Chomsky on methodological naturalism. On the scientific status of Chomsky’s research programs
Abstract
Abstract: Immediately after introducing transformational grammar in Syntactic structures, Noam Chomsky began to employ the formal grammar he developed to investigate language from an internalist and nativist perspective. In doing so, he proposed that linguistics could be integrated into the core natural sciences. This ambitious project was met with immediate criticism, particularly targeting the abstract nature of the entities posited by linguistic theory. Chomsky responded by articulating the methodological principles underlying his work, known as methodological naturalism. According to Chomsky, in order for linguistics to qualify as a core natural science, it must adopt the same methodological framework as the hard sciences (e.g., biology, physics). In principle, Chomsky’s argument is persuasive; however, when applied to assess the validity of linguistic theory, it reveals a certain degree of arbitrariness. This issue is explored in §2. In §3, I address a deeper problem in Chomsky’s approach. After summarizing Lakatos’s concept of a research program, I turn to the theory of Universal Grammar (UG) and the Minimalist Program (MP) to argue that both lack the scientific status attributed to them by Chomsky and others. Specifically, following Lakatos, I propose replacing the notion of a UG theory with that of a UG research program. I argue that both the UG program and the MP should be considered unscientific, as the cores (in Lakatos’s sense) of these programs consist of unfalsifiable hypotheses, which prevent us from determining whether the programs are progressive or degenerative.
Keywords: Methodological Naturalism; Transformational Grammar; Universal Grammar; Minimalist Program; Falsifiability; Research Program
Chomsky e il naturalismo metodologico. Sullo statuto scientifico dei programmi di ricerca di Chomsky
Riassunto: Subito dopo aver introdotto la grammatica trasformazionale in Syntactic structures, Noam Chomsky iniziò a utilizzare la grammatica trasformazionale per indagare il linguaggio da una prospettiva internista e innatista. In questo modo, propose che la linguistica potesse essere integrata tra le scienze naturali di base. Questo ambizioso progetto ricevette critiche immediate, dovute soprattutto alla natura astratta delle entità postulate dalla teoria linguistica. Chomsky rispose articolando i principi metodologici alla base del suo lavoro, noti come naturalismo metodologico. Secondo Chomsky, affinché la linguistica possa qualificarsi come scienza naturale di base, deve adottare lo stesso quadro metodologico delle scienze dure (ad esempio la biologia e la fisica). In linea di principio, l’argomento di Chomsky è persuasivo; tuttavia, se usato per valutare la validità della teoria linguistica, rivela un certo grado di arbitrarietà. Questi aspetti saranno trattati nel §2. Nel §3 tratterò un problema più profondo: dopo una breve presentazione del concetto di programma di ricerca di Lakatos, prenderò in esame la teoria della Grammatica Universale (GU) e il Programma Minimalista (PM) per sostenere come entrambi manchino dello statuto scientifico che Chomsky e altri attribuiscono loro. In particolare, seguendo Lakatos, propongo di sostituire la nozione di teoria della GU con quella di programma di ricerca sulla GU e sostengo, inoltre, che sia il programma GU e che il programma minimalista debbano essere considerati non scientifici, poiché i nuclei (nel senso di Lakatos) di tali programmi consistono in ipotesi infalsificabili, che impediscono di stabilire se i programmi siano progressivi o degenerativi.
Parole chiave: Naturalismo metodologico; Grammatica trasformazionale; Grammatica universale; Programma minimalista; Falsificabilità; Programma di ricerca
Parole chiave
Full Text
PDFRiferimenti bibliografici
ADGER, D. (2003). Core syntax. A minimalist approach, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
BERWICK, R.C., CHOMSKY, N. (2016). Why only us?, MIT Press, Cambridge (MA).
BOECKX, C. (2006). Linguistic minimalism: Origins, concepts, methods, and aims, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
BRESNAN, J.W. (1978). A realistic transformational grammar. In: M. HALLE, J. BRESNAN, G.A. MILLER (eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality, MIT Press, Cambridge (MA), pp. 1-59.
