David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Linguistics and Philosophy 28 (3):269 - 280 (2005)
. In his work on language John Searle favors an Austinian approach that emphasizes the speech act as the basic unit of meaning and communication, and which sees speaking a language as engaging in a rule-governed form of behavior. He couples this with a strident opposition to cognitivist approaches that posit unconscious rule following as the causal basis of linguistic competence. In place of unconscious rule following Searle posits what he calls the Background, comprised of nonintentional (nonrepresentational) mental phenomena. I argue that these two aspects of his philosophy of language cannot be reconciled. In order to preserve his view of language as a rule-governed activity, he must embrace the cognitivist idea of unconscious rule following. Finally, I try to show how such an accommodation would be far less traumatic to Searle’s philosophical system than it might otherwise seem.
|Keywords||Linguistics Philosophy of Language Artificial Intelligence Computational Linguistics Semantics Syntax|
|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
John R. Searle (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press.
John R. Searle (1983). Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge University Press.
Noam Chomsky (2000). New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge University Press.
John R. Searle, Barry Smith, Leo Zaibert & Josef Moural (2001). Rationality in Action: A Symposium. Philosophical Explorations 4 (2):66 – 94.
Citations of this work BETA
Jeffrey Hershfield (2011). Critical Notice/Études critiqueJohn Searle's Making the Social World. Dialogue 50 (04):759-778.
Similar books and articles
Adam M. Croom (2010). Wittgenstein, Kripke, and the Rule Following Paradox. Dialogue 52 (3):103-109.
Alberto Voltolini (2001). Why the Computational Account of Rule-Following Cannot Rule Out the Grammatical Account. European Journal of Philosophy 9 (1):82-104.
Savas L. Tsohatzidis (ed.) (2007). John Searle's Philosophy of Language: Force, Meaning, and Mind. Cambridge University Press.
William J. Clancey (1993). Notes on "Epistemology of a Rule-Based Expert System". Philosophical Explorations.
Frank Hindriks (2007). The Status of the Knowledge Account of Assertion. Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (3):393-406.
Maciej Witek (2010). Naturalising Illocutionary Rules. In Marcin Miłkowski & Konrad Talmont-Kaminski (eds.), Beyond Description: Naturalism and Normativity. College Publications
Martin Kusch (2007). Rule Skepticism : Searle's Criticism of Kripke's Wittgenstein. In Savas L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), John Searle's Philosophy of Language: Force, Meaning, and Mind. Cambridge University Press 143.
Brian K. Burton & Michael Goldsby (2005). The Golden Rule and Business Ethics: An Examination. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 56 (4):371 - 383.
Wes Sharrock & Graham Button (1999). Do the Right Thing! Rule Finitism, Rule Scepticism and Rule Following. Human Studies 22 (2-4):193-210.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads45 ( #105,669 of 1,940,985 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #115,059 of 1,940,985 )
How can I increase my downloads?