In this thesis, I argue that the current biolinguists commit a categorical error when they study the so-claimed “language organ” (an ontological non-naturalist act) with methods that (they claim) align with natural sciences (a methodological naturalist act). I will argue that they are turning linguistic studies into “demonology”, a cult-like dogma, by having this disassociation in their ontological and methodological views, for this disassociation lets linguistics lose the ultimate ground that validates all knowledge: the reality, or experience in Kant’s term. In turn, this disassociation enlarges the split of current linguistic study: the generative/biolinguistics vs. the cognitive linguistics/psych-linguistics/ usage-based linguistics (or whatever other name one wants to call them). I will first briefly introduce what Kant said about similar issues (chapter 2). Then, I will introduce the disassociation of methodological and ontological naturalism in current linguistic doctrine (chapter 3) and how this disassociation is turning linguistics into a self-entertaining demonology with examples of the language organ, language evolution, and Principles and Parameters. Chapter 4 will be a discussion as why things have become what they are, and ends with some conclusions / Thesis / Master of Science (MSc) / This thesis criticizes the general biolinguistics enterprise in terms of the first suggestion
that Kant would give in chapter 2.6; namely that biolinguistics distances itself from reality.
Generally, like all dogmatism or rationalism that Kant meant to criticize, biolinguistics is no
exception. However, it redeems itself from being yet another dogmatism with this seemingly
justified disassociation of ontological dualism and methodological naturalism. It is doing
this so covertly that many scientists fall into believing it is a science. As an undergraduate
student, I was always awed at ideas like universal grammar and how it affects language
learning. My impression was that Kant was being re-invited: that unlike other language
theories, nativism recognizes that the internal epistemological factors are part of the language
itself. This is parallel to Kant, for Kant recognized how a seemingly completely external
entity such as experience is actually heavily constructed by our cognition. Then, there was
something that did not feel right, something that was not very Kant when I heard “language
came from a sudden mutation around…years ago and had no evolution; children learn L1 so
effortlessly solely because of the language organ; language is biologically innate…”. I now
know and will argue that they all come from the disassociation that I did not notice then, the
disassociation that makes linguistics only a science on the surface but a dogmatism in the
core, like demonology.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:mcmaster.ca/oai:macsphere.mcmaster.ca:11375/25993 |
| Date | January 2020 |
| Creators | Li, Runze |
| Contributors | Colarusso, John, Stroinska, Magda, Cognitive Science of Language |
| Source Sets | McMaster University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
Page generated in 0.0016 seconds