Bioessential-deterministic paradigm as a point of support

Ufimtsev Aleksandr Evgenevich ORCID: 0009-0004-9788-5550 Independent researcher 660122, Russia, Krasnoyarsk Territory, Krasnoyarsk, Transit str., 48, sq. 32 ufimtzev@inbox.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

This article continues the research published in the journal Philosophical Thought No. 9 and 10 (2024) and No. 1 (2025), and in the journal Philology: Scientific Research No. 2 (2025). The articles published in the journal Philosophical Thought describe the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms in a transdisciplinary way. An article published in the journal Philology: Scientific Research talks about the bioessential deterministic paradigm in linguistics, understood as anthropocentric in a broad sense.

The purpose of the study is to understand the fact of the transformation of linguistics into psycholinguistics due to the adoption of a bioessential deterministic paradigm in linguistics.

The subject of the study is the bioessential deterministic paradigm (anthropocentric paradigm in the broadest sense) as a reason for the transformation of linguistics into psycholinguistics.

Research methods: the method of scientific literature analysis, the method of abstraction, abductive, descriptive and comparative methods. The method of scientific literature analysis was used in the study of scientific papers on the research topic. The descriptive method was used to identify the key ideas of various works on the research topic. Through the methods of abstraction and abduction, generalizations were made in the form of the limit of systemic structuralism and the limit of bioessential determinism. In addition, the methods of abstraction and abduction made it possible to identify and describe paradoxical transformations of a metaphorical nature – the limit of systemic structuralism to the limit of bioessential determinism, or linguistics to psycholinguistics and linguistics to psychology. The comparative method was used to compare the limits of systemic structuralism and bioessential determinism.

Let's make a reservation right away that in this article we are not following an inductive or unambiguously abductive path, but rather a deductive one: that is, we do not draw our conclusions from the works of scientists, whether in complete clarity or in partial uncertainty, but rely in our judgments on the opinions of scientists, while acting in conditions of partial uncertainty. Since the references are not exhaustive in this case, they are provided primarily for illustrative purposes. Perhaps this approach can be called fitting evidence to the result, but on the other hand, the inductive method gives probabilistic results, while the deductive method gives true results. As E. S. Kubryakova emphasizes: "It is precisely in linguistics, where reliance on empirical data accumulated in it is especially important, that there is a great danger of believing that one inductive approach prevails here and that only facts dictate a certain way of presenting them" ^{[1, p. 164]}. Thus, this study implements not a strict and orderly approach in science, but a chaotic and arbitrary one – and continuing the ideas described in Nos. 9 and 10 (2024) and No. 1 (2025) of the Philosophical Thought journal, we can say that the research methodology embodies a bioessential deterministic meta-paradigm.

In addition, taking into account the remark of A. A. Zalevskaya and S. I. Togoeva: "in the ocean of detailed descriptions of individual "concepts" or linguistic phenomena, unfortunately, attempts are lost to theoretically comprehend not a completely obvious short-term result, but the general theoretical potential of the traced feature, which may turn out to be a pattern important for the development of an explanatory type theory" (emphasis added) ^{[2, p. 100]}, we consider this approach promising in the age of information oversupply. Let's also take into account the provisions of T. S. Kuhn's theory: science does not develop cumulatively, and instead of further expansion of normal science, it makes sense to move to a new level.

At the same time, it is obvious that the abundance of information on a particular topic makes it promising to conduct review studies – which can be understood as the theoretical and practical significance of this study, showing possible directions for further scientific research.

In addition, the theoretical significance of the research lies in the philosophical understanding of linguistics and psycholinguistics. The practical significance of the research lies in the perspective of the development of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research.

The relevance of the research is determined by the need to develop a bioessential deterministic paradigm. Since the bioessential deterministic paradigm can be considered as an extended anthropocentric paradigm, it makes sense to describe its bioessential basis.

The novelty of the research lies in understanding the role of the bioessential deterministic paradigm (the anthropocentric paradigm in the broadest sense) in the transformation of linguistics into psycholinguistics.

