Domain-generality and the relative pronoun
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):676-677 (2002)
| Abstract | The hypothesis in the target paper is that the cognitive function of language lies in making possible the integration of different types of domain-specific information. The case for this hypothesis must consist, at least in part, of a constructive proposal as to what feature or features of natural language allows this integration to take place. This commentary suggests that the vital linguistic element is the relative pronoun and the possibility it affords of forming relative clauses. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,679 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJohn Beatty (1997). Why Do Biologists Argue Like They Do? Philosophy of Science 64 (4):443.
Anthony A. Derksen (2004). Occlusion Shapes and Sizes in a Theory of Depiction. British Journal of Aesthetics 44 (4):319-341.
David Christensen (1997). What is Relative Confirmation? Noûs 31 (3):370-384.
Aron Edidin (1988). From Relative Confirmation to Real Confirmation. Philosophy of Science 55 (2):265-271.
Soonja Choi & Kate Hattrup (2012). Relative Contribution of Perception/Cognition and Language on Spatial Categorization. Cognitive Science 36 (1):102-129.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads4 ( #178,675 of 549,088 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
