Inquiry 41 (3):301 – 315 (1998)
David Lewis has tried to explain what it is for a possible language to be the actual language of a population in terms of his game-theoretical notion of a convention. This explanation of the actual language relation is re-evaluated in the light of some typical episodes of linguistic communication, and it is argued that speakers of a language do not generally stand in the actual language relation to that language if the actual language relation is explicated in Lewis's way. In order to avoid these counterexamples, an alternative account of the actual language relation is proposed which makes use of Lewis's notion of convention in a different way.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
In Defense of Public Language.Ruth G. Millikan - 2003 - In Louise M. Antony & H. Hornstein (eds.), Chomsky and His Critics. Blackwell.
Chomsky on the 'Ordinary Language' View of Language.Francis Y. Lin - 1999 - Synthese 120 (2):151-191.
A Difference of Some Consequence Between Conventions and Rules.Ruth Garrett Millikan - 2008 - Topoi 27 (1-2):87-99.
A Chomskian Alternative to Convention-Based Semantics.Stephen Laurence - 2010 - In Darragh Byrne & Max Kölbel (eds.), Mind. Routledge. pp. 269--301.
Language Conventions Made Simple.Ruth Garrett Millikan - 1998 - Journal of Philosophy 95 (4):161-180.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads63 ( #82,683 of 2,164,001 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #348,017 of 2,164,001 )
How can I increase my downloads?