Synthese 117 (3):295-312 (1998)
|Abstract||This paper has three objectives. The first is to show how David Lewis' influential account of how a population is related to its language requires that speakers be 'conceptually autonomous' in a way that is incompatible with content ascriptions following from the assumption that its speakers share a language. The second objective is to sketch an alternate account of the psychological and sociological facts that relate a population to its language. The third is to suggest a modification of Lewis' account of convention that will allow one to preserve the claim that there are conventions of language.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Henry Jackman (2003). Expression, Thought, and Language. Philosophia 31 (1-2):33-54.
Giacomo Sillari (2008). Common Knowledge and Convention. Topoi 27 (1-2):29-39.
Stephen Laurence (2010). A Chomskian Alternative to Convention-Based Semantics. In Darragh Byrne & Max Kölbel (eds.), Arguing About Language. Routledge.
David Lewis (1969). Convention: A Philosophical Study. Harvard University Press.
Adele Mercier (2003). Are Language Conventions Philosophically Explanatory? Croatian Journal of Philosophy 3 (2):111-124.
Emma Borg (2006). Intention-Based Semantics. In Ernest Lepore & Barry Smith (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. Oxford University Press.
Ruth Garrett Millikan (1998). Language Conventions Made Simple. Journal of Philosophy 95 (4):161-180.
Margaret Gilbert (1983). Agreements, Conventions, and Language. Synthese 54 (3):375 - 407.
Max Kölbel (1998). Lewis, Language, Lust and Lies. Inquiry 41 (3):301 – 315.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads24 ( #57,791 of 722,731 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,731 )
How can I increase my downloads?