Switch to: References

Citations of:

The Chomskyan Turn

Blackwell (1991)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Faculty disputes.John Collins - 2004 - Mind and Language 19 (5):503-33.
    Jerry Fodor, among others, has maintained that Chomsky's language faculty hypothesis is an epistemological proposal, i.e. the faculty comprises propositional structures known (cognized) by the speaker/hearer. Fodor contrasts this notion of a faculty with an architectural (directly causally efficacious) notion of a module. The paper offers an independent characterisation of the language faculty as an abstractly specified nonpropositional structure of the mind/brain that mediates between sound and meaning—a function in intension that maps to a pair of structures that determine soundmeaning (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   35 citations  
  • Object lessons: Spelke principles and psychological explanation.Sara Bernal - 2005 - Philosophical Psychology 18 (3):289-312.
    There is general agreement that from the first few months of life, our apprehension of physical objects accords, in some sense, with certain principles. In one philosopher's locution, we are 'perceptually sensitive' to physical principles describing the behavior of objects. But in what does this accordance or sensitivity consist? Are these principles explicitly represented or merely 'implemented'? And what sort of explanation do we accomplish in claiming that our object perception accords with these principles? My main goal here is to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Can Connectionists Explain Systematicity?Robert J. Matthews - 1997 - Mind and Language 12 (2):154-177.
    Classicists and connectionists alike claim to be able to explain systematicity. The proposed classicist explanation, I argue, is little more than a promissory note, one that classicists have no idea how to redeem. Smolensky's (1995) proposed connectionist explanation fares little better: it is not vulnerable to recent classicist objections, but it nonetheless fails, particularly if one requires, as some classicists do, that explanations of systematicity take the form of a‘functional analysis’. Nonetheless, there are, I argue, reasons for cautious optimism about (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Knowledge of language and linguistic competence.Robert J. Matthews - 2006 - Philosophical Issues 16 (1):200-220.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations