Search results for 'Domain-General' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  22
    Ron Mallon, Ought We to Abandon a Domain-General Treatment of "Ought"?[I].
    Leda Cosmides and John Tooby have some advice for moral philosophers and deontic logicians trying to understand deontic notions like ought: give up trying to provide a univocal, domain-general treatment. The domain-specific character of human cognition means that such a research program is probably fruitless and probably pointless. It is probably fruitless, since a univocal account of the meaning of "ought" will not capture the multiple inferential patterns of deontic reasoning exhibited in different contexts (and similarly for lots of (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  14
    James L. McClelland, David C. Plaut, Stephen J. Gotts & Tiago V. Maia (2003). Developing a Domain-General Framework for Cognition: What is the Best Approach? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):611-614.
    We share with Anderson & Lebiere (A&L) (and with Newell before them) the goal of developing a domain-general framework for modeling cognition, and we take seriously the issue of evaluation criteria. We advocate a more focused approach than the one reflected in Newell's criteria, based on analysis of failures as well as successes of models brought into close contact with experimental data. A&L attribute the shortcomings of our parallel-distributed processing framework to a failure to acknowledge a symbolic level of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  1
    John Michael & Alessandro D’Ausilio (2015). Domain-Specific and Domain-General Processes in Social Perception – A Complementary Approach. Consciousness and Cognition 36:434-437.
    In this brief discussion, we explicate and evaluate Heyes and colleagues’ deflationary approach to interpreting apparent evidence of domain-specific processes for social percep- tion. We argue that the deflationary approach sheds important light on how functionally specific processes in social perception can be subserved at least in part by domain-general processes. On the other hand, we also argue that the fruitfulness of this approach has been unnecessarily hampered by a contrastive conception of the relationship between domain- general and domain-specific (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4.  8
    Hongbin Wang & Paul Bello (2006). Ritualized Behavior as a Domain-General Choice of Actions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (6):633-634.
    Although we agree that ritualized behavior is a mystery that calls out for an explanation, we do not think that the proposed domain-specific two-component system offers an empirically well-justified and theoretically parsimonious description of the phenomena. Instead, we believe that the deployment of domain-general mechanisms based on choice of actions could also explain the essential features of ritualized behavior. (Published Online February 8 2007).
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5.  58
    Anthony P. Atkinson & M. Wheeler (2004). The Grain of Domains: The Evolutionary-Psychological Case Against Domain-General Cognition. Mind and Language 19 (2):147-76.
    Prominent evolutionary psychologists have argued that our innate psychological endowment consists of numerous domainspecific cognitive resources, rather than a few domaingeneral ones. In the light of some conceptual clarification, we examine the central inprinciple arguments that evolutionary psychologists mount against domaingeneral cognition. We conclude (a) that the fundamental logic of Darwinism, as advanced within evolutionary psychology, does not entail that the innate mind consists exclusively, or even massively, of domainspecific features, and (b) that a mixed innate cognitive economy of domainspecific (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  6.  4
    Natasha Z. Kirkham, Jonathan A. Slemmer & Scott P. Johnson (2002). Visual Statistical Learning in Infancy: Evidence for a Domain General Learning Mechanism. Cognition 83 (2):B35-B42.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   48 citations  
  7.  12
    Vittorio Girotto & Katya Tentori (2008). Is Domain-General Thinking a Domain-Specific Adaptation? Mind and Society 7 (2):167-175.
    According to Kanazawa (Psychol Rev 111:512–523, 2004), general intelligence, which he considers as a synonym of abstract thinking, evolved specifically to allow our ancestors to deal with evolutionary novel problems while conferring no advantage in solving evolutionary familiar ones. We present a study whereby the results contradict Kanazawa’s hypothesis by demonstrating that performance on an evolutionary novel problem (an abstract reasoning task) predicts performance on an evolutionary familiar problem (a social reasoning task).
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8.  3
    M. C. McKinnon & M. Moscovitch (2007). Domain-General Contributions to Social Reasoning: Theory of Mind and Deontic Reasoning Re-Explored. Cognition 102 (2):179-218.
