{"title":"索绪尔生物语言学?布沙尔的离线脑系统和语言的符号理论","authors":"Andrew Feeney","doi":"10.1515/cogsem-2018-2005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines Bouchard’s (e.g. Bouchard, D. 2010. From neurons to signs. In A. D. M. Smith, M. Schouwstra, B. de Boer & K. Smith (ed.), Proceedings of the 8th International conference on the evolution of language, 42–49. Singapore: World Scientific; Bouchard, D. 2013. The nature and origin of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Bouchard, D. 2015. Brain readiness and the nature of language. Frontiers in Psychology 6.) discussion of the nature of language as ‘Saussurian Biolinguistics.’ A fundamental assumption of Bouchard, that of the existence of the Saussurian sign as a psychologically real entity in language, is disputed and an alternative understanding of the semiotic function of language is stressed. The consequences of Bouchard’s adoption of double interface signs for the relation of language to thought are also discussed and it is argued that such an approach leads inexorably to a form of linguistic relativity, and that positing a language independent ‘mentalese’ resolves this problem. The proposed model of language evolution, in which Bouchard is sceptical of protolanguage, is challenged, as are his claims regarding the properties of the language faculty. Bouchard presents a theory of the cognitive underpinning of language, ‘Offline Brain Systems,’ which is inadequate in accounting for the unique properties of human cognition. Instead, a more insightful and explanatorily comprehensive theory is presented here: dual-processing and the Representational Hypothesis.","PeriodicalId":52385,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Semiotics","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Saussurian biolinguistics? Bouchard’s offline brain systems and Sign Theory of Language\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Feeney\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/cogsem-2018-2005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article examines Bouchard’s (e.g. Bouchard, D. 2010. From neurons to signs. In A. D. M. Smith, M. Schouwstra, B. de Boer & K. Smith (ed.), Proceedings of the 8th International conference on the evolution of language, 42–49. Singapore: World Scientific; Bouchard, D. 2013. The nature and origin of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Bouchard, D. 2015. Brain readiness and the nature of language. Frontiers in Psychology 6.) discussion of the nature of language as ‘Saussurian Biolinguistics.’ A fundamental assumption of Bouchard, that of the existence of the Saussurian sign as a psychologically real entity in language, is disputed and an alternative understanding of the semiotic function of language is stressed. The consequences of Bouchard’s adoption of double interface signs for the relation of language to thought are also discussed and it is argued that such an approach leads inexorably to a form of linguistic relativity, and that positing a language independent ‘mentalese’ resolves this problem. The proposed model of language evolution, in which Bouchard is sceptical of protolanguage, is challenged, as are his claims regarding the properties of the language faculty. Bouchard presents a theory of the cognitive underpinning of language, ‘Offline Brain Systems,’ which is inadequate in accounting for the unique properties of human cognition. Instead, a more insightful and explanatorily comprehensive theory is presented here: dual-processing and the Representational Hypothesis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52385,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Semiotics\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-10-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Semiotics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2018-2005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Semiotics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2018-2005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
本文考察了Bouchard的(e.g. Bouchard, D. 2010)。从神经元到符号。A. D. M. Smith, M. Schouwstra, B. de Boer和K. Smith(编),第八届语言进化国际会议论文集,42-49。新加坡:世界科学;Bouchard, D. 2013。语言的本质和起源。牛津:牛津大学出版社;Bouchard, D. 2015。大脑准备和语言的本质。《心理学前沿》6)作为“索绪尔式生物语言学”讨论语言的本质。布沙尔的一个基本假设,即索绪尔符号作为语言中心理上的真实实体的存在,是有争议的,并且强调了语言的符号学功能的另一种理解。本文还讨论了布沙尔采用双重界面符号来解释语言与思维关系的结果,并认为这种方法不可避免地导致一种语言相对性,而假设一种独立于语言的“心理语”解决了这个问题。布沙尔对原始语言持怀疑态度的语言进化模型受到了挑战,他关于语言能力特性的主张也受到了挑战。布沙尔提出了一种关于语言认知基础的理论,即“离线大脑系统”,该理论不足以解释人类认知的独特属性。相反,这里提出了一个更有洞察力和解释性更全面的理论:双重加工和表征假说。
Saussurian biolinguistics? Bouchard’s offline brain systems and Sign Theory of Language
Abstract This article examines Bouchard’s (e.g. Bouchard, D. 2010. From neurons to signs. In A. D. M. Smith, M. Schouwstra, B. de Boer & K. Smith (ed.), Proceedings of the 8th International conference on the evolution of language, 42–49. Singapore: World Scientific; Bouchard, D. 2013. The nature and origin of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Bouchard, D. 2015. Brain readiness and the nature of language. Frontiers in Psychology 6.) discussion of the nature of language as ‘Saussurian Biolinguistics.’ A fundamental assumption of Bouchard, that of the existence of the Saussurian sign as a psychologically real entity in language, is disputed and an alternative understanding of the semiotic function of language is stressed. The consequences of Bouchard’s adoption of double interface signs for the relation of language to thought are also discussed and it is argued that such an approach leads inexorably to a form of linguistic relativity, and that positing a language independent ‘mentalese’ resolves this problem. The proposed model of language evolution, in which Bouchard is sceptical of protolanguage, is challenged, as are his claims regarding the properties of the language faculty. Bouchard presents a theory of the cognitive underpinning of language, ‘Offline Brain Systems,’ which is inadequate in accounting for the unique properties of human cognition. Instead, a more insightful and explanatorily comprehensive theory is presented here: dual-processing and the Representational Hypothesis.