Advertisement

Journal for General Philosophy of Science

, Volume 45, Issue 1, pp 91–118 | Cite as

Scientific Revolutions without Paradigm-Replacement and the Coexistence of Competing Paradigms: The Case of Generative Grammar and Construction Grammar

  • Stephan Kornmesser
Article

Abstract

In the Kuhnian and Post-Kuhnian Philosophy of Science, it is widely accepted that scientific revolutions always involve the replacement of an old paradigm by a new paradigm. This article attempts to refute this assumption by showing that there are paradigm-constellations that conform to the relation of a scientific revolution in a Kuhnian sense without a paradigm-replacement occurring. The paradigms investigated here are the linguistic paradigms of Generative Grammar and Construction Grammar that, contrary to Kuhn’s conception of a sequence of paradigm-replacements, are reconstructed as coexisting competing paradigms. By choosing linguistic paradigms, Kuhn’s assumption that paradigm-led research takes place only in the natural sciences is implicitly challenged, and an insight into linguistic theory-construction largely underrepresented in the philosophy of science is given.

Keywords

Scientific revolutions Paradigm-replacement Coexisting competing paradigms Generative Grammar Construction Grammar 

Notes

Acknowledgments

For valuable comments I am indebted to two anonymous referees.

References

  1. Akhtar, N. (2004). Nativist versus constructivist goals in studying child language. Journal of Child Language, 31, 459–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balzer, W., Moulines, C. U., & Sneed, J. D. (1987). An architectonic for science. The Structuralist Program, Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balzer, W., & Mühlhölzer, F. (1982). Klassische Stoßmechanik. Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie, 13, 22–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloomfield, L. (1965 [1933]). Language. London: George Allen and Unwin LTD. First published 1933.Google Scholar
  5. Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carnap, R. (1950). Empiricism, semantics and ontology. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 4, 20–40.Google Scholar
  7. Carnap, R. (1956). The methodological character of theoretical concepts. In H. Feigl & M. Scriven (Eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science (Vol. 1, pp. 38–76). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  8. Carnap, R. (1971). Logical syntax of language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. First published 1937. Translation of Logische Syntax der Sprache. Wien: Springer, 1934.Google Scholar
  9. Carrier, M. (2001). Changing laws and shifting concepts. In P. Hoyningen-Huene & H. Sankey (Eds.), Incommensurability and Related Matters (pp. 65–90). Dordrecht, Boston & London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of ‘Verbal Behavior’. By B. F. Skinner. (The Century Psychology Series.) Pp. viii, 478. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc. 1957, Language, 35(1), 26–58.Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, N. (1966). Cartesian linguistics. New York and London: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  13. Chomsky, N. (1971 [1957]). Syntactic Structures. Ninth Printing. Paris: Mouton. First published 1957.Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, N. (1972). Language and mind (Enlarged ed.). New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Atlanta: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  15. Chomsky, N. (1980a). Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Chomsky, N. (1980b). On cognitive structures and their development: A reply to Piaget. In M. Piatelli-Palmarini (Ed.), Language and learning. The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky (pp. 35–54). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  19. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Chomsky, N., & Fodor, J. (1980). The inductivist fallacy. In M. Piatelli-Palmarini (Ed.), Language and learning. The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky (pp. 255–275). Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Crain, S., & Thornton, R. (1998). Investigations in universal grammar. A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, MA, London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Drozd, K. F. (2004). Lernability and linguistic performance. Journal of Child Language, 31, 431–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics. An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomacity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Feyerabend, P. K. (1970). Consolations for the specialist. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 197–230). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Friedman, K. (2003). Kuhn and logical empiricism. In T. Nickles (Ed.), Thomas Kuhn (pp. 19–44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Goldberg, A. E. (1995). A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Goldberg, A. E. (2009). Constructions work. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 201–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hempel, C. G. (1973). The Meaning of Theoretical Terms: A Critique of the Standard Empiricist Construal. In P. Suppes, L. Henkin, A. Joja, & G. C. Moisil (Eds.), Logic, methodology and the philosophy of science (pp. 367–378). Amsterdam and London: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  33. Hoyningen-Huene, P. (1993). Reconstructing scientific revolutions. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Translation of Die Wissenschaftsphilosophie Thomas S. Kuhns, Braunschweig & Wiesbaden: Vieweg & Sohn, 1989.Google Scholar
  34. Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y ? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kornmesser, S. (2012). Von der logischen Analyse der Sprache zur rationalen Rekonstruktion von Theorien. Eine Untersuchung zum Problem der theoretischen Begriffe im Logischen Empirismus und im Strukturalismus. Berlin: LIT.Google Scholar
  36. Kornmesser, S., & Schurz, G. (Eds.). (2013). Die multiparadigmatische Struktur der Wissenschaften. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  37. Kuhn, T. S. (1976). Theory change as structure change: Comments on the sneed formalism. Erkenntnis, 10, 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kuhn, T. S. (1977). Second thoughts on Paradigms. In F. Suppe (Ed.), The structure of scientific theories (2nd ed., pp. 459–482). Urbana, Chicago and London: University of Illinois Press. First published 1974.Google Scholar
  39. Kuhn, T. S. (1983). Commensurability, comparability, communicability. In P. D. Asquith & T. Nickles (Eds.), PSA 1982: Proceedings of the 1982 Biennial meeting of the philosophy of science Association (2nd ed., pp. 669–688). East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
  40. Kuhn, T. S. (1984). Revisiting plank. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 14(2), 231–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kuhn, T. S. (1989). Possible worlds in history of science. In S. Allén (Ed.), Possible worlds in humanities, arts and sciences (pp. 9–32). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  42. Kuhn, T. S. (1993). Afterwords. In P. Horwich (Ed.), World changes. Thomas Kuhn and the nature of science (pp. 311–341). Cambridge, MA, and London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. First published 1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kuhn, T. S. (2000a). What are scientific revolutions? In J. Conant & J. Haugeland (Eds.), The road since structure (pp. 13–32). Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. First published 1987.Google Scholar
  45. Kuhn, T. S. (2000b). The road since structure. In J. Conant & J. Haugeland (Eds.), The road since structure (pp. 90–104). Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. First published 1991.Google Scholar
  46. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume. I. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  49. Leiss, E. (2009). Konstruktionsgrammatik versus Universalgrammatik. In W. Eins & F. Schmöe (Eds.), Wir sprechen und schreiben. Festschrift für Helmut Glück zum 60. Geburtstag (pp. 17–28). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.Google Scholar
  50. Locke, J. (1961). An essay concerning human understanding. London: J. M. Dent andSons LTD.Google Scholar
  51. Masterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 59–89). Cambridge: At the University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Nickles, T. (2011). Scientific Revolutions. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/scientific-revolutions/.
  53. Sankey, H., & Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2001). Introduction. In P. Hoyningen-Huene & H. Sankey (Eds.), Incommensurability and related matters (pp. vii–xxxiv). Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  54. Sneed, J. D. (1971). The logical structure of mathematical physics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schurz, G. (1998). Koexistenzweisen rivalisierender Paradigmen. Eine begriffsklärende und problemtypologisierende Studie. In G. Schurz & P. Weingartner (Eds.), Koexistenz rivalisierender Paradigmen (pp. 1–51). Oplanden, Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  56. Stegmüller, W. (1976). The Structure and Dynamics of Theories. Berlin, Heidelberg and New York: Springer. Translation of Probleme und Resultate der Wissenschaftstheorie und der Analytischen Philosophie. Band II. Theorie und Erfahrung. Zweiter Halbband. Theorienstrukturen und Theoriendynamik, Berlin, Heidelberg and New York: Springer, 1973.Google Scholar
  57. Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Tomasello, M. (2001). First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 61–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA, London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Uebel, T. (2012). De-synthesizing the relative a priori. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 43, 7–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Webelhuth, G. (2011). Paradigmenwechsel rückwärts: Die Renaissance der grammatischen Konstruktion. In S. Engelbert, A. Holler, & K. Proost (Eds.), Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik. Institut für deutsche Sprache. Jahrbuch 2010 (pp. 149–180). Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für PhilosophieUniversität OldenburgOldenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations