|Abstract||Fodor (1998) argues that most lexical concepts have no internal structure. He rejects what he calls Inferential Role Semantics (IRS), the view that primitive concepts are constituted by their inferential relations, on the grounds that this violates the compositionality constraint and leads to an unacceptable form of holism. In rejecting IRS, Fodor must also reject meaning postulates. I argue, contra Fodor, that meaning postulates must be retained, but that when suitably constrained they are not susceptible to his arguments against IRS. This has important implications for the view that certain of our concepts are deferential. A consequence of the arguments I present is that deference is relegated to a relatively minor role in what Sperber (1997) refers to as reflective concepts; deference has no important role to play in the vast majority of our intuitive concepts.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jussi Jylkkä (2009). Why Fodor's Theory of Concepts Fails. Minds and Machines 19 (1):25-46.
Jerry Fodor & Ernie Lepore (2001). Why Compositionality Won't Go Away: Reflections on Horwich's 'Deflationary' Theory. Ratio 14 (4):350–368.
Daniel Whiting (2009). Meaning Holism and De Re Ascription. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 38 (4):575-599.
Jerry Fodor & Ernie Lepore (1998). The Emptiness of the Lexicon: Critical Reflections on J. Pustejovsky's the Generative Lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 29:269-288.
Daniel Whiting (2008). Meaning Holism and de Re Ascription. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 38 (4):pp. 575-599.
Daniel J. Whiting (2008). Conservatives and Racists: Inferential Role Semantics and Pejoratives. Philosophia 36 (3):375-388.
Bradley Rives (2009). The Empirical Case Against Analyticity: Two Options for Concept Pragmatists. Minds and Machines 19 (2):199-227.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads19 ( #64,338 of 549,065 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,065 )
How can I increase my downloads?