A computational approach to linguistic knowledge

Language and Communication 1 (22):211-229 (2002)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The rejection of behaviorism in the 1950s and 1960s led to the view, due mainly to Noam Chomsky, that language must be studied by looking at the mind and not just at behavior. It is an understatement to say that Chomskyan linguistics dominates the field. Despite being the overwhelming majority view, it has not gone unchallenged, and the challenges have focused on different aspects of the theory. What is almost universally accepted, however, is Chomsky’s view that understanding language demands a theory that posits mental states that represent rules of language. Call this claim, following Cowie (1999), Representationalism or (R). According to (R), ‘‘[e]xplaining language mastery and acquisition requires the postulation of contentful mental states and processes involving their manipulation’’ (Cowie, 1999, p. 154). Although (R) is nothing more than the general assumption on which cognitive psychology is founded applied to the case of language, even it has had its detractors. Critics have argued that linguistic competence should not in fact be thought of as based on the possession of a body of linguistic knowledge but should be thought of, rather, as a kind of skill. This is an important challenge because one might be inclined to think that no recognizable form of Chomskyan linguistics could withstand the falsification of (R). In this paper we attempt to show that in fact (R) could be false without doing much damage to Chomskyan linguistics at all. Indeed, it is possible that the Chomskyan position could be made more coherent by adopting the view we will sketch. Our claim, therefore, is that critics of (R) might be right, but that this does not obviously make them serious critics of the Chomskyan program.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

How are grammers represented?Edward P. Stabler - 1983 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 6 (3):391-402.
Chomsky amongst the Philosophers.Dunja Jutronić - 2005 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 5 (3):423-431.
Practical Knowledge and Linguistic Competence.Annalisa Coliva - 2018 - In Annalisa Coliva, Paolo Leonardi & Sebastiano Moruzzi (eds.), Eva Picardi on Language, Analysis and History. Londra, Regno Unito: Palgrave. pp. 337-356.
Semantic processing for finite domains.Martha Stone Palmer - 1990 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
Understanding as Knowledge of Meaning.Alex Barber - 2013 - Philosophy Compass 8 (10):964-977.
Is C hl linguistically specific?Nirmalangshu Mukherji - 2003 - Philosophical Psychology 16 (2):289 – 308.
Toward a Theory of Linguistic Knowledge.Brian D. Brost - 2000 - Dissertation, The University of Wisconsin - Madison
The Internal and the External in Linguistic Explanation.Brian Epstein - 2008 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 8 (22):77-111.

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-05-03

Downloads
194 (#102,872)

6 months
75 (#64,133)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Ian Gold
McGill University
Sandy C. Boucher
University of New England (Australia)

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Vision.David Marr - 1982 - W. H. Freeman.
Aspects of the Theory of Syntax.Noam Chomsky - 1965 - Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
The logical basis of metaphysics.Michael Dummett - 1991 - Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
The Perception Of The Visual World.James J. Gibson - 1950 - Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

View all 23 references / Add more references