  9.  10
    Sandra E. Trehub & Erin E. Hannon (2006). Infant Music Perception: Domain-General or Domain-Specific Mechanisms? Cognition 100 (1):73-99.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  10.  4
    Sam J. Gilbert (2015). Strategic Use of Reminders: Influence of Both Domain-General and Task-Specific Metacognitive Confidence, Independent of Objective Memory Ability. Consciousness and Cognition 33:245-260.
  11.  7
    Irene P. Kan, Susan Teubner-Rhodes, Anna B. Drummey, Lauren Nutile, Lauren Krupa & Jared M. Novick (2013). To Adapt or Not to Adapt: The Question of Domain-General Cognitive Control. Cognition 129 (3):637-651.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  12.  43
    Vladimir M. Sloutsky (2010). Mechanisms of Cognitive Development: Domain-General Learning or Domain-Specific Constraints? Cognitive Science 34 (7):1125-1130.
  13.  7
    Joel S. Snyder, Breanne D. Yerkes & Michael A. Pitts (2015). Testing Domain-General Theories of Perceptual Awareness with Auditory Brain Responses. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19 (6):295-297.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14.  2
    Sandra R. Waxman & Amy E. Booth (2001). On the Insufficiency of Evidence for a Domain-General Account of Word Learning. Cognition 78 (3):277-279.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  15.  5
    Clare Press & Richard Cook (2015). Beyond Action-Specific Simulation: Domain-General Motor Contributions to Perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19 (4):176-178.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16.  3
    Valerie A. Thompson (2000). The Task-Specific Nature of Domain-General Reasoning. Cognition 76 (3):209-268.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  17.  2
    Alia Martin & Laurie R. Santos (2014). Understanding the Role of Mirror Neurons in Action Understanding Will Require More Than a Domain-General Account. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 37 (2):211.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18.  1
    Wang Hongbin & Bello Paul (2006). Ritualized Behavior as a Domain-General Choice of Actions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (6).
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19.  1
    Ayse P. Saygin & Frederic Dick (2014). The Emergence of Mirror-Like Response Properties From Domain-General Principles in Vision and Audition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 37 (2):219.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20.  4
    Elizabeth Bates, Frederic Dick & Beverly Wulfeck (1999). Not so Fast: Domain-General Factors Can Account for Selective Deficits in Grammatical Processing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (1):96-97.
    Normals display selective deficits in morphology and syntax under adverse processing conditions. Digit loads do not impair processing of passives and object relatives but do impair processing of grammatical morphemes. Perceptual degradation and temporal compression selectively impair several aspects of grammar, including passives and object relatives. Hence we replicate Caplan & Waters's specific findings but reach opposite conclusions, based on wider evidence.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21.  1
    Kevin MacDonald (2014). Domain-General Mechanisms: What They Are, How They Evolved, and How They Interact with Modular, Domain-Specific Mechanisms to Enable Cohesive Human Groups. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 37 (4):430-431.
  22. Huanhuan Liu, Lijuan Liang, Susan Dunlap, Ning Fan & Baoguo Chen (2016). The Effect of Domain-General Inhibition-Related Training on Language Switching: An ERP Study. Cognition 146:264-276.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23. Joris Van de Cavey & Robert J. Hartsuiker (2016). Is There a Domain-General Cognitive Structuring System? Evidence From Structural Priming Across Music, Math, Action Descriptions, and Language. Cognition 146:172-184.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24.  27
    Reza Tavakol & Roustam Zalaletdinov (1998). On the Domain of Applicability of General Relativity. Foundations of Physics 28 (2):307-331.
    We consider the domain of applicability of general relativity (GR), as a classical theory of gravity, by considering its applications to a variety of settings of physical interest as well as its relationship with real observations. We argue that, as it stands, GR is deficient whether it is treated as a microscopic or a macroscopic theory of gravity. We briefly discuss some recent attempts at removing this shortcoming through the construction of a macroscopic theory of gravity. We point out that (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  25. Pw Cheng & Jh Larkin (1987). Teaching General Strategies and Domain-Specific Concepts in Physics. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 25 (5):328-329.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26.  9
    David Caplan & Gloria Waters (1999). Issues Regarding General and Domain-Specific Resources. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (1):114-122.
