Revendo o projeto da linguística
Keywords:
Orthodox linguistics. Cartesian dualism. Holism. Bio-socio-cultural approach. Autopoiesis.Abstract
It is argued that the foundational assumptions of orthodox linguistics may not be accepted as tenable since they are rooted in Cartesian dualism, which precludes a holistic understanding of cognition as a bio-logical phenomenon. As a result, much of what orthodox linguistic thought holds as truths about language (and cognition) is nothing but myths that have never been (and may not be) empirically validated. A general ideo-logical shift in contemporary cognitive science is identified, which consists in taking a holistic (bio-socio-cultural) stance toward language and cognition. The epistemological basis for this shift is provided by autopoiesis as the theory of the living, which opens new perspectives in the study of human cognitive powers.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
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
Published
2020-03-10
How to Cite
Kravchenko, A. (2020). Revendo o projeto da linguística. Ecolinguística: Revista Brasileira De Ecologia E Linguagem (ECO-REBEL), 6(1), 24–40. Retrieved from https://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/erbel/article/view/29894
Issue
Section
Articles
License
Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication. The work is simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License allowing the sharing of the work with acknowledgment of the authorship of the work and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are authorized to enter into additional contracts separately for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (e.g., publishing in institutional repositories or as book chapters), with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are allowed and encouraged to post and distribute their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their personal page) at any point before or during the editorial process, as this can bring about productive revisions as well as increase impact.
Citation of published works (See The Effect of Free Access).
3.png)
