Polysemy and thought: Toward a generative theory of concepts

Mind and Language 36 (1):158-185 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Most theories of concepts take concepts to be structured bodies of information used in categorization and inference. This paper argues for a version of atomism, on which concepts are unstructured symbols. However, traditional Fodorian atomism is falsified by polysemy and fails to provide an account of how concepts figure in cognition. This paper argues that concepts are generative pointers, that is, unstructured symbols that point to memory locations where cognitively useful bodies of information are stored and can be deployed to resolve polysemy. The notion of generative pointers allows for unresolved ambiguity in thought and provides a basis for conceptual engineering.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 76,215

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

A linguistic grounding for a polysemy theory of ‘knows’.Mark Satta - 2018 - Philosophical Studies 175 (5):1163-1182.
Descriptions and Tests for Polysemy.Andrei Moldovan - 2021 - Axiomathes 31 (3):229-249.
Polysemy: a problem of definition.Cliff Goddard - 2000 - In Yael Ravin & Claudia Leacock (eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches. Oxford University Press. pp. 129--151.
Generative Models.Sim-Hui Tee - 2023 - Erkenntnis 88 (1):23-41.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-12-28

Downloads
146 (#87,691)

6 months
21 (#53,447)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Jake Quilty-Dunn
Washington University in St. Louis

Citations of this work

Polysemy: Pragmatics and sense conventions.Robyn Carston - 2021 - Mind and Language 36 (1):108-133.
The modularity of the motor system.Myrto Mylopoulos - 2021 - Philosophical Explorations 24 (3):376-393.
The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction.Georges Rey - 2003 - In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University.

View all 15 citations / Add more citations