Cognitive scientist at NTNU · www.ntnu.edu/employees/giosue.baggio · Author of ‘Meaning in the Brain’ and ‘Neurolinguistics’ @mitpress.bsky.social 🗣️🧠🤖
Giosuè Baggio
Loading...
The methods/assumptions of formal linguistics and experimental psycholinguistic may fit the LoS better than the OL they were intended for. A cognitive science of science already exists, not a cognitive science of scientific language. What might that look like? This is the first step, let's find out.
DH/EH are testable on corpora and experimental data in a range of constructions, e.g., generalized coordination, coercion with aspectual verbs, propositional attitudes, concealed questions etc. I show DH holds up in a small corpus study of aspectual verbs in biomedical English (tmVar, CDR datasets).
I formulate two hypotheses. Descriptive (DH): the LoS restricts the polymorphism of OL and tends toward monomorphism. Explanatory (EH): scientific language already imposes high fixed costs (vocabulary, notation, code-mixing), so reducing type flexibility keeps overall processing difficulty in check.
