Psychomechanics in Danger?
Linguistics is just like any other science at all. It does not know what eternal truth means. Like in any other science some linguists will leave behind them a name, a theory, and a few concepts, but the future will step beyond this theory, will trample some of these concepts, will see a more advanced theory rise from the melting pot or the salad bowl of experience, experimentation, and simple intelligence.
Gustave Guillaume constructed the very basic of the first cognitive approach of the mind and language but he never asked the fundamental question: What is the origin of language?
He could not because he could not go against the statutes of the Linguistics Society of Paris that was banning — and it hasn’t yet changed its statutes — the very question as unscientific.
But he could not ask the question because archaeology was in its infancy and biology did not even know what DNA meant. If we want to understand what cognition really means for any human individual at any age, we better ask the question because without knowing what dynamic logic is behind language we cannot control communication and the acquisition of any new knowledge.
The time of rote learning through repetition and drills that were as painful as they were boring is finished, gone forever, even if in the head of many we learn by simply repeating what we want to learn as if we could assimilate any knowledge at first sight.
I submit hereafter some recent moments and some future events that should be able to bring together a new generation of linguists, cognitivists, communicationists, and didacticians who may bring us out of the never-ending repetition of what this/that genius said in the past. In science, there has never been and will never be any prophet of any sort.
Now we can turn our minds toward what I have seen and heard during these three days.