The structure of the article. In the section What is a paradigm? The understanding of the paradigm in linguistics is described. It is shown that with different understandings of the paradigm, it is possible to identify commonalities. The System-structural and bioessential-deterministic paradigms section describes the system-structural and bioessential-deterministic paradigms as the two main paradigms in linguistics. The Bioessential deterministic paradigm as a fulcrum section describes the role of the bioessential deterministic paradigm in the transformation of linguistics into other sciences – psycholinguistics and psychology. It is shown that psycholinguistics and psychology can be understood as a transition from the limit of systemic structuralism to the limit of bioessential determinism (with some differences). The conclusions are presented in the Conclusion section.

What is a paradigm?

For the first time this term appears in T. S. Kuhn's monograph "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". The term is ambiguous and has a general scientific use. Currently, there are many definitions of a paradigm. Here are the different understandings of the paradigm in linguistics.

Thus, according to V. Z. Demyankov, a scientific paradigm is a pattern that scientists follow, while the choice of a pattern is determined not only by the object of research, but also by the relationship between scientists ^{[3, p. 13]}. The researcher notes: paradigms in science are analogous to generations ^{[3, p. 15]}. V. Z. Demyankov points out: a new scientific paradigm appears as a result of a scientific revolution, while the conceptualization of the analyzed phenomena also changes ^{[3, p. 15]}. The scientist writes about global and local scientific revolutions, noting the interdisciplinary nature of the former and the high frequency of the latter, and describes the interdisciplinary nature of global scientific revolutions: "global theories are all the more revolutionary the more they allow us to soar above the needs of a given scientific discipline" ^{[4, p. 24]}.

E. S. Kubryakova consistently comprehends the characteristics of the paradigm in the general scientific sense and in linguistics ^{[1] [5]}. E. S. Kubryakova writes: the paradigm plays a guiding role, not so much by offering new solutions as by defining promising ways of developing science ^{[1, pp. 165-166]}. Using the example of paradigms in linguistics, the researcher notes the peculiarities of naming schools, trends and paradigms: schools are characterized most often by leaders (Chomskianism, Saussure), directions – by the goals of language learning (comparative, comparative-historical), and paradigms "receive different names, depending on which of the links we have identified turns out to be in the the focus of attention of representatives of this paradigm of knowledge" ^{[5, p. 10]}. E. S. Kubryakova emphasizes that the name of the paradigm is determined by its goal-setting, "which at the same time can be considered as fixing the key concept of this paradigm" ^{[5, p. 13]}.

Summarizing the various understandings of the paradigm in the scientific community, Ts. Ts. Ogdonova defines the paradigm as a chronologically and culturally determined, heterogeneous dynamic system of ideas about language, generating and developing a certain conceptual scheme of language theory based on a particular philosophy ^{[6, pp. 46-47]}.

G. G. Galich notes that the definition of a paradigm adopted by many linguists, based on the theory of T. S. Kuhn, "clearly indicates the socio-evaluative status of the paradigm.", <...> however, it does not report anything about its own internal structure" ^{[7, p. 298]}. Analyzing the approaches of other scientists and summarizing dictionary definitions, G. G. Galich offers his understanding of the paradigm based on its fundamental properties: completeness, multicomponence and uniformity of the form of the components. Comprehending the concept of a paradigm in linguistics, the researcher writes: "... we can talk about a more or less complete, integral system of scientific forms, or, in more familiar terminology, scientific directions, scientific campaigns or specific linguistic sciences, which may be components of a particular paradigm" ^{[7, p. 299]}.

F. M. Berezin also writes about the social origin of scientific paradigms.: "the change of one paradigm to another is greatly influenced by extralinguistic factors (social and political), as well as personal factors that play a major role in the acceptance or rejection of a particular paradigm. When determining the causes of a paradigm shift, it is necessary to know the intellectual history of the era in which a particular paradigm was formulated, and the intellectual climate that influenced the formation of this paradigm. Taking into account the intellectual climate, it is necessary to take into account even the mentality of the scientist involved in the formation of the paradigm" ^{[8, p. 7]}. Thus, in the formation of the paradigm, a significant role is played not so much by the internal structure of the paradigm itself as knowledge about something, but by the human factor - both at the individual level and at the public level, up to the state and supranational.

So, despite all the differences in the scientific community's understanding of the paradigm in linguistics, we can identify common features. The paradigm can be understood as a conceptually generalized, dynamically developing set of scientific ideas that determines the development of science in the scientific community. It can be said that a paradigm is not only a certain system of rules within science. A paradigm is a prism, it is an optics through which we look at the world. So, any paradigm in linguistics is the optics through which we look at the world as linguists.

Systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic paradigms

Traditionally, linguistics distinguishes between system-structural and anthropocentric paradigms. V. M. Alpatov consistently describes them as opposing approaches ^{[9] [10] [11] [12]}. The scientist notes that the dispute between these approaches dates back more than one thousand years ^{[10, p. 208]}. Historically, the researcher calls the anthropocentric approach the first ^{[9, p. 15] [12, p. 14]}, and believes that the role of the anthropocentric paradigm is currently increasing ^{[10, p. 218]}.

However, there are other paradigms in linguistics.

E. S. Kubryakova considers the linguistic paradigms of the 20th century: structuralism, generativism, cognitivism and neofunctionalism. E. S. Kubryakova notes that competing research programs were widely represented within each of these paradigms, while at the same time having common theoretical principles in their description ^{[5, p. 8]}. Thus, not only compete paradigms– as V. M. Alpatov writes, but also research programs within paradigms: "the growth of science is simply impossible without the existence and coexistence of these research programs" ^{[5, p. 8]}. Note that V. M. Alpatov characterizes other paradigms: generative (generative) N. Chomsky, functional, as outgoing from the anthropocentric ^{[12, p. 15]}.

V. Z. Demyankov considers it absurd to distract from the human factor in linguistics ^{[13, p. 15]}. The scientist calls linguistic structuralism an attempt to study language in isolation from humans, suspended due to the formation of an anthropocentric paradigm, and understands the use of the term scientific paradigm as one of the first manifestations of an anthropocentric philosophy of science ^{[13, pp. 15-16]}. V. Z. Demyankov emphasizes: "social sciences in general are doomed to be polytheistic, and therefore to lack a unified a paradigmatic standard" ^{[13, p. 35]}. Thus, the pluralism of theories is a consequence of the influence of the human factor in science.

Continuing the ideas of V. I. Postovalova, V. A. Maslova develops the theoanthropocosmic paradigm, understanding it as "a new round of the anthropocentric paradigm" ^{[14, p. 164]}. V. A. Maslova asserts: "language must be considered in the system – language – man – God – cosmos – culture" (emphasis added) ^{[14, p. 165]}. Thus, the theoanthropocosmic paradigm, as understood by V. A. Maslova, is an anthropocentric paradigm with certain changes: the recognition of the priority of the Divine Principle in the cosmic conditioning of human existence.

V. I. Karasik defines the established paradigms in linguistics: communicative, cultural-cognitive and semiotic – as the basic vectors of language, identified on the basis of fractal modeling of language functions: communication, culture and designation, respectively ^{[15, pp. 37-39]}.

In addition to the comparative historical, system-structural and anthropocentric paradigms traditionally accepted in the scientific community, M. Cherchiev identifies a descriptive-normative, or pragmatic, one, calling it historically primary: "the descriptive-normative paradigm was a necessary condition not only for establishing rules for the use of linguistic units, but also for the emergence of other scientific paradigms" ^{[16, p. 452]}. As the researcher writes, all four paradigms coexist and continue to develop in modern linguistics, and the choice of a paradigm depends on the goals and objectives of the study, and concludes: "a descriptive-normative paradigm necessarily accompanies every study, no matter what goals and objectives it sets for itself" ^{[16, p. 453]}. It is within the framework of this paradigm that "normative grammars, textbooks and manuals, language reference books, as well as various dictionaries are compiled" ^{[16, p. 453]}.

G. G. Galich develops an integrative paradigm ^[7]. The researcher argues that as a result of the scientific revolution at the turn of the XX and XXI centuries, anthropocentric functional studies of language came to the fore, and system-structural studies were forgotten, whereas phonetic and grammatical-lexical structures of language are the basis for expressing the functions of communication and cognition performed by language, and concludes: understanding the functions of language is impossible without understanding structures; thus, the integrative paradigm will allow combining anthropocentrism and systemic structuralism ^{[7, p. 299]}. Under the term integrative linguistics, G. G. Galich suggests combining "the most diverse versions of complex, multidimensional interdisciplinary research" ^{[7, p. 301]}.

