Linguists and their work: Epistemic and ethical challenges

IF 0.5 4区 哲学 Q3 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Marek Kuźniak
{"title":"Linguists and their work: Epistemic and ethical challenges","authors":"Marek Kuźniak","doi":"10.1016/j.endeavour.2020.100732","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper aims to show how the specific ethics of scientific undertaking tightly underlies epistemic reflection upon the nature of linguistic work and its outcome. The relationship between linguistics and ethics seems evident at the level of the narrative, i.e. the language in which the basic linguistic findings are established. The article is intended as an introduction to an interplay of linguistics, epistemology and the ethics of linguistic work. The departure point for the argument is the CONTAINER perception of language by linguists, which produces the well-established distinction between internalist and externalist positions. The paper, however, invites the reader to reconsider the tension between internalists and externalists and instead argues for a more general opposition, i.e. between the non-transcendental naturalists (naturalists) and transcendental naturalists (extra-naturalists). The polarity is seen as underpinning the present-day debates, while concurrently transversing the traditionally recognised dichotomies. The distinction promises to be productive both at the level of substantive assessment of linguistic research and at the level of epistemic qualification of the outcome of a linguistic study. Sharp and uncompromising as the naturalist vs extra-naturalist dichotomy seems to hold, the paper offers ways to bridge the gap between the apparently exclusive philosophies. The proposed solution, while seemingly only aesthetic, ultimately touches an ethical dimension as it centres on the appropriate construction of the narrative of linguistic fact-finding, which promotes approximative rather than definitive statements in the scholarly discourse. The desired effect is an ethical consensus underlying the work of a linguist.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51032,"journal":{"name":"Endeavour","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.endeavour.2020.100732","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endeavour","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160932720300491","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This paper aims to show how the specific ethics of scientific undertaking tightly underlies epistemic reflection upon the nature of linguistic work and its outcome. The relationship between linguistics and ethics seems evident at the level of the narrative, i.e. the language in which the basic linguistic findings are established. The article is intended as an introduction to an interplay of linguistics, epistemology and the ethics of linguistic work. The departure point for the argument is the CONTAINER perception of language by linguists, which produces the well-established distinction between internalist and externalist positions. The paper, however, invites the reader to reconsider the tension between internalists and externalists and instead argues for a more general opposition, i.e. between the non-transcendental naturalists (naturalists) and transcendental naturalists (extra-naturalists). The polarity is seen as underpinning the present-day debates, while concurrently transversing the traditionally recognised dichotomies. The distinction promises to be productive both at the level of substantive assessment of linguistic research and at the level of epistemic qualification of the outcome of a linguistic study. Sharp and uncompromising as the naturalist vs extra-naturalist dichotomy seems to hold, the paper offers ways to bridge the gap between the apparently exclusive philosophies. The proposed solution, while seemingly only aesthetic, ultimately touches an ethical dimension as it centres on the appropriate construction of the narrative of linguistic fact-finding, which promotes approximative rather than definitive statements in the scholarly discourse. The desired effect is an ethical consensus underlying the work of a linguist.

语言学家和他们的工作:认知和伦理挑战
本文旨在表明科学事业的特定伦理是如何紧密地建立在对语言工作性质及其结果的认识论反思的基础上的。语言学和伦理学之间的关系在叙事层面上似乎是显而易见的,即建立基本语言学发现的语言。本文旨在介绍语言学、认识论和语言学工作伦理之间的相互作用。该论点的出发点是语言学家对语言的容器感知,它产生了内部主义者和外部主义者立场之间公认的区别。然而,本文邀请读者重新考虑内在主义者和外在主义者之间的紧张关系,而不是主张更普遍的对立,即非先验自然主义者(自然主义者)和先验自然主义者(超自然主义者)之间的对立。这种极性被视为当今辩论的基础,同时也跨越了传统上公认的二分法。这种区别在语言学研究的实质性评估水平和语言学研究结果的认知资格水平上都有望产生成效。自然主义者和非自然主义者的二分法似乎是尖锐而不妥协的,本文提供了弥合显然排他的哲学之间差距的方法。所提出的解决方案,虽然看起来只是美学上的,但最终触及了道德层面,因为它以语言事实发现叙事的适当构建为中心,这促进了学术话语中的近似而不是明确的陈述。期望的结果是一种道德共识,这是语言学家工作的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Endeavour
Endeavour 综合性期刊-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
19
审稿时长
49 days
期刊介绍: Endeavour, established in 1942, has, over its long and proud history, developed into one of the leading journals in the history and philosophy of science. Endeavour publishes high-quality articles on a wide array of scientific topics from ancient to modern, across all disciplines. It serves as a critical forum for the interdisciplinary exploration and evaluation of natural knowledge and its development throughout history. Each issue contains lavish color and black-and-white illustrations. This makes Endeavour an ideal destination for history and philosophy of science articles with a strong visual component. Endeavour presents the history and philosophy of science in a clear and accessible manner, ensuring the journal is a valuable tool for historians, philosophers, practicing scientists, and general readers. To enable it to have the broadest coverage possible, Endeavour features four types of articles: -Research articles are concise, fully referenced, and beautifully illustrated with high quality reproductions of the most important source material. -In Vivo articles will illustrate the rich and numerous connections between historical and philosophical scholarship and matters of current public interest, and provide rich, readable explanations of important current events from historical and philosophical perspectives. -Book Reviews and Commentaries provide a picture of the rapidly growing history of science discipline. Written by both established and emerging scholars, our reviews provide a vibrant overview of the latest publications and media in the history and philosophy of science. -Lost and Found Pieces are playful and creative short essays which focus on objects, theories, tools, and methods that have been significant to science but underappreciated by collective memory.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信