CINEMATIC OBSERVATION IN LINGUISTICS AND BEYOND: TOWARDS AN EMPIRICAL SCIENCE
DOI: 10.23951/2312-7899-2022-2-9-29
The article raises the problem of methodology in the language science and discusses a possible way of solving this problem by recognizing films as a source of observational scientific data. The article claims that the reliance of classical linguistics upon logical analysis and interpretation as a sufficient method of research with texts as primary sources of data is a a fallacy. This fallacy is accounted for by a number of epistemological factors. Firstly, science generally concerns itself not with what things are, but how they appear to the standard observer in the process of interaction. Language, oppositely, is studied as a self-sufficient sign system in and of itself. Secondly, any science constructs its object and produces valid knowledge about this object on the basis of empirical data put together in a logical way, which means that theory and observation are two co-dependent technologies of science ensuring that any claim about the experiential world is verified and “life-tested”. In linguistics, conversely, such an empirical test and verification of claims is replaced by a logical procedure of interpretation and analysis on the basis of texts, which is far from empirical evidence, but rather appears as another set of claims. In other words, texts take on the role of empirical data in linguistics, which is wrong for one simple reason that texts are logical interpretations devoid of any perceptual dynamics and, therefore, unable to be observed. In order to break with such a product-oriented approach and the logico-positivist tradition, and study language beyond written texts only, especially given that illiterate people are language users too, linguistics needs to take an empirical turn. To make this turn possible, linguists need to reconsider the empirical role motion pictures play in the study of how a human’s experiential world is enacted and constructed into a coherent story. Recognizing that films make the work of somebody else’s imagination observable, linguists and cognitive scientists as well could make practical use of cinematic observations as a primary source of evidence for claims about how a human imagines things, constructs meanings, communicates with others, and uses language in general to make all of those things possible. The article elaborates on the cinema-mediated empirical methodology of language studies and specifies what types of observable actions (or their implications) upon linguistic objects we can find in films, including attentional processes, the dynamics of the lived experience, emotioning and sensorimotor activity. As opposed to apparatus theory, the conception of language as experiential dynamics observable in films fits in with the philosophy of radical constructivism and enactivism according to which a human, by analogy with an actor, enacts the world as a (biological, social and cultural) history of her previous actions, these enactments becoming the world itself.
Keywords: primary sources of evidence, language data, experiential world, lived experience, eigenbehavior, enactivism, radical constructivism
References:
Audi 2001 – Audi, R. (Ed.). (2001). The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy. 2nd edition. Cambridge UP.
Bateson 1972 – Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. University of Chicago Press.
Bohr 1987 – Bohr, N. (1987). The philosophical writings of Niels Bohr (vol. 1). Woodridge.
Bridgman 1958 – Bridgman, P. (1958). The logic of modern physics. Macmillan.
Bunnell 2020 – Bunnell, P. (2020). Stories and alternative stories. Constructivist Foundations, 16(1), 84–87.
Chomsky 1975 – Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. Pantheon Books.
Druzhinin 2020a – Druzhinin, A. S. (2020a). Construction of irreality: An enactive–constructivist stance on counterfactuals. Constructivist Foundations, 16(1), 69–80.
Druzhinin 2020b – Druzhinin, A. S. (2020b). Author’s response: Counterfactuals: Multiple realities or an observable world? Constructivist Foundations, 16(1), 96–100.
Einstein 1936 – Einstein, A. (1936). Physics and reality. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 221(3), 349–382.
Einstein 1955 – Einstein, A. (1955). The meaning of relativity. Princeton UP.
Einstein & Infeld 1967 – Einstein, A., & Infeld, L. (1967). The evolution of physics. Simon & Schuster.
Foesrter 2003 – Foerster, H. Von. (2003). Understanding understanding: Essays on cybernetics and cognition. Pergamon Press.
Fultot 2020 – Fultot, M. (2020). Impoverished fiction. Constructivist Foundations, 16(1), 83–84.
Gardner 1985 – Gardner, H. E. (1985). The mind’s new science: A history of the cognitive revolution. Basic Books.
Glasersfeld 1995 – Glasersfeld, E. Von. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. The calmer Press.
Glasersfeld 2006 – Glasersfeld, E. Von. (1981). You have to be two to start: Rational thoughts about love. Constructivist Foundations, 2(1), 1–5.
Harris 1981 – Harris, R. (1981). The language myth. Duckworth.
Harris & Wolf 1998 – Harris, R., & Wolf, G. (Eds.). (1998). Integrational linguistics: A first reader. Pergamon.
Heisenberg 1958 – Heisenberg, W. (1958). The Physicist’s Conception of Nature. Translated into English by A. J. Pomerans from Das Naturbild der heutigen Physik. Hutchinson.
Kosso 2011 – Kosso, P. (2011). A summary of scientific method. Springer.
Kuhn 1970 – Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd edition. Cambridge UP.
Linell 2005 – Linell, P. (2005). The written language bias in linguistics: Its nature, origins and transformations. Routledge.
Maturana 1988 – Maturana, H. (1988). Ontology of observing: The biological foundations of selfconsciousness and the physical domain of existence. In R. E. Donaldson (Ed.), Texts in cybernetic theory: An in-depth exploration of the thought of Humberto Maturana, William T. Powers, and Ernst von Glasersfeld. https://cepa.info/597
Maturana 2006 – Maturana, H. (2006). Self-consciousness: How? When? Where? Constructivist Foundations, 1(3), 91–102.
Mitterer 2013 – Mitterer, J. (2013). On interpretation. Constructivist Foundations, 8(2), 143–147.
Morin 2005 – Morin, E. (2005). The cinema, or the imaginary man. Translated by L. Mortime from Le cinéma ou l’homme imaginaire. University of Minnesota Press.
Ogden & Richards 1923 – Ogden, C. K., & Richards, I. A. (1923). The meaning of meaning. A study of the influence of language upon thought and the science of symbolism. K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.; Harcourt, Brace & Co.
Poincaré 1902 – Poincaré, H. (1902). La science et l’hypothèse. Ernest Flammarion.
Puljic & Puljic 2020 – Puljic, A., & Puljic, D. (2020). I know you don’t know you know. Constructivist Foundations, 16(1), 108–109.
Scholte 2017 – Scholte, T. (2017). Audience and eigenform: Cybersemiotic epistemology and the “truth of the human spirit” in performance. Constructivist Foundations, 12(3), 316–325.
Scholte 2020 – Scholte, T. (2020). Contesting values in the theatre of the counterfactual. Constructivist Foundations, 16(1), 87–89.
Schopenhauer 1903 – Schopenhauer, A. (1903). On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason, and On the will in nature. George Bell and Sons.
Simsky et. al. 2021 – Simsky, A., Kravchenko, A. V., & Druzhinin, A. S. (2021). Action-thoughts and the genesis of time in linguistic semiosis. Slovo.ru: Baltic Accent, 12(2), 7–28.
Valéry 1957 – Valéry, P. (1957). OEuvres. Gallimard.
Varela et. al. 1993 – Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1977). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. The MIT Press.
Watzlawick 1977 – Watzlawick, P. (1977). How real is real? Vintage Books.
Wittgenstein 1922 – Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Translated into English by C. K. Ogden. K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.; Harcourt, Brace & Co.
( 359.06 kB ) 
( 347.71 kB )
Issue: 2, 2022
Series of issue: Issue 2
Rubric: ARTICLES
Pages: 9 — 29
Downloads: 620