A Pluralistic Theory of Wordhood

Mind and Language (forthcoming)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
What are words and how should we individuate them? There are two main answers on the philosophical market. For some, words are bundles of structural-functional features defining a unique performance profile. For others, words are non-eternal continuants individuated by their causal-historical ancestry. These conceptions offer competing views of the nature of words, and it seems natural to assume that at most one of them can capture the essence of wordhood. This paper makes a case for pluralism about wordhood: the view that there is a plurality of acceptable conceptions of the nature of words, none of which is uniquely entitled to inform us as to what wordhood consists in.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2020-04-22
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Naturalness.Dorr, Cian & Hawthorne, John
Words.Kaplan, David
Species.Kitcher, Philip

View all 27 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
40 ( #43,550 of 48,912 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
40 ( #17,297 of 48,912 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.