Intersubjectivity and explanation in linguistics: A reply to Hinzen and van Lambalgen

Abstract

1. Introduction Let me start by saying that I very much appreciate both the eort that Hinzen and Van Lambalgen (hereafter, H&L) have put into commenting on Constructions of Intersubjectivity (hereafter, CoI ), and their comments as such. It is important for all cognitive disciplines studying language that representatives from dierent schools of thought try to address each other's work, in terms of both results and foundations. We may not reach agreement as a result of a discussion, but it will still be helpful in clarify- ing matters for ourselves and for other interested scholars, and thus for the future development of our common field of study. This is true even if the divide is deep—which is the case here in a number of respects, as H&L indicate themselves. Another important preliminary remark concerns the nature and scope of our dierences. Philosophically they are certainly far reaching, but from an empirical point of view it is useful to notice that H&L do not present counterexamples to the actual linguistic analyses presented in CoI. Rather, their main point is that such analyses can also be provided in other frameworks, which they label ''more traditional'' than cognitive linguistics, and which should in their view be preferred for other than em- pirical reasons, having more to do with general ideas about concepts such as ''meaning'', ''communication'', ''grammar'', etc., and the way these re- late to even more comprehensive concepts such as ''evolution'' or ''lan- guage''. Below, I will actually dispute that H&L's comments show that the alternative, ''non-cognitive'', frameworks provide these explanations (and suggest that they are not forthcoming either), but it is good to note at the start that their own comments do not concern the empirical claims of CoI. In fact, in my own view, our main dierence concerns the question what may count as an explanation in the analysis of linguistic phenomena. Finally, as to the organization of this reply, I will not follow H&L's comments step by step, as this would lead me to repeat myself too much.