José-Luis Mendívil-Giró

On the Limits of Functionalism: A Reply to Bierl (2025)

Introduction

On the limits of functionalism: a reply to bierl (2025). Critically examines Bierl's biological linguistics proposal, rooted in 4E cognition and ethology. It highlights misinterpretations of Chomskyan biolinguistics and identifies research program shortcomings.

Abstract

Bernd Bierl eloquently proposes an ambitious synthesis towards biological linguistics. This synthesis aims to establish a new bio-ethological linguistics based on 4E cognition. It considers the foundational ethology of authors like Konrad Lorenz and Nikolaas Tinbergen to be its biological basis. Rather than developing the biolinguistics inspired by Noam Chomsky, which also has its roots in early 20th-century European ethology, the author considers it an inadequate naturalization and suggests subsuming it under a conception of language as behavior, within the context of embodied, embedded, enacted, and extended (4E) cognition. This reply presents some critical observations on this proposal, highlighting the inadequate interpretation of the biolinguistic approach and the potential shortcomings of the proposed research program.

Review

This paper, "On the Limits of Functionalism: A Reply to Bierl (2025)," signals a direct and critical engagement with a significant new proposal in the field of biological linguistics. Bernd Bierl's work, as described, aims to establish a novel bio-ethological linguistics rooted in 4E cognition, drawing upon the foundational ethology of figures like Konrad Lorenz and Nikolaas Tinbergen. Crucially, Bierl's synthesis explicitly positions itself in opposition to Chomskyan biolinguistics, dismissing it as an "inadequate naturalization" and advocating for its subsumption under a broader conception of language as behavior within a 4E framework. This reply clearly intends to present a counter-argument to Bierl's ambitious project. The abstract outlines two primary axes of critique that the current author will deploy against Bierl's proposition. Firstly, the reply will address an "inadequate interpretation of the biolinguistic approach," suggesting that Bierl may have misrepresented or misunderstood the core tenets and historical context of the Chomsky-inspired program, despite its own stated links to early 20th-century European ethology. Secondly, the paper aims to highlight "potential shortcomings of the proposed research program" itself. This indicates a critical examination not only of Bierl's characterization of alternative frameworks but also of the conceptual and methodological robustness of his proposed 4E-based bio-ethological linguistics as a viable replacement. Overall, this paper promises to be a timely and valuable contribution to the ongoing meta-theoretical discussions in the cognitive science of language and biolinguistics. By directly challenging Bierl's synthesis and his specific criticisms of Chomskyan biolinguistics, the reply offers a crucial opportunity to clarify fundamental conceptual distinctions between competing frameworks. It holds the potential to refine our understanding of what constitutes a 'biological' approach to language and to scrutinize the interpretative claims made within these evolving and often contentious research landscapes.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.