A number of scientists have argued about the need for an interdisciplinary approach in linguistics. Thus, F. M. Berezin writes about the paradigm of cognitive linguistics, combining linguistics, psychology, neurology and the study of artificial intelligence ^{[8, p. 10]} in the context of the ongoing turn "from language learning to speech research, which allows us to talk about the formation of speech studies as a special field of study in addition to linguistics, which occupied a dominant position in the philology of the XX century. V.V. Glebkin describes the main methodological message of his monograph as a "call for interdisciplinarity" ^{[17, p. 314]}, and notes: "interdisciplinarity requires new approaches in building the methodological framework of theory, but at the same time opens the possibility for a more critical look at an already mastered disciplinary space" ^{[17, p. 314]}. The ideas of integrativity are also developed by V. A. Maslova. Thus, the researcher theoretically comprehends the phenomenon of integrativity, and concludes that an integrative approach will help solve "the problems of the relationship between language and consciousness, language and culture, language and mentality, language and religion, language and character" ^{[18, p. 844]}. V. A. Maslova and E. S. Pivovar consider the development of various scientific disciplines in the modern world. At this stage, they are interconnected, and they conclude: in order to meet the demands of the time, linguistics must be interdisciplinary and integrative ^{[19, p. 136]}. E. S. Kubryakova writes about the integral paradigm of knowledge, which is the opposite of generativism and is "functional in its general orientation, constructive in its spirit and dictating in its orientation not only ways out the horizons of traditional structural linguistics, but also beyond the horizons of that rigidly organized and predominantly formalized concept of language, which is the generative paradigm of knowledge" ^{[1, p. 230]}. There are many studies in the field of integrativity and interdisciplinarity in linguistics, and it's time to write a separate review. However, many of them are united by the idea of the anthropocentricity of language, whether in contrast to the recognition of systemic structuralism.

T. E. Vladimirova consistently develops the metalinguistic paradigm. Thus, continuing the ideas of M. M. Bakhtin, T. E. Vladimirova writes about the metalinguistic paradigm and expresses hope for the development of a metalinguistic field of research – existential linguistics ^{[20, pp. 26-29]}. T. E. Vladimirova interdisciplinarly analyzes the linguistic picture of the world and describes the existential picture of being as an actual research paradigm ^[21]. Fractally comprehending the model of linguistic personality from the standpoint of linguistics, psychology and ontology, T. E. Vladimirova asserts the metalinguistic paradigm ^{[22, pp. 114-117]}. In fact, T. E. Vladimirova conducts research in line with the anthropocentric paradigm at the interdisciplinary level.

According to N. V. Bottles, three paradigms are traditionally distinguished: comparative-historical, systemic-structural and anthropocentric, and he calls the comparative-historical one historically primary, explaining this by the fact that "the comparative-historical method was the first special method of language research" ^{[23, p. 49]}. The researcher calls the idea of the anthropocentricity of language a key one in modern linguistics ^{[23, p. 50]}, and concludes: "the anthropocentric paradigm in linguistics is something that cannot be ignored, even if the researcher works in traditional system–structural and comparative-historical paradigms" ^{[23, p. 51]}.

Within the framework of a generalized understanding of the scientific paradigm, Ts. Ts. Ogdonova writes: paradigms are distinguished by the type and nature of the explanations accepted in them within the framework of a particular science, and about different paradigms: cognitive, communicative, linguocultural, sociolinguistic, etc. – one can speak in the case of differences in the setting-presupposition, subject-cognitive and procedural parts. scientific disciplines ^{[6, pp. 46-47]}. Developing the ideas of V. A. Maslova and I. P. Susov, Ts. Ts. Ogdonova writes: in linguistics, three superparadigms can be distinguished – the comparative-historical, systemic-structural and anthropocentric, while the comparative-historical paradigm is the first in linguistics; according to the researcher, the anthropocentric paradigm is currently dominant ^{[6, pp. 47-49]}.

