Abstract

Katz has denied the psychological import of Linguistics on the grounds of alleged inconsistencies that arise when Linguistics is conceived as a psychological enterprise, and proposed an alternative Platonistic conception. The paper discards the plausibility of this latter approach to the study of natural language but recognizes the difficulties Katz has pointed out. It is claimed that these difficulties appear if the “strong competence hypothesis” is assumed, that is, if it is assumed that the form of the speaker’s knowledge of language is that of a grammar. A weaker conception of the psychological relevance of linguisitic theories is proposed-one that avoids Katz’s difficulties, is more congenial to Chomsky, and clears the way for a fruitful cooperation between Linguistics and Psycholinguistics.