Inquiry 41 (3):301 – 315 (1998)
|Abstract||David Lewis has tried to explain what it is for a possible language to be the actual language of a population in terms of his game-theoretical notion of a convention. This explanation of the actual language relation is re-evaluated in the light of some typical episodes of linguistic communication, and it is argued that speakers of a language do not generally stand in the actual language relation to that language if the actual language relation is explicated in Lewis's way. In order to avoid these counterexamples, an alternative account of the actual language relation is proposed which makes use of Lewis's notion of convention in a different way.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Ruth G. Millikan (2003). In Defense of Public Language. In Louise M. Antony & H. Hornstein (eds.), Chomsky and His Critics. Blackwell.
Francis Y. Lin (1999). Chomsky on the 'Ordinary Language' View of Language. Synthese 120 (2):151-191.
Christopher Gauker, Language and Thought. A Field Guide to the Philosophy of Mind.
Ruth Garrett Millikan (2008). A Difference of Some Consequence Between Conventions and Rules. Topoi 27 (1-2):87-99.
Stephen Laurence (2010). A Chomskian Alternative to Convention-Based Semantics. In Darragh Byrne & Max Kölbel (eds.), Arguing About Language. Routledge.
Ruth Garrett Millikan (1998). Language Conventions Made Simple. Journal of Philosophy 95 (4):161-180.
Richard Holton (2003). David Lewis's Philosophy of Language. Mind and Language 18 (3):286–295.
Margaret Gilbert (1983). Agreements, Conventions, and Language. Synthese 54 (3):375 - 407.
Henry Jackman (1998). Convention and Language. Synthese 117 (3):295-312.
Kent Johnson (2004). Tacit Belief, Semantics and Grammar. Linguistics and Philosophy 27 (1):57-91.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads29 ( #48,035 of 722,713 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,713 )
How can I increase my downloads?