Why the computational account of rule-following cannot rule out the grammatical account
European Journal of Philosophy 9 (1):82-104 (2001)
| Abstract | In recent works, Chomsky has once more endorsed a computational view of rulefollowing, whereby to follow a rule is to operate certain computations on a subject’s mental representations. As is well known, this picture does not conform to what we may call the grammatical conception of rule-following outlined by Wittgenstein, whereby an elucidation of the concept of rule-following is aimed at by isolating grammatical statements regarding the phrase ‘to follow a rule’. As a result, Chomskyan and Wittgensteinian treatments of topics immediately connected with rule-following, namely linguistic competence and understanding, are utterly different from one another. There are two possible stances that computationalists like Chomsky may adopt with regard to the discrepancy between the two aforementioned modes of dealing with rule-following, namely a conciliatory and a non-conciliatory attitude. According to the former attitude, grammatical remarks on and computationallyoriented theories of rule-following investigate one and the same topic although admittedly at different levels, namely a conceptual and an empirical one. According to the latter attitude, grammatical remarks are just a preliminary step in the investigation of rule-following which scientific advancement, presently represented by computationally-oriented theories on this matter, is well entitled to put aside. In what follows, however, I will try to show that both stances are problematic. The conciliatory attitude simply does not work, for it hardly copes with the fact that the concept of rule-following does not supervene, even weakly, on the property of rule-following, namely the property instantiated in the mental/cerebral phenomena that computationally-oriented theories of rule-following study. To take the contrary attitude, on the other hand, is to end up with another disappointing result, namely that the computational treatment of rule-following ultimately deals with something different from that which we wished to gain knowledge of when we began our inquiry into rule-following.. | |||||||||
| Keywords | Computation Grammar Language Rule Semantics Chomsky, N | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesClifton Perry (2007). Exhuming the Body of the Corpus Delicti Rule. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 21 (2):253-264.
Michael Garnett (2013). Taking the Self Out of Self-Rule. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (1):21-33.
Philip Pettit (1990). The Reality of Rule-Following. Mind 99 (393):1-21.
Karsten R. Stueber (2005). How to Think About Rules and Rule Following. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 35 (3):307-323.
Jeffrey Hershfield (2005). Rule Following and the Background. Linguistics and Philosophy 28 (3):269 - 280.
Tomoji Shogenji (2000). The Problem of the Criterion in Rule-Following. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 60 (3):501-525.
Frank Hindriks (2007). The Status of the Knowledge Account of Assertion. Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (3):393-406.
Adam M. Croom (2010). Wittgenstein, Kripke, and the Rule Following Paradox. Dialogue 52 (3):103-109.
Wes Sharrock & Graham Button (1999). Do the Right Thing! Rule Finitism, Rule Scepticism and Rule Following. Human Studies 22 (2-4):193-210.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads23 ( #53,940 of 549,699 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 549,699 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