So, despite some common views, there are certain differences between scientists regarding the number of paradigms and the time of their appearance, but this issue requires a separate study. It should be noted that such studies are underway: E. S. Kubryakova conducts a paradigmatic analysis of the evolution of linguistic theories in the 20th century ^[1], V. V. Glebkin describes a paradigm shift in the 20th century from isolationist paradigms to anthropocentric and sociocultural ^[17].

In general, even taking into account sometimes contradictory data from various researchers, it can be seen already in the first approximation that there are certain contradictions between the system-structural and anthropocentric paradigms, whereas it is difficult to detect any significant contradictions between other paradigms.

Why are the system-structural and anthropocentric paradigms opposed?

Perhaps the reason is that the system-structural and anthropocentric paradigms relate as an extremely abstract world of ideas and an extremely concrete observer – more precisely, as an observable part of an extremely abstract world of ideas and an extremely concrete observer who carries out reflection and self-reflection.

In addition, we believe that the system-structural and anthropocentric paradigms, understood as manifestations of the system-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms in linguistics, correlate as form and content. The systemic-structural paradigm is understood as the limit of form, and the bioessential-deterministic paradigm is understood as the limit of content. If we understand the form as an unambiguously defined framework in which the form is realized, and the content is understood as some essential fullness that takes on a specific form, then the following logically follows: being defined by formal principles is the realization of a systemic-structural paradigm, and the manifestation of the inner essence of the content is the realization of an anthropocentric paradigm. Form and content are tightly fused to each other, forming a single whole, and at the same time opposite.

We also note the opposing views. Thus, V. N. Voloshinov categorically objects to considering the form and content separately from each other: "one cannot separate ideology from the material reality of the sign" ^{[24, p. 26]}. However, it was precisely the differentiated consideration of form and content that made it possible, among other things, to identify and characterize the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms.

We will also mention the position of Ts. Ts. Ogdonova as an opposer. Developing the ideas of E. S. Kubryakova, Ts. Ts. Ogdonova notes: Russian linguistics is characterized by a polyparadigmality, and the antrotsocentric paradigm acts as a superparadigm, including many microparadigms – anthropo–oriented disciplines of an integral nature: psycholinguistics, cognitive linguistics, sociolinguistics, linguoculturology, pragmalinguistics, communicative linguistics, etc. - which are located in penetrating interaction with each other ^{[25, pp. 70-71]}. It should be noted that Ts. Ts. Ogdonova understands psycholinguistics as a microparadigm of the anthropocentric superparadigm, whereas we consider psycholinguistics to be an independent science, and not part of a separate science. On the other hand, if we understand the super–paradigm as a paradigm that goes beyond the limits of a single science - that is, to understand anthropocentrism as broadly as possible: as a bioessentially oriented field of scientific knowledge of an integral nature (supra-discipline, meta–paradigm) - then psycholinguistics really correlates with bioessential determinism as a part and a whole.

In addition, we note that the fractality of C. C. Ogdonova's explanation of the structure of linguistics is noteworthy, expressed in the prefixed way of constructing the word-formation paradigm of the term paradigm. Thus, the idea of meta-paradigms, presented in our articles in Nos. 9 and 10 (2024) and No. 1 (2025) of the Philosophical Thought journal, actually continues the ideas of the fractal explanation of scientific knowledge.

Bioessential deterministic paradigm as a fulcrum

So, the anthropocentric paradigm is one of the oldest in linguistics.

The anthropocentric paradigm in the broadest sense is bioessential deterministic. Anthropocentrism presupposes the study of language from the standpoint of the human factor, moreover, language is a priori human, whereas bioessential determinism presupposes the study of language taking into account the biologically predetermined limitations of a native speaker, or the consideration of the language of a bioessentially determined subject of cognition – that is, the study of the language of any living beings, taking into account the limitations determined by their nature. The bioessential deterministic paradigm can be understood as an extended anthropocentric one.