    Commentaries on our target article raise further questions about the validity of an undifferentiated central executive that supplies resources to all verbal tasks. Working memory tasks are more likely to measure divided attention capacities and the efficiency of performing tasks within specific domains than a shared resource pool. In our response to the commentaries, we review and further expand upon empirical findings that relate performance on working memory tasks to sentence processing, concluding that our view that the two are not (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27.  16
    Paul Sheldon Davies, James H. Fetzer & Thomas R. Foster (1995). Logical Reasoning and Domain Specificity. Biology and Philosophy 10 (1):1-37.
    The social exchange theory of reasoning, which is championed by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, falls under the general rubric evolutionary psychology and asserts that human reasoning is governed by content-dependent, domain-specific, evolutionarily-derived algorithms. According to Cosmides and Tooby, the presumptive existence of what they call cheater-detection algorithms disconfirms the claim that we reason via general-purpose mechanisms or via inductively acquired principles. We contend that the Cosmides/Tooby arguments in favor of domain-specific algorithms or evolutionarily-derived mechanisms fail and that the notion (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  28.  2
    Michael R. Waldmann (2007). Combining Versus Analyzing Multiple Causes: How Domain Assumptions and Task Context Affect Integration Rules. Cognitive Science 31 (2):233-256.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  29. Peter Carruthers (2002). The Cognitive Functions of Language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):657-674.
    This paper explores a variety of different versions of the thesis that natural language is involved in human thinking. It distinguishes amongst strong and weak forms of this thesis, dismissing some as implausibly strong and others as uninterestingly weak. Strong forms dismissed include the view that language is conceptually necessary for thought (endorsed by many philosophers) and the view that language is _de facto_ the medium of all human conceptual thinking (endorsed by many philosophers and social scientists). Weak forms include (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   42 citations  
  30.  26
    Robert L. Goldstone & David Landy (2010). Domain-Creating Constraints. Cognitive Science 34 (7):1357-1377.
    The contributions to this special issue on cognitive development collectively propose ways in which learning involves developing constraints that shape subsequent learning. A learning system must be constrained to learn efficiently, but some of these constraints are themselves learnable. To know how something will behave, a learner must know what kind of thing it is. Although this has led previous researchers to argue for domain-specific constraints that are tied to different kinds/domains, an exciting possibility is that kinds/domains themselves can be (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  31.  75
    José Díez, Kareem Khalifa & Bert Leuridan (2013). General Theories of Explanation: Buyer Beware. Synthese 190 (3):379-396.
    We argue that there is no general theory of explanation that spans the sciences, mathematics, and ethics, etc. More specifically, there is no good reason to believe that substantive and domain-invariant constraints on explanatory information exist. Using Nickel (Noûs 44(2):305–328, 2010 ) as an exemplar of the contrary, generalist position, we first show that Nickel’s arguments rest on several ambiguities, and then show that even when these ambiguities are charitably corrected, Nickel’s defense of general theories of explanation is inadequate along (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32.  12
    William R. Brown (1995). The Domain Constraint on Analogy and Analogical Argument. Informal Logic 17 (1).
    Domain constraint, the requirement that analogues be selected from "the same category," inheres in the popular saying "you can't compare apples and oranges" and the textbook principle "the greater the number of shared properties, the stronger the argument from analogy." I identify roles of domains in biological, linguistic, and legal analogy, supporting the account of law with a computer word search of judicial decisions. I argue that the category treatments within these disciplines cannot be exported to general informal logic, where (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  33.  19
    Erich Rast (2013). On Contextual Domain Restriction in Categorial Grammar. Synthese 190 (12):2085-2115.
    Abstract -/- Quantifier domain restriction (QDR) and two versions of nominal restriction (NR) are implemented as restrictions that depend on a previously introduced interpreter and interpretation time in a two-dimensional semantic framework on the basis of simple type theory and categorial grammar. Against Stanley (2002) it is argued that a suitable version of QDR can deal with superlatives like tallest. However, it is shown that NR is needed to account for utterances when the speaker intends to convey different restrictions for (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34. Sven Nyholm (2015). Motivation-Enhancements and Domain-Specific Values. American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 6 (1):37-39.
