I don't think so: Pinker on the mentalese monopoly

Philosophical Psychology 12 (3):283-295 (1999)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Stephen Pinker sets out over a dozen arguments in The language instinct (Morrow, New York, 1994) for his widely shared view that natural language is inadequate as a medium for thought. Thus he argues we must suppose that the primary medium of thought and inference is an innate propositional representation system, mentalese. I reply to the various arguments and so defend the view that some thought essentially involves natural language. I argue mentalese doesn't solve any of the problems Pinker cites for the view that we think in natural language. So I don't think I think the way he thinks I think

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
139 (#130,357)

6 months
6 (#512,819)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

David Cole
University of Manchester

Citations of this work

Thoughts without distinctive non-imagistic phenomenology.William S. Robinson - 2005 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70 (3):534-561.
Thoughts Without Distinctive Non-Imagistic Phenomenology.William S. Robinson - 2005 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70 (3):534-562.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Language of Thought.Jerry A. Fodor - 1975 - Harvard University Press.

Add more references