However, when we look at the world from linguistics through the optics of extended anthropocentrism, we automatically see this world from psycholinguistics. The anthropocentric paradigm in linguistics is the optics through which we look at the world as linguists – and turn out to be psycholinguists. Thus, the bioessential deterministic paradigm, or the anthropocentric paradigm in the broadest sense, becomes the fulcrum that turns linguistics into psycholinguistics.

In this way, a part of the whole becomes not just a whole, but another whole. A part of the whole doesn't just make the whole different – in this case, a part of the whole turns the whole inside out, making it fundamentally different.

In other words, in these cases, a paradigm is not only a part of science, it is science itself. Systemic structuralism in its purest form is linguistics, and bioessential determinism is psycholinguistics.

The history of science knows examples when a new paradigm explains the world more accurately than the old one. So, such examples are well–known: in physics, this is A. Einstein's theory of relativity, which replaced I. Newton's classical mechanics, and in astronomy, the heliocentric Copernican model instead of the geocentric Ptolemaic model. Historians of science can cite other examples where a new paradigm in science has replaced the old one.

However, in this case, the situation in linguistics is fundamentally different: the new paradigm does not explain the world better or more accurately than the previous one. In this example, the new paradigm is understood to be anthropocentric in the broadest sense (i.e. bioessentially deterministic), while the old one is system-structural, although applying the epithets new and old to these paradigms is incorrect. Moreover, as already mentioned, V. M. Alpatov notes: historically, the anthropocentric paradigm is the first one ^{[9, p. 15]}. The system-structural and anthropocentric paradigms in linguistics have been replacing each other in a pendulum rhythm for more than a thousand years ^{[10, p. 208]}. The anthropocentric paradigm explains the world no better than the systemic-structural one – it does it differently, moreover, so differently that we find ourselves in a completely different science: instead of linguistics, in psycholinguistics.

Moreover, as M. Cherchiev notes, paradigms in linguistics coexist simultaneously ^{[16, p. 453]}.

According to R. M. Frumkina, both in the process of speech perception and in the process of utterance generation, one of two positions can be chosen.:

1) striving for objectivity,

2) focus on persuasiveness.

R. M. Frumkina emphasizes: "Of course, in principle, any linguist would like to combine (1) and (2) — to describe what "is" and make it "beautiful." We must remember, however, that these are different criteria" ^{[26, p. 65]}. These two positions are simultaneously present in the language as potentially possible, but mutually irreducible, and one of them is embodied in reality. So, the system-structural and anthropocentric paradigms are present in the language at the same time and are not reducible to each other.

As noted above, there are many paradigms in linguistics: comparative-historical, systemic-structural, anthropocentric, descriptive-normative, semiotic, communicative, etc. – however, none of them changes linguistics itself, does not transform it into another science. These paradigms change the way we look at the world, but the observer is still in the original science - linguistics.

At the same time, the bioessential deterministic paradigm in linguistics is indeed new, although it actually exists as much as linguistics itself. The bioessential deterministic paradigm as the reason for the transformation of linguistics into psycholinguistics is the case when the cause comes later than the effect – more precisely, awareness of the cause comes later than the effect.

On the other hand, if we remove all bioessential determinism from psycholinguistics, we will automatically fall into linguistics, namely– into systemic structuralism. Thus, linguistics and psycholinguistics, as well as systemic structuralism and bioessential determinism, turn out to be tightly fused together – and radically different. The systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic paradigms turn out to be impossible without each other – and at the same time fundamentally different.

