David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
It matters to a number of projects whether monomorphemic lexical items (‘boy’, ‘cat’, ‘give’, ‘break’, etc.) have internal linguistic structure. (Call the theory that they do the Decomposition Hypothesis (DC).) The cognitive science consensus is, overwhelmingly, that DC is true; for example, that there is a level of grammar at which ‘breaktr’ has the structure ‘cause to breakint’ and so forth. We find this consensus surprising since, as far as we can tell, there is practically no evidence to support it. (For example, there is no psychological evidence that you can’t have a word that expresses the concept BREAKTR unless you have the concept CAUSE. But there ought to be if CAUSE is a constituent of BREAKTR) This isn’t, of course, to say that there are no prima facie arguments at all for DC. The best one’s we’ve heard are the Impossible Word Arguments (IWA). That being so we’re very interested in whether IWAs are, in fact, sound.
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Robert Stainton (2010). Contextualism in Epistemology and the Context-Sensitivity of 'Knows'. In Campbell, O'Rourke & Silverstein (eds.), Knowledge and Skepticism.
John Collins (2011). Impossible Words Again: Or Why Beds Break but Not Make. Mind and Language 26 (2):234-260.
Jerry Fodor & Ernest Lepore (1999). Impossible Words? Linguistic Inquiry 30:445-453.
Kent Johnson (2004). From Impossible Words to Conceptual Structure: The Role of Structure and Processes in the Lexicon. Mind and Language 19 (3):334-358.
Jerry Fodor & Ernie Lepore (2005). Impossible Words: A Reply to Kent Johnson. Mind and Language 20 (3):353–356.
B. A. C. Saunders & J. van Brakel (1999). Colour Word Trouble. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (4):725-728.
David Pitt (1999). In Defense of Definitions. Philosophical Psychology 12 (2):139-156.
Holger Mitterer, Yiya Chen & Xiaolin Zhou (2011). Phonological Abstraction in Processing Lexical-Tone Variation: Evidence From a Learning Paradigm. Cognitive Science 35 (1):184-197.
Jerry Fodor & Ernie Lepore, Morphemes Matter; the Continuing Case Against Lexical Decomposition (Or: Please Don't Play That Again, Sam).
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads25 ( #149,985 of 1,792,064 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #102,458 of 1,792,064 )
How can I increase my downloads?