The Integration of Psychology and Linguistics from the Perspective of Cognitive Science—The Example of the Psychological Reality of Language

Abstract

In the traditional debate centered on the nature of language, the question of “the psychological reality of language” occupies a pivotal position. The key lies in the recognition of language (competence) as a natural entity that exists in the brain in some physical way. The empirical research perspectives supporting the psychological reality of language fall into four main categories: (a) linguistic perspectives based on introspective linguistic intuitions; (b) developmental psychology perspectives; (c) psycholinguistic perspectives; (d) neurolinguistic perspectives. In analyzing the four areas of research, it is clear that psychological realism does indeed reveal the physiological basis of language ability, but it does not fully explain how “reality” is expressed, i.e., at what level the operation and representation of language can be linked to human neurobiological mechanisms, and how the psychological reality of language is related to the semantic “material” reality of language. In essence, the ontological foundation of psychological realism is the logocentric tradition of “In the beginning was the Word,” while Chinese thought, which espouses “In the beginning was the Deed,” provides a transcendental framework for solving the dilemma of psychological realism by virtue of its self-cultivation theory of “heaven, in its motion, shows strength.” The focus is not on how language precisely maps reality, but how to mobilize the energy of language through the cultivation of the body and mind. This implies that human language and even its physiological basis develop according to how one learns to change the natural world, and that the most essential basis of language is the change in the world caused by its “doing” (self-cultivation), thus providing an adequate explanation for the problem of the psychological reality of language.

Keywords:

• psychological reality, logocentrism
• mapping problem, immanence, life form, self-cultivation

Notes

1 M. Boden, Mind as Machine: The History of Cognitive Science.

2 In linguistics, there are two different definitions of “linguistic commonality” centered on two different views of language: mentalist-based view, which considers linguistic commonality to be similar to the innate tendency in behavioral science and psychology, and to be psychologically real; the other is the empiricist view of language (mainly based on linguistic typology), which considers linguistic commonality to be an observable and noticeable tendency at the behavioral level. The latter does not necessarily require that language be psychologically real.

3 J. Fodor, The Modularity of Mind.

4 Li Xingde, “The Psychological Reality of Grammar”; Yang Yiming, “Neurolinguistics and Academic Innovation in Contemporary Linguistics.”

5 N. Chomsky, Rules and Representations, p. 191.

6 B.F. Skinner, Verbal Behavior.

7 N. Chomsky, “A Review of B.F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior.”

8 N. Chomsky, Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use, p. 36.

9 Luo Qiongpeng, “Towards a Principle-based Theory of Language Interpretation.”

10 J. Fodor and T. Bever, “The Psychological Reality of Linguistic Segments.”

11 E. Kaab and T. Swaab, “The Brain Circuitry of Syntactic Comprehension.”

12 S.E. Petersen et al., “Positron Emission Tomographic Studies of the Cortical Anatomy of Singleword Processing.”

13 D. Embick and D. Poeppel, “Towards a Computational(ist) Neurobiology of Language: Correlational, Integrated, and Explanatory Neurolinguistics.”

14 J.T. Hale et al., “Neurocomputational Models of Language Processing.”

15 Li Zehou and Liu Xuyuan, “Can Philosophy Go out of Language?”.

16 Mikhail Bakhtin, The Complete Works of Bakhtin, vol. 7, p. 386.

17 Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity, pp. 175-176.

18 G. Ryle, The Concept of Mind.

19 D. Hutto and E. Myin, Radicalising Enactivism: Basic Minds without Content.

20 Duan Yuche, Commentary on Shuowen Jiezi, p. 75.

21 Roger T. Ames and David L. Hall, Daodejing: Making This Life Significant, p. 66.

22 Li Zehou and Liu Xuyuan, “Can Philosophy Go Out from Language?”.

23 Klaus Held, “Einführung in Husserls Phänomenologie,” see Edmund Husserl, Phänomenologie der Lebenswelt, p. 6.