a consideration of alternatives. Journal of Linguistics 41, 2005, p. 157”“175.
GLASERSFELD, E. von. Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: Falmer Press, 1995.
HARNAD, S.; DROR, I. Distributed cognition: Special issue of Pragmatics and Cognition v. 14, n. 2, 2006, p. 209-213.
HARRIS, R. Signs, language and communication: Integrational and segregational approaches. London and New York: Routledge, 1996.
_______. Integrationism, language, mind and world. Language Sciences 26, 2004, p. 727-739
_______. The semantics of science. Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd., 2005.
IMOTO, S. The philosophical nature of Maturana‘s theory of perception. Cybernetics and Human Knowing v. 11, n. 2, 2004, p. 12-20.
ITKONEN, E. Grammatical theory and metascience. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1978.
_______. Functionalism yes, biologism no. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft v. 18, n. 2, 1999, p. 219-221.
_______. What is language? A study in the philosophy of linguistics. University of Turku: Publications in General Linguistics 8, 2003.
JACKENDOFF, R. Patterns in the mind: Language and human nature. New York: Basic Books, 1994.
_______. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
KRAVCHENKO, A.V. Toward a bio-cognitive philosophy of language. Perspectives: Journal for Interdisciplinary Work in the Humanities, 1-5, 2002a. Available at: http://cogprints.org/4002/1/Cogphilosophy_Language.html
_______. A cognitive account of tense and aspect: resurrecting "dead" metaphors. Anglophonia. French Journal of English Studies 12, 2002b, 199
_______. The cognitive roots of gender in Russian. Glossos 3, 2002c. Available at: http://www.seelrc.org/glossos/issues/3/kravchenko.pdf
_______. Sign, meaning, knowledge: An essay in the cognitive philosophy of language. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang, 2003.
_______. A new cognitive framework for Russian aspect. In: KARLSSON, F. (ed.). Proceedings of the 20th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of General Linguistics, Publications no. 36, 2004. Available at:
http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/kielitiede/20scl/Kravchenko.pdf
_______. Complex sentence as a structure for representing knowledge. In: TUREWICZ, K. (ed.). Cognitive linguistics ”“ a user friendly approach 49-63. Szczecin, 2005.
_______. Cognitive linguistics, biology of cognition, and biosemiotics: bridging the gaps. Language Sciences v. 28, n. 1, 2006, p. 51-75.
_______. Essential properties of language, or why language is not a code. Language Sciences 29(5), 2007a, p. 650-671.
_______. Whence the autonomy? A reply to Harnad and Dror. Pragmatics and Cognition v. 15, n. 3, 2007b, p. 587-597.
_______. Everything said is said by an observer”–: the cognitive distinction between the infinitive/participle clausal arguments. In J.-R. Lapaire, G. Desagulier and J.-B. Guignard (eds.), From gram to mind: Grammar as cognition, PUB- Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux. v. 1,2008, p. 287-304.
_______. Language and mind: A bio-cognitive view. Proceedings of the 22nd Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, to appear. Aalborg, Denmark.
LAMB, S. Language and reality. London/New York: Continuum, 2004.
LINELL, P. Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1998.
LOVE, N. Cognition and the language myth. Language Sciences 26, 2004, p. 525-544.
MATURANA, H. R. Biology of cognition. BCL Report # 9.0. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1970.
_______. Biology of language: The epistemology of reality. In: MILLER, G.; LENNEBERG, E. (eds.). Psychology and biology of language and thought. New York: Academic Press, 1978, p. 2862.
MATURANA, H.; VARELA, F. Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Boston: D. Reidel, 1980.
MATURANA, H.; MPODOZIS, J.; LETELIER, J.C. Brain, language, and the origin of human mental functions. Biological Research 28, 1995, p. 15-26.
McGEE, K. Enactive cognitive science. Part 1: Background and research themes. Constructivist Foundations 1, 2005, p. 19-34.
MILLIKAN, R.G. Language: A biological model. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005.
MORRIS, C.W. Foundations of the theory of signs. In: NEURATH, O.; CARNAP, R.; MORRIS, C.W. (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Vol. 1, Part 2. Chicago, 1938.
OLEKSY, M. Cognition, language, and praxis: Is cognitive linguistics on the verge of the practical turn? In: LEWANDOWSKA-TOMASZCZYK, B.; TUREWICZ, K. (eds.), Cognitive linguistics today. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang, 2002, p. 55-64.
PUTNAM, H. Philosophical papers. Vol. 3: Realism and reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
POSTAL, P.M. Skeptical linguistic essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
PYLYSHYN, Z. What‘s in your mind? In: LEPORE, E.; PYLYSHYN, Z. (eds.), What is cognitive science? London: Blackwell, 1999, p. 1-25.
REDDY, M. The conduit metaphor. In A. Arthony (ed.) Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979, p. 284-324.