    Recent research suggests that “smart drugs” don’t make healthy individuals who use them smarter. The main effects are instead on levels of motivation and interest. So the main ethical question here is not whether there is anything wrong or regrettable about healthy individuals’ using these drugs to make themselves smarter. It is rather whether there is anything problematic about their using these drugs to control or modulate their levels of motivation and interest. This question can either be discussed on a (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35.  4
    Darius Sauliūnas (2011). Domain Name Disputes in Lithuanian Courts: Silent Steps Towards Fairness on the Net. Jurisprudence 18 (3):943-961.
    National <.lt> domain name disputes in Lithuania are the ones which courts must decide without having any specific legal regulation. In such cases courts shall apply analogy of law, customs and general principals of law. Last but not least, the courts must address international legal practice as regards the domain name disputes, i.e. take into account the famous ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy adopted in 1999 and mostly applied by the panels of WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre while (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36.  78
    Vincent Lam & Michael Esfeld (2012). The Structural Metaphysics of Quantum Theory and General Relativity. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 43 (2):243-258.
    The paper compares ontic structural realism in quantum physics with ontic structural realism about space–time. We contend that both quantum theory and general relativity theory support a common, contentful metaphysics of ontic structural realism. After recalling the main claim of ontic structural realism and its physical support, we point out that both in the domain of quantum theory and in the domain of general relativity theory, there are objects whose essential ways of being are certain relations so that these objects (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  37.  12
    Annette Karmiloff-Smith (1994). Précis of Beyond Modularity: A Developmental Perspective on Cognitive Science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17 (4):693.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   22 citations  
  38.  97
    Theodore Bach (2014). A Unified Account of General Learning Mechanisms and Theory‐of‐Mind Development. Mind and Language 29 (3):351-381.
    Modularity theorists have challenged that there are, or could be, general learning mechanisms that explain theory-of-mind development. In response, supporters of the ‘scientific theory-theory’ account of theory-of-mind development have appealed to children's use of auxiliary hypotheses and probabilistic causal modeling. This article argues that these general learning mechanisms are not sufficient to meet the modularist's challenge. The article then explores an alternative domain-general learning mechanism by proposing that children grasp the concept belief through the progressive alignment of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39.  61
    Theodore Bach (2012). Analogical Cognition: Applications in Epistemology and the Philosophy of Mind and Language. Philosophy Compass 7 (5):348-360.
    Analogical cognition refers to the ability to detect, process, and learn from relational similarities. The study of analogical and similarity cognition is widely considered one of the ‘success stories’ of cognitive science, exhibiting convergence across many disciplines on foundational questions. Given the centrality of analogy to mind and knowledge, it would benefit philosophers investigating topics in epistemology and the philosophies of mind and language to become familiar with empirical models of analogical cognition. The goal of this essay is to describe (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  40.  84
    Christina Behme & Helene Deacon (2008). Language Learning in Infancy: Does the Empirical Evidence Support a Domain Specific Language Acquisition Device? Philosophical Psychology 21 (5):641 – 671.
    Poverty of the Stimulus Arguments have convinced many linguists and philosophers of language that a domain specific language acquisition device (LAD) is necessary to account for language learning. Here we review empirical evidence that casts doubt on the necessity of this domain specific device. We suggest that more attention needs to be paid to the early stages of language acquisition. Many seemingly innate language-related abilities have to be learned over the course of several months. Further, the language input contains rich (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  41.  16
    Mariko Moher, Lisa Feigenson & Justin Halberda (2010). A One-to-One Bias and Fast Mapping Support Preschoolers' Learning About Faces and Voices. Cognitive Science 34 (5):719-751.
    A multimodal person representation contains information about what a person looks like and what a person sounds like. However, little is known about how children form these face-voice mappings. Here, we explored the possibility that two cognitive tools that guide word learning, a one-to-one mapping bias and fast mapping, also guide children’s learning about faces and voices. We taught 4- and 5-year-olds mappings between three individual faces and voices, then presented them with new faces and voices. In Experiment 1, we (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  42.  19
    Michael Lamport Commons & Sara Nora Ross (2008). Toward a Cross-Species Measure of General Intelligence. World Futures 64 (5 - 7):383 – 398.
