David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):705-719 (2002)
The present response elucidates, elaborates, and defends the main thesis advanced in the target article: namely, that natural-language sentences play a constitutive role in some human thought processes, and that they are responsible for some of the distinctive flexibility of human thinking, serving to integrate the outputs of a variety of conceptual modules. Section R1 clarifies and elaborates this main thesis, responding to a number of objections and misunderstandings. Section R2 considers three contrasting accounts of the mechanism of intermodular integration. Section R3 discusses objections to some of the empirical data supporting my main thesis. Section R4 criticizes some competing theories of the role of language in cognition. And section R5 considers some proposed supplementary cognitive roles that language might play.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Steven Gross (2006). Can Empirical Theories of Semantic Competence Really Help Limn the Structure of Reality? Noûs 40 (1):43–81.
Angeles Eraña (2012). Dual Process Theories Versus Massive Modularity Hypotheses. Philosophical Psychology 25 (6):855-872.
Alessandro Dell’Anna & Marcello Frixione (2010). On the Advantage (If Any) and Disadvantage of the Conceptual/Nonconceptual Distinction for Cognitive Science. Minds and Machines 20 (1):29-45.
Similar books and articles
Johan De Smedt (2009). Cognitive Modularity in the Light of the Language Faculty. Logique Et Analyse 208:373-387.
Agustín Vicente & Fernando MartínezManrique (2005). Semantic Underdetermination and the Cognitive Uses of Language. Mind and Language 20 (5):537–558.
Peter Carruthers (2006). The Architecture of the Mind: Massive Modularity and the Flexibility of Thought. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Alexandra D. Twyman & Nora S. Newcombe (2010). Five Reasons to Doubt the Existence of a Geometric Module. Cognitive Science 34 (7):1315-1356.
Peter P. Slezak (2002). Talking to Ourselves: The Intelligibility of Inner Speech. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):699-700.
Eduoard Machery (2008). Modularity and the Flexibility of Human Cognition. Mind and Language 23 (3):263–272.
Peter Carruthers (2008). Précis of the Architecture of the Mind: Massive Modularity and the Flexibility of Thought. Mind and Language 23 (3):257–262.
Peter Carruthers (2002). The Cognitive Functions of Language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):657-674.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads24 ( #160,587 of 1,907,776 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #339,337 of 1,907,776 )
How can I increase my downloads?