Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. The Ontology of Words: A Structural Approach.Ryan M. Nefdt - 2019 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 62 (8):877-911.
    ABSTRACTWords form a fundamental basis for our understanding of linguistic practice. However, the precise ontology of words has eluded many philosophers and linguists. A persistent difficulty for most accounts of words is the type-token distinction [Bromberger, S. 1989. “Types and Tokens in Linguistics.” In Reflections on Chomsky, edited by A. George, 58–90. Basil Blackwell; Kaplan, D. 1990. “Words.” Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume LXIV: 93–119]. In this paper, I present a novel account of words which differs from the atomistic and platonistic (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Pro and Con: Internal Speech and the Evolution of Complex Language.Christina Behme - 2016 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Central Question in Comparative Syntactic Metatheory.Geoffrey K. Pullum - 2013 - Mind and Language 28 (4):492-521.
    Two kinds of theoretical framework for syntax are encountered in current linguistics. One emerged from the mathematization of proof theory, and is referred to here as generative-enumerative syntax (GES). A less explored alternative stems from the semantic side of logic, and is here called model-theoretic syntax (MTS). I sketch the outlines of each, and give a capsule summary of some mathematical results pertaining to the latter. I then briefly survey some diverse types of evidence suggesting that in some ways MTS (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Assessing Direct and Indirect Evidence in Linguistic Research.Christina Behme - 2014 - Topoi 33 (2):373-383.
    This paper focuses on the linguistic evidence base provided by proponents of conceptualism (e.g., Chomsky) and rational realism (e.g., Katz) and challenges some of the arguments alleging that the evidence allowed by conceptualists is superior to that of rational realists. Three points support this challenge. First, neither conceptualists nor realists are in a position to offer direct evidence. This challenges the conceptualists’ claim that their evidence is inherently superior. Differences between the kinds of available indirect evidence will be discussed. Second, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation