7.1482, Disc: Psychologism in Linguistics
The Linguist List
linguist at tam2000.tamu.edu
Tue Oct 22 10:31:26 UTC 1996
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-7-1482. Tue Oct 22 1996. ISSN: 1068-4875. Lines: 195
Subject: 7.1482, Disc: Psychologism in Linguistics
Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar at tam2000.tamu.edu>
Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at emunix.emich.edu> (On Leave)
T. Daniel Seely: Eastern Michigan U. <dseely at emunix.emich.edu>
Associate Editors: Ljuba Veselinova <lveselin at emunix.emich.edu>
Ann Dizdar <dizdar at tam2000.tamu.edu>
Assistant Editor: Sue Robinson <robinson at emunix.emich.edu>
Technical Editor: Ron Reck <rreck at emunix.emich.edu>
Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
Editor for this issue: aristar at tam2000.tamu.edu (Anthony Rodrigues Aristar)
---------------------------------Directory-----------------------------------
1)
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 12:29:03 BST
From: mkusch at tattoo.ed.ac.uk (Martin Kusch)
Subject: 7.1478, Disc: Psychologism in Linguistics
2)
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 12:02:42 EDT
From: edward.galligan at wmich.edu ("Edward L. Galligan")
Subject: Re: 7.1478, Disc: Psychologism in Linguistics
3)
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 21:38:45 EDT
From: rbeard at bucknell.edu (Robert Beard)
Subject: Re: 7.1478, Disc: Psychologism in Linguistics
4)
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 15:12:38 CDT
From: safrisch at indiana.edu (Stefan A Frisch)
Subject: Re: 7.1478, Disc: Psychologism in Linguistics
---------------------------------Messages------------------------------------
1)
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 12:29:03 BST
From: mkusch at tattoo.ed.ac.uk (Martin Kusch)
Subject: 7.1478, Disc: Psychologism in Linguistics
On October 19th, Professor Shaumyan wrote:
> ...
> As a result of effective critique of psychologism in logic and
> mathematics by Frege, Husserl, and many other logicians,
> mathematicians, and philosophers, nobody now contends that psychology
> constitutes the basis of logic and mathematics. Nowadays logicians and
> mathematicians understand that psychologism in logic and mathematics
> is a fallacy. Psychologism in linguistics is a fallacy similar to
> psychologism in logic and mathematics. Still this fallacy persists
> among linguists.
Two comments:
(1) In suggesting that Frege's and Husserl's anti-psychologistic
arguments carry over into linguistics, Prof. Shaumyan has been pre-
ceded by J.J. Katz (and a number of authors, including Chomsky him-
self) have replied to Katz. (See J.J. Katz, _Language and Other
Abstract Objects_, Totawa, N.J.: Rowman & Littlewood, 1981.)
(2) It seems to me that Prof. Shaumyan overestimates the extent to
which Frege's and Husserl's arguments against psychologism are
accepted amongst philosophers today. For a summary of the case
against their arguments, see e.g. M. Kusch, _Psychologism_,
London: Routledge 1995, Chap. 4, and Appendix 2. Appendix 2
is not part of 'physical' book itself, but can be accessed over
the internet:
http://www.routledge.com/rcenters/philres/psy_app2.txt
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Martin Kusch
Max-Planck-Institut fuer psychologische Forschung
Leopoldstrasse 24, D-80802 Muenchen
Phone: +49 (0)89 38 60 22 33
Fax: +49 (0)89 38 60 22 52
Email: Kusch at mpipf-muenchen.mpg.de
And:
Science Studies Unit, University of Edinburgh
21 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9LN
Phone: +44 (0)131 650 4257
Fax: +44 (0)131 650 6886
Email: mkusch at tattoo.ed.ac.uk
WWW: http://www.ed.ac.uk/~mkusch/home_page.html
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 12:02:42 EDT
From: edward.galligan at wmich.edu ("Edward L. Galligan")
Subject: Re: 7.1478, Disc: Psychologism in Linguistics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 21:38:45 EDT
From: rbeard at bucknell.edu (Robert Beard)
Subject: Re: 7.1478, Disc: Psychologism in Linguistics
In LINGUIST List: Vol-7-1478 for Sat Oct 19 1996, Mr. Shaumyan seems to
concur with
Jerrold Katz (Language and Other Abstract Objects) when he wrote:
>It is true that language exists in the human mind and the use of language
>involves psychological processes. But we must distinguish between
>psychological processes and the content of psychological processes. Thus,
>mathematical and logical operations also involve psychological processes,
>but mathematics and logic are not concerned with the content of these
>processes--mathematical and logical relations, which are independent of
>psychological processes. Similarly with language. Language is a system of
>social conventions for representing reality. This system of social
>conventions is called a semiotic system. Semiotic systems are
>independent of psychological processes that accompany their use.
