From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Cognitive Linguistics & History
Date: 30 Aug 92 09:05:23 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <81464@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
> In article 42585@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu, miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu () writes:
>>A reason for doubting the claims of so-called cognitive linguistics
>>that the insightful David Pesetsky hasn't mentioned: the elementary
>>fact that languages develop through time.
>>
>>A language at any point is a palimpsest; you can find layer upon
>>layer of structural and "cognitive" debris from many generations of
>>speakers.  It doesn't reflect anything mental about *any* single
>>generation, let alone the present one.
> 
> Is there any other kind of David Pesetsky?  Does the demotion of the
> proper noun to common status affect the category we place him in, or 
> just way we categorize him?  Sorry for the digression.  :-)

I was about to kill the above with a "[horsing around deleted :)]" but
it's worth calling attn to again--I don't think I've ever seen a
linguistic study of it (a number of lgs regularly use definite article
with proper names but apparently Eng can do it only when the name is modified).

> Perhaps the "insightful David Pesetsky" didn't mention that reason because
> he is a generative linguist.  Generative and cognitive linguists may
> disagree on the nature of grammar, but they both agree that it is
> grounded in human psychology.  Ideed, some generative linguists take 
> offense at the rubric "cognitive linguistics", since it seems to imply
> that opponents of the theory don't believe in a cognitive approach to
> linguistics.
> 
> I agree with the view that natural language can be construed as a social
> object and, given that interpretation, its description would be somewhat
> different than the description of a cognitive object.  But I disagree with
> the view that language must be studied only as a social object or only as
> a cognitive object.  Why are the two perspectives incompatible with each
> other?

The two perspectives are certainly not incompatible with each other
in the sense that both can be and are being explored within the
same discipline (along with older perspectives that are neither
cognitively nor socially oriented, which is how I understand the
Saussurean perspective).  I just think that a completely
ahistorical conception of natural language doesn't deserve the
seriousness with which it is being taken.

To say that linguistic structure is "grounded in human psychology"
could mean at least two different things.  If it means grounded in "the
psychology" of a particular generation of speakers then I think it
is simply erroneous the same way the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was
erroneous.  This is easier to discuss in the areas of morphology
and syntax, but consider Lakoff & Johnson's conventional metaphor
ARGUMENT = WAR.  It's made up of a large number of specific
metaphors coming from various periods in the history of English. 
Which generation do we pin the conventional metaphor on?

If "grounded in human psychology" refers merely to the species then
fine.  (But I don't think that's what the non-linguistic public is
geting out of all this stuff.)
-- 
********************************** +.............................+
*- Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>* :All opinions expressed herein:
*There is no privileged position.* :are my own and are not to be :
*	-God, Derrida, others    * : attributed to my employer   :
********************************** +.............................+

Xref: sparky sci.lang:6944 alt.usage.english:7118 soc.culture.usa:7057