Advertisement

Meaning: the Thought of Language

  • James Russell
Chapter
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

If it could be said that one theorist was principally responsible for the computational theory of the mind, then this theorist would not be one of those whose work directly inspired computer-modelling in psychology (for example, Turing, Minsky, Simon, G. A. Miller) nor Fodor; who coined the phrase. It would be Noam Chomsky.1

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 4.
    J. J. Katz and J. A. Fodor, ‘The structure of semantic theory’, Language, 1963, 39, pp. 170–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 7.
    See S. E. Toulmin, ‘Brain and language: a commentary’, Synthese, 1971, 22, pp. 369–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 26.
    H. A. Simon, ‘The architecture of complexity’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 1962, 106, pp. 467–82. Reprinted in Simon’s The Science of the Artificial (MIT Press, 1969).Google Scholar
  4. 30.
    See W. J. M. Levelt, Formal Grammars in Linguistics and Psycholinguistics: Vol. 2. of Applications in Linguistic Theory (The Hague: Mouton, 1974) pp. 39–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 34.
    G. Lackoff, ‘Whatever happened to deep structure?’ (Comments on Chomsky’s paper), Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 1980, 3, pp. 22–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 36.
    Barbara Partee, ‘Some transformational extensions of Montague grammar’, in B. Partee (ed.), Montague Grammar (London: Academic Press, 1976) p. 55.Google Scholar
  7. 40.
    M. Barrett, ‘The holophrastic hypothesis: conceptual and empirical issues’, Cognition, 1982, 11, pp. 47–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 41.
    See M. A. K. Halliday, Learning How to Mean (London: Edward Arnold, 1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 44.
    See E. J. Gibson’s Principles of Perceptual Learning and Development (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969).Google Scholar
  10. 46.
    J. Katz, The Philosophy of Language (New York: Harper & Row, 1966) p. 98.Google Scholar
  11. 47.
    J. F. M. Hunter, ‘On how we talk’ in his Essays after Wittgenstein (London: Allen & Unwin, 1973).Google Scholar
  12. 52.
    Fodor, ‘Some reflections on L. S. Vygotsky’s “Thought and Language”’, Cognition, 1972, 1, pp. 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 54.
    L. S. Vygotsky, Thought and Language (MIT Press, 1965) p. 124.Google Scholar
  14. 63.
    J. Heil, ‘Does cognitive psychology rest on a mistake?’ Mind 1981, XC, pp. 321–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 68.
    P. E. Bryant, Perception and Understanding in Young Children (London: Methuen, 1974).Google Scholar
  16. 69.
    L. S. Siegel, ‘The development of quantity concepts: perceptual and linguistic factors’, in C. J. Brainerd (ed.) Children’s Logical and Mathematical Cognition (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1982).Google Scholar
  17. 70.
    B. E. Shepp and P. D. Eimas, Intradimensional and extradimensional shifts in the rat’. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1964, 57, pp. 357–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 84.
    C. Trevarthen in A. Locke (ed.), Action, Gesture and Symbol (London: Academic Press, 1980).Google Scholar
  19. 85.
    H. Werner and B. Kaplan, Symbol Formation (London: Academic Press, 1963).Google Scholar
  20. 89.
    E.g. H. R. Pollio, J. M. Barlow, H. J. Fine and M. R. Pollio, Psychology and the Poetics of Growth (Hillsdale New Jersey: Erlbaum Associates, 1977).Google Scholar
  21. 92.
    Quine, ‘Mind and verbal dispositions’, in S. Guttenplan (ed.), Mind and Language (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975).Google Scholar
  22. 100.
    D. Lewis ‘General semantics’. Synthese, 1971.Google Scholar
  23. 101.
    J. Hintikka, ‘Semantics for propositional attitudes’, in his Models for Modalities (New York: Humanities Press, 1969) pp. 87–111.Google Scholar
  24. 102.
    R. Montague, in R. H. Thomason (ed.), Formal Philosophy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974).Google Scholar
  25. 104.
    Rudolf Carnap, Meaning and Necessity (Chicago University Press, 1942).Google Scholar
  26. 108.
    H. Putnam, ‘Is semantics possible?’, in his collection Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2 (Cambridge University Press, 1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 109.
    F. M. Katz and J. J. Katz, ‘Is necessity the mother of intension?’, Philosophical Review, 1977.Google Scholar
  28. 116.
    J. A. Fodor, ‘Tom Swift and his procedural grandmother’, Cognition, 1978, 6, pp. 229–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 117.
    P. N. Johnson-Laird, ‘What’s wrong with grandma’s guide to procedural semantics: a reply to Jerry Fodor’, Cognition, 1978, 6, pp. 248–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 118.
    J. D. Fodor, J. A. Fodor and M. F. Garrett, ‘The psychological unreality of semantic representation’, Linguistic Inquiry 1975, 6, pp. 515–31. Sampson points this out.Google Scholar
  31. 120.
    See E. Rosch and C. B. Mervis, ‘Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories’, Cognitive Psychology, 1975, 7, pp. 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 121.
    D. N. Osherson and E. E. Smith On the adequacy of a prototype theory as a theory of concepts. Cognition, 1981, 9, 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 124.
    F. Sommers, ‘Types and ontology’, Philosophical Review, 1963, 72, pp. 327–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 126.
    See Paul Harris, ‘Infant cognition’, in M. M. Haith and J. J. Campos (eds), Handbook of Child Psychology vol. 1 (New York: Wiley, in press).Google Scholar
  35. 127.
    N. E. Kossan, ‘Developmental differences in concept acquisition strategies’, Child Development, 1981, 52, pp. 190–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 128.
    See, for example, D. W. Hamlyn, `Person perception and understanding others’, in T. Mischel (ed.) Understanding Other Persons (Oxford: Blackwell, 1974).Google Scholar
  37. 131.
    See Paul Harris, ‘Cognitive prerequisites to language’, British Journal of Psychology, 1982, 73, pp. 187–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 132.
    See Piaget, The Child’s Construction of Reality (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1955).Google Scholar
  39. 134.
    Gavin Bremner, ‘The infant’s understanding of space’, in M. V. Cox (ed.), Are Young Children Egocentric? (London: Batsford Academic, 1977).Google Scholar
  40. 137.
    S. Goldin-Meadow and H. Feldman, The development of language-like communication without a language model, ‘Science’, 1977, 197, pp. 401–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© James Russell 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • James Russell
    • 1
  1. 1.University of LiverpoolEngland

Personalised recommendations