Why we still need knowledge of language

Croatian Journal of Philosophy 6 (18):431-457 (2006)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
In his latest book, Michael Devitt rejects Chomsky’s mentalist conception of linguistics. The case against Chomsky is based on two principal claims. First, that we can separate the study of linguistic competence from the study of its outputs: only the latter belongs to linguistic inquiry. Second, Chomsky’s account of a speaker’s competence as consisiting in the mental representation of rules of a grammar for his language is mistaken. I shall argue, fi rst, that Devitt fails to make a case for separating the study of outputs from the study of competence, and second, that Devitt mis-characterises Chomsky’s account of competence, and so his objections miss their target. Chomsky’s own views come close to a denial that speaker’s have knowledge of their language. But a satisfactory account of what speakers are able to do will need to ascribe them linguistic knowledge that they use to speak and understand. I shall explore a conception of speaker’s knowledge of language that confi rms Chomsky’s mentalist view of linguistics but which is immune to Devitt’s criticisms.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
SMIWWS
Revision history
First archival date: 2015-11-21
Latest version: 4 (2015-11-21)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Language and Mind.Chomsky, Noam
Ignorance of Language.Devitt, Michael
Faculty Disputes.Collins, John

View all 6 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

View all 12 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index
2009-09-11

Total views
459 ( #7,674 of 45,424 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
38 ( #20,929 of 45,424 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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