ROSCH, E. Reclaiming concepts. In: NÚÑEZ, R.; FREEMAN, W. J. (eds.), Reclaiming cognition: The primacy of action, intention, and emotion. Thorverton, UK: Imprint Academic, 1999, p. 61-77.
THIBAULT, P.J. The dialogical integration of the brain in social semiosis: Edelman and the case for downward causation. Mind, Culture and Activity 7, 2000, p. 291-311.
VARELA, F. J.; THOMPSON, E.; ROSCH, E. The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1991.
VERSCHUEREN, J. Understanding pragmatics. London: Arnold, 1999.
WALENSKI, M.; ULLMAN, M.T. The science of language. The Linguistic Review 22, 2005, p. 327-346.
YATES, F. A. John Florio: The life of an Italian in Shakespeare’s England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1934.
ZLATEV, J. Meaning = life (+ culture): An outline of a unified biocultural theory of meaning. Evolution of Communication 4, 2003, p. 253-296.
_______. The dependence of language on consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies v. 15, 2008, n. 6, p. 34-62
BOECKX, C.; PIATTELLI-PALMARINI, M. Language as a natural object ”“ linguistics as a natural science. The Linguistic Review 22, 2005, p. 447-466.
CANGELOSI, A. Adaptive agent modeling of distributed language: investigations on the effects of cultural variation and internal action representations. Language Sciences 29, 2007, p. 633-649.
CHOMSKY, N. Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger, 1986.
CLARK, A. Being there: Putting brain, body and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997.
CORNISH-BOWDEN, A.; CÁRDENAS, M.L. Complex networks of interactions connect genes to phenotypes. Trends in Biochemical Science 26, 2001, p. 463”“465.
CORNISH-BOWDEN, A.; CÁRDENAS, M.L.; LETELIER, J.-C.; SOTO-ANDRADE, J.; ABARZÚA, F.G. Understanding the parts in terms of the whole. Biology of the Cell 96 2004, p. 713”“717.
COWLEY, S. Why brains matter: an integrational perspective on the Symbolic Species. Language Sciences 24, 2002, p. 73-95.
_______. Contextualizing bodies: human infants and distributed cognition. Language Sciences 26, 2004, p. 565-591.
DEVITT, M.; STERELNY, K. Language and reality. An introduction to the philosophy of language, Second edition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1999.
DIJK, T. van. Introduction: discourse, interaction and cognition. Dis-course Studies 81, 2006, p. 5-7.
DIRVEN, R.; VERSPOOR, M. (Eds.). Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1998.
ECKARDT, B. von. 1993. What is cognitive science? Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Everett, D.L. Biology and language: a consideration of alternatives. Journal of Linguistics 41, 2005, p. 157”“175.
GLASERSFELD, E. von. Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: Falmer Press, 1995.
HARNAD, S.; DROR, I. Distributed cognition: Special issue of Pragmatics and Cognition v. 14, n. 2, 2006, p. 209-213.
HARRIS, R. Signs, language and communication: Integrational and segregational approaches. London and New York: Routledge, 1996.
_______. Integrationism, language, mind and world. Language Sciences 26, 2004, p. 727-739
_______. The semantics of science. Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd., 2005.
IMOTO, S. The philosophical nature of Maturana‘s theory of perception. Cybernetics and Human Knowing v. 11, n. 2, 2004, p. 12-20.
ITKONEN, E. Grammatical theory and metascience. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1978.
_______. Functionalism yes, biologism no. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft v. 18, n. 2, 1999, p. 219-221.
_______. What is language? A study in the philosophy of linguistics. University of Turku: Publications in General Linguistics 8, 2003.
JACKENDOFF, R. Patterns in the mind: Language and human nature. New York: Basic Books, 1994.
_______. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
KRAVCHENKO, A.V. Toward a bio-cognitive philosophy of language. Perspectives: Journal for Interdisciplinary Work in the Humanities, 1-5, 2002a. Available at: http://cogprints.org/4002/1/Cogphilosophy_Language.html
_______. A cognitive account of tense and aspect: resurrecting "dead" metaphors. Anglophonia. French Journal of English Studies 12, 2002b, 199
_______. The cognitive roots of gender in Russian. Glossos 3, 2002c. Available at: http://www.seelrc.org/glossos/issues/3/kravchenko.pdf
_______. Sign, meaning, knowledge: An essay in the cognitive philosophy of language. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang, 2003.
_______. A new cognitive framework for Russian aspect. In: KARLSSON, F. (ed.). Proceedings of the 20th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of General Linguistics, Publications no. 36, 2004. Available at:
http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/kielitiede/20scl/Kravchenko.pdf
_______. Complex sentence as a structure for representing knowledge. In: TUREWICZ, K. (ed.). Cognitive linguistics ”“ a user friendly approach 49-63. Szczecin, 2005.
_______. Cognitive linguistics, biology of cognition, and biosemiotics: bridging the gaps. Language Sciences v. 28, n. 1, 2006, p. 51-75.