It should be noted that R. M. Frumkina cites psycholinguistics as an example of a science with a lack of foundations in the form of constructions that could be "likened (exactly likened!) "axiomatics" ^{[26, p. 57]}. The researcher writes: "having appeared in linguistics with the aim of describing language as a mental phenomenon, psycholinguistics was at the same time actually expelled from it. Moreover, psycholinguistics as a science is "primarily a mixture: either of benign psychology and mediocre linguistics (in the USA), or of mediocre psychology and benign linguistics (in Russia). Let's add to this not always literate, and often simply ignorant studies, where obscure psychology and obscure linguistics are accompanied by even more obscure cultural studies or sociology. This allowed, by the way, and still allows, to neglect the already known laws of all the mentioned sciences" ^{[26, p. 57]}. Thus, methodological reflection of linguistics and psycholinguistics seems necessary. Perhaps, considering psycholinguistics as a manifestation of a predominantly bioessential deterministic paradigm, and linguistics as a manifestation of a predominantly systemic-structural one, while understanding both sciences as interdisciplinarly related, will make it possible to clarify some kind of conditional foundation – or, in the language of R. M. Frumkina, "similarity to axiomatics". In fact, linguistics and psycholinguistics are different sciences, but they have a common beginning: the totality of language as an abstract sign system and speech as a concrete living process in various combinations. Thus, E. F. Tarasov defines the object of linguistics at the present stage as "the process of production and perception of speech messages" rather than language as an abstract sign system ^{[27, p. 134]}. F. M. Berezin also speaks about the transition to speech studies from linguistics ^{[8, p. 12]}. Note that, unlike language, speech is one of the highest mental functions.

Of course, the transformation of linguistics into psycholinguistics is more metaphorical than literal. Although a transformation like a part of the whole becomes a different whole, paradoxically, it does take place.

However, it should be noted that the bioessential deterministic paradigm in its purest form is rather psychology. After all, the subject of psychology is actually bioessentially determined subjects – living beings with psychophysically determined limitations. Indeed, linguistics and psychology are different sciences with different origins: the former considers language as a sign system, the latter studies the manifestation of a bioessentially conditioned vital essence. Thus, another paradoxical transformation occurs: a part of one whole becomes another whole; the paradigm of one science becomes another science.

For all the apparent similarity of these transformations, there are shades of difference between them. In the first case, we look at the world from linguistics through a bioessential deterministic (anthropocentric in the broadest sense) paradigm, and automatically find ourselves in psycholinguistics, and in the second, we isolate a bioessential deterministic (anthropocentric) paradigm from linguistics, and it turns out to be a separate science - psychology.

Thus, Ts. Ts. Ogdonova concludes: "the anthropological reorientation of linguistics indicates a change of priorities, a transition to anthropocentric linguistics, which involves the study of language in direct connection with the individual and society" ^{[25, p. 70]}. And V. M. Alpatov emphasizes: "One of the eternal disputes in the history of linguistics is how to consider the object of this science: as a system of rules or as a human activity" ^{[11, p. 202]}. Thus, the described metamorphoses actually resolve this dispute.

In addition, the paradox of these metamorphoses lies in the fact that both psycholinguistics and psychology actually took shape before the definition of the bioessential deterministic paradigm. The effect happened before the cause, and in both cases.

It seems that this does not happen very often in the history of science. Although, to be more strict, the effect took place before the realization of the cause, and not before the cause itself, which seems more logical and less paradoxical.

As an opposer – but an opposer only in the first approximation! – opinions indicate the following. Reflecting on psychology and linguistics in the context of social cognition, R. M. Frumkina notes: both linguistics and psychology at the present stage of development are not some kind of monolith sciences, integral and unified, but each of them is methodologically and epistemologically contradictory, combining strict scholarship and arbitrary essay writing, and having differences between individual areas within each of the sciences ^{[28, pp. 128-129]}. The researcher points out that the inconsistency of both linguistics and psychology is due to the gap common to the social sciences between "the multiplicity of fields in which they work and the absence of what can be called Merton's middle–level theory" (emphasis added) ^{[28, p. 129]}, and adds: "It is useful to realize not only the absence of such theories, but above all, the lack of need for them" (author's emphasis) ^{[28, p. 129]}. Perhaps the paradox described by R. M. Frumkina: the lack of intermediate–level theories in linguistics and psychology is one of the reasons for the inconsistency of these disciplines, and at the same time there is no need to create such theories, is one of the engines of social sciences.

R. M. Frumkina notes: "to speak generally about "linguistics" or "psychology" in general is a great simplification, since we cannot accurately fix the scope of our discussion" ^{[28, p. 129]}. Linguistics and psychology, in their extreme limits, can be understood as systemic structuralism and bioessential determinism. At the same time, in reality, each of these sciences combines both rigorous scholarship and arbitrary essayism, each representing a bizarre interference of systemic–structural and bioessential-deterministic paradigms.