The problem with the argument is than no child between the ages of 2-5 has
every learned mathematics without being taught (not even the children both
of whose parents are professors of mathematics and talk about mathematics
all the time). Then there is the problem of teaching computers mathematics
vs. language. So, the detectable differences between language and
mathematics seem at least explicitly to hinge on psychological--if not
physical--development.
- ---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Beard Bucknell University
Russian & Linguistics Programs Lewisburg, PA 17837
rbeard at bucknell.edu 717-524-1336
Russian Program http://www.bucknell.edu/departments/russian
Morphology on Internet http://www.bucknell.edu/~rbeard
- ---------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 15:12:38 CDT
From: safrisch at indiana.edu (Stefan A Frisch)
Subject: Re: 7.1478, Disc: Psychologism in Linguistics
In defense of psychologism in linguistics
Mr. Schaumyan has made a strong statement in claiming that linguistics is
independent of psychology. He further proposes that:
"The investigation of linguistic phenomena by means of psychology is of
course possible and it is important. But a necessary prerequisite for
such investigation is the previous establishment of linguistic facts: the
psychology of speech presupposes linguistics as its basis."
Unfortunately, the state of the art in linguistics has not established
the facts. It is precisely by examining language carefully and
systematically that we can determine what is truly linguistic. The
independence of linguistics is "under attack" from other fields in
addition to psychology. Models of articulation involving coordinative
structures suggest that general principles of goal oriented motor control
underlie the production of the sounds of language. Work by Lindblom,
Stevens and others points toward anatomically based constraints and
preferences for the inventory of speech sounds in a language. The most
recent dissertations in phonology from UCLA have pointed out a host of
auditory influences on the phonology and phonotactics. All of this work
shows that the fact that language is produced and perceived by people
influences the shape of the linguistic sign.
Given that there are anatomical constraints on language it is premature
to assume that there are no cognitive constraints on language. For
example, to what extent are linguistic categories different from other
cognitive categories? Beth Levin's book "English verb classes and
alternations" left me with the distinct impression that verbs are
clustered around prototypes, and thus that how a verb behaves in the
system is a function of its relation to the prototypes. If this is true,
then in this case linguistic knowledge is not independent of the way it
is stored and processed. The more complex question then becomes, what are
the prototypes and what is their status in the system? We wouldn't be
able to ask this question, though, without "factoring out" the cognitive
variables. This is my own research agenda, a kind of "cognitive
reductionism".
Mr. Shaumyan also claims that "languages are semiotic systems and
therefore linguistics is a part of semiotics". If this is true, then
psychology and physiology are also parts of semiotics, as there are
undeniable influences of mind, brain, and body on language.
Rather than taking an isolationist approach, as Mr. Shaumyan proposes, I
suggest that we welcome the infringement of psychology, physiology, and
any other discipline that can aid in establishing what the linguistic
facts are.
Stefan Frisch
Speech Research Laboratory
Indiana University
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-7-1482.
More information about the LINGUIST
mailing list