    Science requires postformal capabilities to compare competing explanations and conceptualize how to coordinate or integrate them. With conflicts thus reconciled, science advances. The Model of Hierarchical Complexity facilitates the coordination of current arguments about intelligence. A cross-species measurement theory of comparative cognition is proposed. It has potential to overcome the lack of a general measurement theory for the science of comparative cognition, and the lack of domain-general mechanisms for evolutionary psychologists. The hierarchical complexity of concepts and debates as well (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43.  18
    Adee Matan & Sidney Strauss (1998). Relations Between Innate Endowments, Cognitive Development, Domain Specificity, and a Taxonomy-Creator. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (4):584-584.
    Atran proposes that humans have a unique, innate, domain-specific tendency to create taxonomies of biological kinds. We show that: (1) in ontogenesis, children develop a notion Atran claims to be innate; (2) what Atran claims is unique to biological kinds may be found in artifact kinds; and (3) although Atran proposes a domain-specific mental construct for biological rank, it can be explained in domain- general terms.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44.  6
    James R. Hurford & Jean-Louis Dessalles (2002). The Problematic Transition From Specific Competences to General Competence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):690-691.
    Postulating a variety of mutually isolated thought domains for prelinguistic creatures is both unparsimonious and implausible, requiring unexplained parallel evolution of each separate module. Furthermore, the proposal that domain-general concepts are not accessible without prior exposure to phonetically realized human language utterances cannot be implemented by any concept-acquisition mechanism.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45.  8
    Kenneth R. Livingston (1998). The Case for General Mechanisms in Concept Formation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (4):581-582.
    Reasons are given for believing that it is premature to abandon the idea that domain-general models of concept learning can explain how human beings understand the biological world. Questions are raised about whether the evidence for domain specificity is convincing, and it is suggested that two constraints on domain-general concept learning models may be sufficient to account for the available data.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46. Robert May, Comments on Nathan Salmon “Are General Terms Rigid”.
    1. Nathan Salmon paper is entitled with a question: are general terms rigid? He asks this question in way of engaging the issue of the extension of the notion of rigidity beyond the domain of singular terms. While singular terms has been the province of most of the discussion of this rigidity since Naming and Necessity, it is well known that Kripke saw the notion extending to at least certain general terms such as terms for natural kinds. Scott Soames has (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47.  12
    Warwick Fox (2006). A Theory of General Ethics: Human Relationships, Nature, and the Built Environment. The MIT Press.
    With A Theory of General Ethics Warwick Fox both defines the field of General Ethics and offers the first example of a truly general ethics. Specifically, he develops a single, integrated approach to ethics that encompasses the realms of interhuman ethics, the ethics of the natural environment, and the ethics of the built environment. Thus Fox offers what is in effect the first example of an ethical "Theory of Everything."Fox refers to his own approach to General Ethics as the "theory (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  48.  32
    Jurgen Naets (2010). How to Define a Number? A General Epistemological Account of Simon Stevin's Art of Defining. Topoi 29 (1):77-86.
    This paper explores Simon Stevin’s l’Arithmétique of 1585, where we find a novel understanding of the concept of number. I will discuss the dynamics between his practice and philosophy of mathematics, and put it in the context of his general epistemological attitude. Subsequently, I will take a close look at his justificational concerns, and at how these are reflected in his inductive, a postiori and structuralist approach to investigating the numerical field. I will argue that Stevin’s renewed conceptualisation of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  49.  61
    A. J. Braunack-Mayer (2001). What Makes a Problem an Ethical Problem? An Empirical Perspective on the Nature of Ethical Problems in General Practice. Journal of Medical Ethics 27 (2):98-103.
    Next SectionWhilst there has been considerable debate about the fit between moral theory and moral reasoning in everyday life, the way in which moral problems are defined has rarely been questioned. This paper presents a qualitative analysis of interviews conducted with 15 general practitioners (GPs) in South Australia to argue that the way in which the bioethics literature defines an ethical dilemma captures only some of the range of lay views about the nature of ethical problems. The bioethics literature has (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  50.  28
    Kai von Fintel, Quantifier Domain Selection and Pseudo-Scope.
    * This work has been evolving for a while now. Some parts trace back to the few pages on the context-dependency of quantifiers in my dissertation. Reading Recanati’s paper on domains of discourse made me rethink some of my earlier conclusions without in the end actually changing them much. Other parts formed the material for several discussions in my seminar on context-dependency at MIT in the fall of 1995, which included several sessions exploring the issues raised in an early version (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
1 — 50 / 1000