Why language is not a “direct medium”. Commentary on Ruth Garrett Millikan

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):71-72 (1998)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Millikan contrasts her substance-based view of concepts with “descriptionism” according to which description determines what falls under a concept. Focusing on her discussion of the role of language in the acquisition of concepts, I argue that descriptions cannot be separated from perception in the ways Millikan's view requires.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,322

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

More me? Substance concepts and self concepts.Carol Slater - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):85-85.
I don't think so: Pinker on the mentalese monopoly.David J. Cole - 1999 - Philosophical Psychology 12 (3):283-295.
The cognitive functions of language.Peter Carruthers - 2002 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):657-674.
Radical connectionism: Thinking with (not in) language.Gerard O'Brien & Jonathan Opie - 2002 - Language and Communication 22 (3):313-329.
Words and Images: An Essay on the Origin of Ideas.Christopher Gauker - 2011 - Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.
Can mere phonemes be components of Millikan's substance concepts?Niko Scharer - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):83-84.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
40 (#387,619)

6 months
14 (#170,850)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Tamar Gendler
Yale University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references