Language: A Biological Model
Guiding the work of most linguists and philosophers of language today is the assumption that language is governed by prescriptive normative rules. Many believe that it is of the essence of thought itself to follow rules, rules of inference determining the intentional contents of our concepts,and that these rules originate as internalized rules of language. However, exactly what it is for there to be such things as normative rules of language remains distressingly unclear. From what source do these norms flow? What sanctions enforce them? What happens, exactly, if you don't follow therules? How do children learn the rules?Ruth Millikan presents a radicallly different way of viewing the partial regularities that language displays, the norms and conventions of language. The central norms applying to language, like those norms of function and behavior that account for the survival and proliferation of biologicaltraits, are non-evaluative norms. Specific linguistic forms survive and are reproduced together with co-operative hearer responses because, in a critical mass of cases, these patterns of production and response benefit both speakers and hearers. Conformity is needed only often enough to ensure thatthe co-operative use constituting the norm - the convention - continues to be copied and hence continues to characterize some interactions of some speaker-hearer pairs.What needs to be reproduced for discursive language forms to survive, it turns out, is not specific conceptual roles but only satisfaction conditions coupled to essential elements of hearer responses. An uncompromising rejection of conceptual analysis as a tool in philosophy results. At the sametime the distinction between the propositional content and the force of a linguistic utterance comes into very sharp focus, force emerging as essential to the creation of content rather than as something added to content. The distinction between illocutionary and perlocutionary force, thedistinction between linguistic meaning and speaker meaning, and the semantics/pragmatics distinction are each illuminated in new and crisper ways. On the model proposed, neither the intentionality of thought nor the intentionality of language is derived from the other. Processes involved inunderstanding language are not Gricean but more like direct perception of the world as mediated, for example, through the natural signs contained in the structured light that allows vision. There are also startling implications for pragmatics, and for how children learn language.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Language Conventions Made Simple
In Defense of Public Language
On Meaning Meaning and Meaning
The Son and the Daughter On Sellars Brandom and Millikan
The LanguageThought Partnership A Birds Eye View
Why Most Kinds are not Classes
Other editions - View all
aspects assumption bee dance behaviors beliefs biological Brandom Cambridge chess Chomsky claim cognitive concepts conform context conventional move conventional outcome conventional pattern conventionally cooperative coordination conventions copied definite descriptions directive example explicit performative follow grammatical moods Gricean hand hence illocutionary acts imperative mood implicatures indicative mood individual intentional attitudes intentionality interpret involved K-I acts K-II kind language conventions language forms lineages linguistic forms mechanisms merely Millikan mood natural nectar norms objects one's perceive perception philosophy of language PPRs pragmatics produce proliferate proper function properties public language purposes pushmi-pullyu reason Recanati recognize reference referential relation representational theory representations reproduced require response rules satisfaction-conditions Sellars semantic sense sentences shape Similarly social sort speak speaker intends speakers and hearers species speech acts stabilizing function Strawson substance syntactic forms theory of mind things thought tion tokens truth-conditional semantic truth-conditions understand University Press words