Author

The critical theory of linguistics between cultural and cognitive sciences and the biological basis of language

Introduction

The critical theory of linguistics between cultural and cognitive sciences and the biological basis of language. Critical linguistics analyzes language's biological basis, linking cultural & cognitive sciences. Explores validity criteria using Kant, Hegel, and neural science.

Abstract

One basic task of the “Critical Theory of Linguistics” is to develop criteria of epistemological validity for creating and judging linguistic concepts. The German “critical philosophy” of Kant, Hegel and others furnish the main tools for the criticism of the recent expansion of the linguistic object towards modern “cultural sciences”, as well as of the reductionism governing current cognitive approaches. A brief summary of the most relevant results of contemporary neural sciences for linguistics follows, focusing mainly on the notions of emergent complexity, dynamics and individuality both at the anatomical level and at the shaping of connectivity. In an appendix a first critical approach to Steven Pinker’s cognitivistic theses is presented.

Review

This paper outlines an ambitious program for a "Critical Theory of Linguistics," aiming to establish rigorous criteria for epistemological validity in linguistic concepts. Drawing heavily on German critical philosophy, particularly Kant and Hegel, the work positions itself as a crucial intervention against both the perceived overreach of linguistic studies into cultural sciences and the reductionist tendencies within current cognitive approaches. The abstract promises a sophisticated interdisciplinary engagement, seeking to ground linguistic theorizing in a robust philosophical framework while also integrating insights from contemporary neural sciences, particularly regarding emergent complexity and dynamics. This foundational approach has the potential to offer a much-needed critical lens to a field increasingly fragmented by diverse methodologies and theoretical assumptions. A significant strength of the proposed work lies in its explicit commitment to a critical philosophical tradition, which can provide a powerful analytical toolkit for scrutinizing fundamental assumptions in linguistics. The intention to challenge reductionism in cognitive linguistics and expansive definitions in cultural linguistics is highly commendable and addresses genuine tensions within the discipline. Furthermore, the abstract's promise to incorporate recent findings from neural sciences, focusing on concepts like emergent complexity and individuality, suggests a constructive pathway for informing linguistic theory with a nuanced understanding of its biological underpinnings, moving beyond simplistic brain-language mappings. The inclusion of a specific critique of Steven Pinker's cognitivistic theses in an appendix offers a concrete illustration of this critical framework in action. While the scope is impressive and highly relevant, the abstract hints at a vast undertaking that will require careful execution. The challenge will be to translate the high-level philosophical program into concrete, actionable criteria for evaluating linguistic concepts. The paper will need to clearly articulate *how* Kantian and Hegelian tools are applied to derive these criteria, rather than merely stating their influence. Similarly, the "brief summary" of neural sciences must be sufficiently detailed and integrated to meaningfully inform the critical argument, avoiding a superficial overview. The paper's success will ultimately hinge on its ability to move beyond outlining the *task* of a critical theory to demonstrating its *application* in a way that is both rigorously philosophical and empirically grounded, providing tangible examples of how linguistic concepts can be better created and judged through this critical lens.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.