_______. Essential properties of language, or why language is not a code. Language Sciences 29(5), 2007a, p. 650-671.
_______. Whence the autonomy? A reply to Harnad and Dror. Pragmatics and Cognition v. 15, n. 3, 2007b, p. 587-597.
_______. Everything said is said by an observer”–: the cognitive distinction between the infinitive/participle clausal arguments. In J.-R. Lapaire, G. Desagulier and J.-B. Guignard (eds.), From gram to mind: Grammar as cognition, PUB- Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux. v. 1,2008, p. 287-304.
_______. Language and mind: A bio-cognitive view. Proceedings of the 22nd Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, to appear. Aalborg, Denmark.
LAMB, S. Language and reality. London/New York: Continuum, 2004.
LINELL, P. Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1998.
LOVE, N. Cognition and the language myth. Language Sciences 26, 2004, p. 525-544.
MATURANA, H. R. Biology of cognition. BCL Report # 9.0. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1970.
_______. Biology of language: The epistemology of reality. In: MILLER, G.; LENNEBERG, E. (eds.). Psychology and biology of language and thought. New York: Academic Press, 1978, p. 2862.
MATURANA, H.; VARELA, F. Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Boston: D. Reidel, 1980.
MATURANA, H.; MPODOZIS, J.; LETELIER, J.C. Brain, language, and the origin of human mental functions. Biological Research 28, 1995, p. 15-26.
McGEE, K. Enactive cognitive science. Part 1: Background and research themes. Constructivist Foundations 1, 2005, p. 19-34.
MILLIKAN, R.G. Language: A biological model. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005.
MORRIS, C.W. Foundations of the theory of signs. In: NEURATH, O.; CARNAP, R.; MORRIS, C.W. (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Vol. 1, Part 2. Chicago, 1938.
OLEKSY, M. Cognition, language, and praxis: Is cognitive linguistics on the verge of the practical turn? In: LEWANDOWSKA-TOMASZCZYK, B.; TUREWICZ, K. (eds.), Cognitive linguistics today. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang, 2002, p. 55-64.
PUTNAM, H. Philosophical papers. Vol. 3: Realism and reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
POSTAL, P.M. Skeptical linguistic essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
PYLYSHYN, Z. What‘s in your mind? In: LEPORE, E.; PYLYSHYN, Z. (eds.), What is cognitive science? London: Blackwell, 1999, p. 1-25.
REDDY, M. The conduit metaphor. In A. Arthony (ed.) Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979, p. 284-324.
ROSCH, E. Reclaiming concepts. In: NÚÑEZ, R.; FREEMAN, W. J. (eds.), Reclaiming cognition: The primacy of action, intention, and emotion. Thorverton, UK: Imprint Academic, 1999, p. 61-77.
THIBAULT, P.J. The dialogical integration of the brain in social semiosis: Edelman and the case for downward causation. Mind, Culture and Activity 7, 2000, p. 291-311.
VARELA, F. J.; THOMPSON, E.; ROSCH, E. The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1991.
VERSCHUEREN, J. Understanding pragmatics. London: Arnold, 1999.
WALENSKI, M.; ULLMAN, M.T. The science of language. The Linguistic Review 22, 2005, p. 327-346.
YATES, F. A. John Florio: The life of an Italian in Shakespeare’s England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1934.
ZLATEV, J. Meaning = life (+ culture): An outline of a unified biocultural theory of meaning. Evolution of Communication 4, 2003, p. 253-296.
_______. The dependence of language on consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies v. 15, 2008, n. 6, p. 34-62
Downloads
Publicado
2020-03-10
Como Citar
Kravchenko, A. (2020). Revendo o projeto da linguística. Ecolinguística: Revista Brasileira De Ecologia E Linguagem (ECO-REBEL), 6(1), 24–40. Recuperado de https://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/erbel/article/view/29894
Edição
Seção
Artigos
Licença
Autores que publicam nesta revista concordam com os seguintes termos:
Autores mantêm os direitos autorais e concedem à revista o direito de primeira publicação, sendo o trabalho simultaneamente licenciado sob a Creative Commons Attribution License o que permite o compartilhamento do trabalho com reconhecimento da autoria do trabalho e publicação inicial nesta revista.
Autores têm autorização para assumir contratos adicionais separadamente, para distribuição não exclusiva da versão do trabalho publicada nesta revista (ex.: publicar em repositório institucional ou como capítulo de livro), com reconhecimento de autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista.
Autores têm permissão e são estimulados a publicar e distribuir seu trabalho online (ex.: em repositórios institucionais ou na sua página pessoal) a qualquer ponto antes ou durante o processo editorial, já que isso pode gerar alterações produtivas, bem como aumentar o impacto e a citação do trabalho publicado (Veja O Efeito do Acesso Livre).
3.png)
