The attempt to polarize Chomskyan theories against Vygotskian theoriesinter aliais not totally necessary, but it seems to carry much energy for debate. Certainly there is equal validity to both areas, and within the pluralistic, multivocal postmodern framework of theory in general, a one-dimensional, monolithic approach seems out of date. Fieldwork linguistics, as well as homework linguistics or autonomous linguistics (Newmeyer, 1986, p. 12), psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, and UG, should maintain equal validity. Researching nontemporal, nonhistorical phenomena is just as valid as researching specific criteria directly related to applicable results. However, one caveat is that if real time and real history are to be used within the matrix of research, then the understanding of nonlinear, asymmetrical movement must be recognized for any change to occur. As well, the "… traditional approach to science which attempts to understand the behavior of the whole by examining its parts piecemeal is inadequate for studying complex systems… Complex systems are also nonlinear" (Larsen-Freeman, 1997, p. 143). With that in mind, it is argued that there is one continuum of human language, although it has four varying positions: phylogeny, ontogeny, sociocultural history, and microgenesis. Within that continuum the paradox remains in that there is a modular systems approach, as well as an interrelated approach simultaneously, all of which we can only approximate within human cognition.