Both the system-structural paradigm and the anthropocentric paradigm, both in their juxtaposition and separately, are the object of study by various researchers. Thus, V. M. Alpatov consistently comprehends the issues of paradigm shift and the development of science. The scientist summarizes: "the development of science occurs as a confrontation between chaos and its ordering: the discovery of new facts increases chaos, the creation of new theories allows it to be overcome" ^{[12, p. 14]}, and concludes: "revolutionary and evolutionary stages in the development of linguistics alternate, and this is the pattern of scientific development" ^{[12, p. 15]}. As V. M. Alpatov concludes, science develops in a spiral: main and marginal currents replace each other ^[29]. The researcher notes: "in the history of the science of language, there is a constant struggle between the desire for a rigorous study of an object modeled on natural sciences and based on observed facts and the desire to consider a language together with a person who speaks it, taking into account intuition, introspection and creative abilities of people" ^{[10, p. 217]}. At the same time, chaos and order, revolutionary and evolutionary stages in science can be explained by the manifestation of the human factor – the personal inclinations of scientists: some people gravitate to practical activities, delving into empiricism and developing theories created before them, while others – to a theoretical understanding of reality, soaring above it and creating new theories; consideration of human characters It allows us to understand the reasons for the development of science ^{[30, p. 4-5]}. V. M. Alpatov notes that the role of chaos is currently increasing ^{[10, p. 218]}.

As A. A. Zalevskaya and S. I. Togoeva point out, when conducting linguistic research, it is important to combine the symbolic system of language as an abstract world of ideas and reliance on the "primordial sensory foundations of the linguistic worldview" ^{[31, p. 62]}. According to scientists, interdisciplinary research can achieve this goal, which is based not on existing theories of language, but on qualitatively new ideas; the researchers suggest "building on the results already obtained to formulate working hypotheses and verify them with available methods and techniques" ^{[31, p. 62]}. Thus, the introduction of a bioessential deterministic paradigm, understood as an extended anthropocentric one, seems relevant and justified.

A. A. Zalevskaya and S. I. Togoeva summarize: "the main thing should remain the desire for a holistic picture of the functioning of language in society, the text, individual consciousness and subconsciousness" ^{[31, p. 62]}. Since language is an abstract sign system used by specific people, when studying language and the consciousness of people who use it, it is necessary to combine systemic structural and bioessential deterministic approaches.

Conclusion

The systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic (anthropocentric in the broadest sense) paradigms are indeed opposite, despite the fact that there are other paradigms in linguistics. The systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic (anthropocentric in the broadest sense) paradigms are present in the language simultaneously and are tightly fused together, forming a single whole – and at the same time they are opposite, mutually irreducible and irreducible to each other. The systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic paradigms are impossible without each other – and at the same time fundamentally different.

The limit of systemic structuralism is linguistics, the limit of bioessential determinism (anthropocentrism) is psychology. Linguistics and psycholinguistics are different sciences, but they have a common beginning: the totality of language as an abstract sign system and speech as a concrete living process in various combinations.

Let's note a number of paradoxical transformations:

· transformation by the type of a part of a whole becomes another whole: the transition of linguistics to psycholinguistics is when we look at the world from linguistics through a bioessential deterministic (anthropocentric in the broadest sense) paradigm, and automatically find ourselves in psycholinguistics (although, of course, the transformation of linguistics into psycholinguistics is more metaphorical than literal);

· transformation by type, a part of one whole becomes another whole: bioessential determinism in its purest form is psychology – when we separate the bioessential-deterministic (anthropocentric) paradigm from linguistics, and it turns out to be a separate science – psychology;

· in both transformations, the cause occurred later than the effect – more precisely, awareness of the cause occurs after the effect has occurred.: The bioessential deterministic paradigm is being defined at the present time, whereas both psycholinguistics and psychology actually took shape as sciences a long time ago.

The bioessential deterministic paradigm in linguistics can be understood as the reason for the transformation of the latter into psycholinguistics. Bioessential determinism, isolated from linguistics in its purest form, can be understood as psychology.

Such bizarre metamorphoses can be explained by the increasing role of chaos at the present time and the natural patterns of the development of scientific knowledge.