Abstract

Language is ruled by conventions. In order to understand how language functions we need to know what conventions are. According to David Lewis conventions are regularities in action or in action and belief, that perpetuate themselves because they serve some common interest. Ruth Millikan has criticized this analysis for being too complex. She claims to offer an analysis in simpler terms that does neither rely on regularities nor rationality. She defines what she calls “natural conventions” as patterns that are reproduced due partly to weight of precedent. After brief outlines of the two proposals it is shown in this article that Millikans argument against Lewis’ analysis is based on a misconception of regularities, that her own analysis does itself rely on regularities and that she cannot do without rationality if she wants to explain the conventionality of language.