Title :
ON THE CONFLICT BETWEEN NORMATIVITY AND ENQUIRY : THE CASE OF
LANGUAGE
Author : PALMA, Adriano
I jean nicod and University of Natal, Durban W.
Email : palma@gmx.co.uk
ABSTRACT (Vietri, 2003)
In Automaticity (2003, forthcoming) I argued that the way we look at languages or the way we look
at our notion of languages is highly contextual.
I begin by sketching one of the latest versions of the way we carve ‘language’
(The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has
It, and How Did It Evolve?
Marc D. Hauser,1* Noam Chomsky,2 W. Tecumseh Fitch1, 2002)
It seems to me that a plausible implication is that we do not have a unified sense of ‘language’ that
carries through up to the philosophical discussions of externalism.
A dilemma presents itself: either the externalist philosphers can characterize the notion of language
they have in mind in terms that are not wholly circular or the externalist position is undermined. It
is my view that the externalist can in fact give a non circular notion of language subserving her own
analysis.
She has to deploy an entire panoply of normative notions (historical, political, directly prescriptive)
in order to do so.
The price may be very steep.
My point here is that whether or not one’s own judgment tends to err on the stingy or on the
generous side, the real problem is to esclude the investigation of language from the (reasonable or
presently accessible) boundaries of empirical enquiry.
Examples will be proposed as to the inefficient use of resources in the hunt of a science of
everything, which, it may be reasonably suggested, has no place if we aim at theories of language
with
i.
explanatory adequacy
ii.
some predictive power
Author : PALMA, Adriano
I jean nicod and University of Natal, Durban W.
Email : palma@gmx.co.uk
ABSTRACT (Vietri, 2003)
In Automaticity (2003, forthcoming) I argued that the way we look at languages or the way we look
at our notion of languages is highly contextual.
I begin by sketching one of the latest versions of the way we carve ‘language’ (R E V I E W : N E
UROSCIENCE
The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has
It, and How Did It Evolve?
Marc D. Hauser,1* Noam Chomsky,2 W. Tecumseh Fitch1, 2002)
It seems to me that a plausible implication is that we do not have a unified sense of ‘language’ that
carries through up to the philosophical discussions of externalism.
A dilemma presents itself: either the externalist philosphers can characterize the notion of language
they have in mind in terms that are not wholly circular or the externalist position is undermined. It
is my view that the externalist can in fact give a non circular notion of language subserving her own
analysis.
She has to deploy an entire panoply of normative notions (historical, political, directly prescriptive)
in order to do so.
The price may be very steep.
My point here is that whether or not one’s own judgment tends to err on the stingy or on the
generous side, the real problem is to esclude the investigation of language from the (reasonable or
presently accessible) boundaries of empirical enquiry.
Examples will be proposed as to the inefficient use of resources in the hunt of a science of
everything, which, it may be reasonably suggested, has no place if we aim at theories of language
with
iii.
explanatory adequacy
iv.
some predictive power