AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
ABSTRACT. In the present paper, I contrast empirical and non-empirical approaches to linguistics by examining the extent to which they practice the scientific method. I provide examples of linguistic analyses that follow and depart from the scientific method and argue that valid explanations about actual language processing rely on adherence to scientific methodology. However, this is not a requirement for philosophical arguments about abstract language structure. Charges of pseudoscience arise when empirical significance is attached to analyses that fail to follow the scientific method. Progress in linguistics is only made to the extent that researchers adopt the method that is standard in scientific endeavors.
1. INTRODUCTION. If you were to randomly select an introductory science textbook the chances are very high that you would find a section dedicated to the scientific method. The steps of the scientific method are usually enumerated in this way:
(1) Observe a phenomenon.
(2) Formulate a hypothesis to explain it.
(3) Carry out an experiment or collect other observations to test the hypothesis.
(4) Analyze the results to determine whether they confirm or refute the hypothesis.
Studies which follow these steps are considered empirical or scientific. Of course, not every field of study is scientific. Literature, philosophy, pure mathematics, formal logic, and art are examples of these. All of them are worthy areas of inquiry even though they are not scientific, and in general they do not purport to be.
Source: HighBeam Research, Linguistics and the scientific method.(2008 Presidential Address)