Graduate studies at Western
Dialectica 64 (1):79-106 (2010)
|Abstract||The paper argues for a decompositionalist account of lexical concepts. In particular, it presents and argues for a cluster decompositionalism, a view that claims that the complexes a token of a word corresponds to on a given occasion are typically built out of a determinate set of basic concepts, most of which are present on most other occasions of use of the word. The first part of the paper discusses some explanatory virtues of decompositionalism in general. The second singles out cluster decompositionalism as the best explanation of the variability of meaning. The third part is devoted to responding to some problems.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Bradley Rives (2009). The Empirical Case Against Analyticity: Two Options for Concept Pragmatists. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 19 (2):199-227.
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.
Vyvyan Evans (2009). How Words Mean: Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models, and Meaning Construction. Oxford University Press.
Jerry Fodor & Ernie Lepore (2001). Why Compositionality Won't Go Away: Reflections on Horwich's 'Deflationary' Theory. Ratio 14 (4):350–368.
Graeme Hirst (1999). What Exactly Are Lexical Concepts? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (1):45-46.
Ken Daley (2010). The Structure of Lexical Concepts. Philosophical Studies 150 (3):349 - 372.
Added to index2010-04-29
Total downloads58 ( #20,318 of 739,344 )
Recent downloads (6 months)25 ( #5,037 of 739,344 )
How can I increase my downloads?