Disputatio 1 (13):1 - 9 (2006)
The Chomskian holds that the grammars that linguists produce are about human psycholinguistic structures, i.e. our mastery of a grammar, our linguistic competence. But if we encountered Martians whose psycholinguistic processes differed from ours, but who nevertheless produced sentences that are extensionally equivalent to the set of sentences in our English and shared our judgements on the grammaticality of various English sentences, then we would count them as being competent in English. A grammar of English is about what the Martians and we share. In this note, I argue that a recent attack on the Martian Argument by Laurence fail to mitigate its force.
|Keywords||Martian Argument Michael Devitt and Kim Sterelny Competence thesis Noam Chomsky Stephen Laurence|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Why We Still Need Knowledge of Language.Barry C. Smith - 2006 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 6 (18):431-457.
Could Competent Speakers Really Be Ignorant of Their Language?Robert J. Matthews - 2006 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 6 (3):457-467.
Ignorance of Linguistics: A Note on Devitt's Ignorance of Language.Guy Longworth - 2009 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 9 (1):21-34.
Can Psychology Be a Unified Science?Lawrence A. Shapiro - 2005 - Philosophy of Science 72 (5):953-963.
The Poverty of the Stimulus Argument.Stephen Laurence & Eric Margolis - 2001 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (2):217-276.
Linguistics, Psychology, and the Ontology of Language.Fritz J. McDonald - 2009 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 9 (3):291-301.
Added to index2009-10-10
Total downloads420 ( #5,660 of 2,177,988 )
Recent downloads (6 months)12 ( #26,230 of 2,177,988 )
How can I increase my downloads?