BRESNAN, J.W. (2001). Lexical functional syntax, Blackwell, London/Oxford.
BROCK, W. (1992). The Fontana/Norton history of chemistry, Norton, New York/London.
BURGE, T. (1992). Philosophy of language and mind. In: «Philosophical Review», vol. CI, n. , pp. 3-51.
BÜRING, D. (2005). Binding theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York.
CHOMSKY, N. (1955/1975). Logical structure of linguistic theory, Plenum, New York.
CHOMSKY, N. (1957). Syntactic structures, Mouton, The Hague.
CHOMSKY, N. (1964). Current issues in linguistic theory. In: J. FODOR, J. KATZ (eds.), The structure of language, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (NJ), pp. 50-118.
CHOMSKY, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge (MA).
CHOMSKY, N. (1967). A Review to B. F. Skinner’s Language Behavior. In: A. JAKOBOVITS, M.S. MIRRON (eds.), Reading in the psychology of language, Prentice Hall, , pp. 142-143.
CHOMSKY, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In: S.R. ANDERSON, P. KIPARSKY (eds.), A festschrift for Moris Halle, Holti, Rinehart & Winston, New York, pp. 232-286.
CHOMSKY, N. (1975). Reflections on language, Pantheom, New York.
CHOMSKY, N (1980). Rules and representations, Columbia University Press, New York.
CHOMSKY, N (1986). Knowledge of language, Praeger, New York.
CHOMSKY, N. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In: K.L. HALE, S.J. KEYSER (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, MIT Press, Cambridge (MA), pp. 1-52.
CHOMSKY, N. (1995). The minimalist program, MIT Press, Cambridge (MA).
CHOMSKY, N. (2000). New horizons in the study of language and mind, MIT Press, Cambridge (MA).
CHOMSKY, N. (2002). On nature and language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
CHOMSKY, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. In: «Linguistic Inquiry», vol. XXXVI, n. 1, pp. 1-22.
CHOMSKY, N. (2006). Language and mind, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
CHOMSKY, N. (2007). Approaching UG from Below. In: U. SAUERLAND, H.-M. GÄRTNER (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language?, Mouton/De Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 1-29.
CHOMSKY, N. (2008). On phases. In: (eds.) Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, MIT Press, Cambridge (MA), pp. 133-166.
CHOMSKY, N. (2013). Problems of projection. In: «Lingua», vol. CXXX, pp. 33-49.
CHOMSKY, N., LASNIK, H. (1993). The theory of principles and parameters. In: J. JACOBS, A. VON STECHOW, W. STERNEFELD, T. VENNEMANN (eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, De Gruyter, Bonn/Berlin, pp. 506-569.
CHOMSKY, N., GALLEGO, Á.J., OTT, D. (2019). Generative grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions, and challenges. In: «Catalan Journal of Linguistics», Special Issue, pp. 229-261.
CIPRIANI, E. (2021). On Chomsky’s notion of explanatory adequacy. In: «Language & Linguistics Compass», vol. XV, n. 11, Art. Nr. e12441 - doi: 10.1111/ lnc3.12441.
DAVIDSON, D. (1986). A nice derangement of epitaphs. In: E. LEPORE (ed.), Truth and interpretation, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 433-446.
DEVITT, M. (2006). Ignorance of language, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
DUMMETT, M. (1981). Objections to Chomsky. In: «London Review of Books», vol. III, n. 6, pp. 3-16.
EVERETT, D. L. (2005). Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in pirahã: Another look at the design features of human language. In: «Current Anthropology», vol. XLVI, n. 4, pp. 621-646.
HARLEY, T. A. (2014). The psychology of language: From data to theory, Psychology Press, Hove/New York, 4th edition.
HAEGEMAN, L. (1994). Introduction to government and binding theory, Blackwell, Oxford, 2nd edition.
HOLTON, G. (1973). Thematic origins of scientific thought: Kepler to Einstein, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA).
HUYBREGTS, R. (2017). Phonemic clicks and the mapping asymmetry: How language emerged and speech developed. In: «Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews», vol. LXXXI, Pt. B, pp. 279-294.
JACKENDOFF, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
LAKATOS, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In: I. LAKATOS, A. MUSGRAVE (eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 91-196.
LAKATOS, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery, edited by J. WORRALL, E. ZAHAR, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
LAPPIN, S., LEVINE, R., JOHNSON, D.E. (2000a). The structure of unscientific revolutions. In: «Natural Language and Linguistic Theory», vol. XVIII, n. 3, pp. 665-771.
LAPPIN, S., LEVINE, R., JOHNSON, D.E. (2000b). The revolution confused: A reply to our critics. In: «Natural Language and Linguistic Theory», vol. XVIII, n. 4, pp. 873-890.
LAPPIN, S., LEVINE, R., JOHNSON, D. E. (2001). The revolution maximally confused. In: «Natural Language and Linguistic Theory» vol. XIX, n. 4, pp. 901-919.
LARVOR, B. (1998). Lakatos: An introduction, Routledge, London.
LASNIK, H., URIAGEREKA, J., BOECKX, C. (2004). A course in minimalist syntax: Foundations and prospects, Wiley, Hoboken (NJ).
LEES, R.B. (1957). Review of Chomsky’s Syntactic Structures. In: «Language », vol. XXXIII, n. 3, pp. 375-408.
LEVINE, R.C., POSTAL, P.M. (2004). A corrupted linguistics. In: D. HOROWITZ, P. COLLIER (eds.), The anti-Chomsky reader, Encounter Books, New York, pp. 203-232.
MATTHEWS, R.J. (1991). Psychological reality of grammar. In: A. KASHER (ed.), The Chomskian turn, Blackwell, London, pp. 182-199.
MORO, A. (2008). The boundaries of Babel. The brain and the enigma of impossible languages, MIT Press, Cambridge (MA).
MORO, A. (2016). Impossible languages, MIT Press, Cambridge (MA).
MUSGRAVE, A., PIGDEN, C. (2023). Imre Lakatos. In: E.N. ZALTA, U. NODELMAN (eds.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Spring Edition, first version published in 2016 – available at URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/lakatos/.
MUSSO, M., MORO, A., GLAUCHE, V., RIJNTJES, M., REICHENBACH, J., BÜCHEL, C., WEILLER, C. (2003). Broca’s area and the language instinct. In: «Nature Neuroscience», vol. VI, n. 7, pp. 774-781.
NAGEL, T. (1993). The mind wins!. In: «New York Review of Books», March 4th, pp. 37-41.
QUINE, W.V.O. (1972). Methodological reflections on current linguistic theory. In: D. DAVIDSON, G. HARMAN (eds.), Semantics of natural language, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 442-454.
QUINE, W.V.O. (1987). Indeterminacy of translation again. In: «The Journal of Philosophy», vol. LXXXIV, n. 1, pp. 5-10.
SAMPSON, G. (2005). The “Language Instinct” debate: Revised edition, Continuum, London.
SCHÜTZE, C.T. (1996). The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
SMITH, N., TSIMPLY, I-M. (1995). The mind of a savant: Language, learning, and modularity, Wiley, New York/London.
URIAGAREKA, J. (1998). Rhyme and reason. An introduction to minimalist syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge (MA).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4453/rifp.2025.0012
Copyright (c) 2025 Enrico Cipriani
URLdella licenza: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Rivista internazionale di Filosofia e Psicologia - ISSN: 2039-4667 (print) - E-ISSN: 2239-2629 (online)
Registrazione al Tribunale di Milano n. 634 del 26-11-2010 - Direttore Responsabile: Aurelia Delfino
Web provider Aruba spa - Loc. Palazzetto, 4 - 52011 Bibbiena (AR) - P.IVA 01573850516 - C.F. e R.I./AR 04552920482
Dove non diversamente specificato, i contenuti di Rivista Internazionale di Filosofia e Psicologia sono distribuiti con Licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale.