Tre modi di vedere la natura e tre modi di vedere il linguaggio

Abstract

Many scholars think that the study of mind should follow a naturalistic attitude, and that language is a fundamental part of human nature. But this general statements cover a field of very different positions. In this paper, we compare some of them. First, we compare three views on (human) nature: a) it is a second nature, depending on the first, but somewhat (or essentially) different, so that the tools to understand first nature can’t suffice to understand it; b) naturalism is mainly a method that every research program must follow, regardless of the results of other research programs; c) human beings are biological beings, and so they are historical beings. Then, we compare three views on the relation between human nature and language: a) human nature is nothing but language (or the opposite: all in language can be reduced to other cognitive skills); b) language is reductible to a core feature, which distinguishes human beings from other animals; c) we need a long, accurate, and wide inquiry to discover what is specifically linguistic in human beings. We conclude that, in both cases, positions marked by c) are better, but they should include issues represented by other positions, and the role of historical languages.