MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2600553324

Naturalism in Linguistic Theory1

2009· article· en· W2600553324 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amita Chatterjee

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational Journal on Humanistic Ideology · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésConversationNaturalismPoint (geometry)SociologyLinguisticsLiteraturePsychologyPhilosophyEpistemologyArt
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Michael Dawson has written an introductory book on Cognitive Science2. In the introduction of the book he tells us a story about a coffeeroom on the top floor of the Humanities and Social Science Building of Western Ontario University. From there you get a picturesque view of the surrounding woods, get very good coffee and very stimulating conversation. Whatever may be the hour of the day, you are sure to find a handful of faculty members talking shop. For a student those shop-talks turn out to be particularly illuminating. Next he wants us to imagine a mythical coffee room frequented by both Freud and Skinner, and asks us a very important question. Given their wildly different world-views, would Freud and Skinner have enough in common to shop talk? Probably in the interest of the peace in the coffee room, they would visit the place at different times. Similar would have been the outcome, had Chomsky and Skinner visited the coffee room at the same time. But suppose Bhartrhari, the famous Grammarian philosopher of India, had travelled by time machine and arrived at the coffee room while Chomsky was there. Both of them would engage in animated conversation and they would find, I think, that they are kindred naturalist souls. They could discuss to the point of distraction how human beings acquire language, how human communication takes place, how would they reconcile the linguistic facts with established results of the hard sciences, should they try to reduce linguistic elements to neurobiological matter and so on. They can even join hands to fight their common enemies - the conventionalists in linguistic theories.INaturalism, it appears, is the order of the day. Even philosophers who always thrived in a normative atmosphere seem to be adapting themselves to the so-called turn. Many linguists have also jumped onto the bandwagon. To the dismay of their conventionalist opponents, these naturalist linguists have gone on to describe language as a natural object, as an instinct or as a biological endowment more or less immune to cultural influences. Some are again in search of a language specific/grammar specific single gene, which they think will provide us with a definitive explanation of how speech and language develop in humans. Actually literature in the area is vast and the topic is too deep to handle in an article. Let me, therefore, circumscribe my paper and narrow it down mainly to the discussion of of the Chomskyan variety. In the first part of my paper, I propose to give a brief account of varieties of with a view to understanding and assessing Chomsky's brand of naturalism. In the end, I shall briefly compare Chomsky's view with that of Bhartrhari.IIPeter Strawson3 in his 1983 Woodbridge Lectures rightly pointed out that the term naturalism is elastic in its use. He distinguished between two main varieties: hard or reductive and soft or liberal naturalism. Hard views human beings with their different endowments as mere objects - parts of nature - to be described, analysed and causally explained. They think that it is possible to have an absolute and pure objective view of human beings and behaviours. Soft naturalists, on the other hand, are ready to accommodate subjective dispositions and personal attitudes within general naturalistic framework. While the former champions objectivity, unity and historicity, the latter is in favour of appropriate relativisation within a stable, overarching framework. Eccentricities and idiosyncrasies of human nature call for relative valorisation and historyspecific assessment. The liberal naturalists, therefore, draw our attention to the poverty of hard and make us aware of the pitfalls of what is known as scientism in a pejorative sense.There is another way of distinguishing between and in recent literature4. The main division is methodological and substantive; the former has as its important sub-varieties (a) Replacement Theory and (b) Expansionist/Normative Theory, while the latter may be subdivided into Ontological and Semantic. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,679
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,998

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,025
Tête enseignante GPT0,289
Écart entre enseignants0,264 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueInternational Journal on Humanistic IdeologyMême sujetSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationTravaux en français237 207