THE PROBLEM OF THE LINGUISTIC METHODOLOGY IN THE LIGHT OF SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM CHANGE. WE and AI

Iryna O. Golubovska

Email: i.holubovska@knu.ua

ORCID ID: 0000-0003-1870-4914

Doctor of Sciences in Linguistics, Full Professor,

Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17721/StudLing2025.27.21-32

PDF (ENGLISH)

ABSTRACT

The present article examines the problem of the philosophy (methodology) of linguistic research and, more broadly, of contemporary scientific inquiry. A succinct history of linguistic paradigm ideas is given. Three main paradigms in the development of linguistic science are outlined (comparative-historical, systemic-structural and anthropological) which are characterised in the terms of main methods, principles, goals, and orientations). In the frames of anthropological paradigm it is emphasised that all of its methods, principles, and goals are idealistically oriented and virtually relevant. Language is considered a main tool for disclosing the virtual, implicit knowledge embedded in natural language. At present, some scholars argue that a new paradigm is emerging: the so-called ‘semiological (symptomatic) paradigm’ or, as it could also be called, a post-anthropocentric (post-human) paradigm grounded in ideas of instability, nonlinearity, and AI involvement. The emergence of a new scientific paradigm presupposes a new format for a scientific text, integrating ideas, models, and theories into a unified, systemic vision that comprises life’s biological, cognitive, social, spiritual, and AI dimensions into a unique worldview. The new paradigm is still in the process of forming, but one thing is clear: since non-human entities have already become the coproducers of posthuman knowledge, the latter thus becomes not merely an instrument of explanation but an act of co-creation and moral choice – in which the ethical role of a human is hard to overestimate. AI is becoming a ‘moral mirror’ of a human being, being able to feel dissonances and loss of harmony while interacting with humans. And since we live in a world where all its objects (living and non-living, human and non-human, real and virtual) have become a single ecosystem, the role of humans as moderators of interactions in this ‘global village’ cannot be overestimated.

Key words: linguistic paradigms, methodology, post-anthropocentric paradigm, AI, spiritual ecology.

References:

  1. Vorobiova, O. P. (2021). Interfenomeny v paradyhmalnomu vymiri, abo shcho tam za obriiem kohnityvolohii? [Interphenomena in the paradigmatic dimension, or what lies beyond the horizon of cognitology?]. Studia Linguistica, 19, 24–37.
  2. Holubovska, I. O. (2004). Etnichni osoblyvosti movnykh kartyn svitu [Ethnic features of linguistic worldviews]. Kyiv: Lohos.
  3. Holubovska, I. O. (2012). Problema metodolohii linhvistychnykh doslidzhen u mizhdystsyplinarnomu vysvitlenni [The problem of methodology of linguistic research in an interdisciplinary perspective]. Studia Linguistica, 6(1), 67–75.
  4. Kuhn, T. (2001). Struktura naukovykh revoliutsii [The structure of scientific revolutions]. Kyiv: Port-Royal. (Original work published 1962)
  5. Lukianets, V. S., Kravchenko, O. M., & Ozadovska, L. V. (2000). Suchasnyi naukovyi dyskurs: onovlennia metodolohichnoi kultury [Modern scientific discourse: Renewal of methodological culture]. Kyiv: Blahodiina orhanizatsiia “Tsentr praktychnoi filosofii”.
  6. Sériot, P. (1993). V poiskakh chetviortoi paradyhmy [In search of the fourth paradigm]. In Filosofiia yazyka: v granitsakh i vne granits [Philosophy of language: Within and beyond boundaries] (Vol. 1, pp. 37–52). Kharkiv: Oko.
  7. Braidotti, R. (2019). Posthuman knowledge. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
  8. Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York: Anchor Books.
  9. Capra, F., & Luisi, P. L. (2014). The systems view of life: A unifying vision. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Floridi, L. (2014). The fourth revolution: How the infosphere is reshaping human reality. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=hOF_AwAAQBAJ
  11. Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
  12. Jonas, H. (1984). The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  13. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  14. Morin, E. (2008). On complexity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
  15. Prigogine, I. (1997). The end of certainty: Time, chaos, and the new laws of nature. New York, NY: Free Press.
  16. Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
  17. Rifkin, J. (2009). The empathic civilization: The race to global consciousness in a world in crisis. New York, NY: Penguin Books.