As it seems impossible to find reliable evidence to back up hypotheses on the origin of our use of the linguistic tool in our acts of communication, I believe that we may start by pointing as accurately as possible to the processes involved, using a methodology that attempts to reach the levels of adequacy proposed by Chomsky, complemented by those suggested by David Marr. If we conclude that human communication and human language may have had different origins, we might find (...) a new perspective which opens a vast field of research. (shrink)

We defend the thesis that the logical level and the objective level are in a strong opposition. Logical level is normative and transcendental whereas objective level is naturalist and substance-based. The use of language is an interpretative/valorative praxis which starts by normative presuppositions. We use satisfaction ambits, elastic constraints and critical states in order to achieve meaning. Meaning of language is not a substance, mental language is immeasurable and the project of naturalization of reason, as in evolutionism and cognitivism, doesn’t (...) work with normativity. Finally, we will support a transcendental and normative conception of logic against eliminative materialism. (shrink)