Oops! Looks like we're having trouble connecting to our server.
Refresh your browser window to try again.
About this product
Product Identifiers
PublisherOxford University Press, Incorporated
ISBN-100199250960
ISBN-139780199250967
eBay Product ID (ePID)51566314
Product Key Features
Number of Pages320 Pages
LanguageEnglish
Publication NameIgnorance of Language
Publication Year2006
SubjectMind & Body, Language
TypeTextbook
AuthorMichael Devitt
Subject AreaPhilosophy
FormatHardcover
Dimensions
Item Height0.9 in
Item Weight22.3 Oz
Item Length9.2 in
Item Width6.1 in
Additional Product Features
Intended AudienceScholarly & Professional
LCCN2006-298342
Dewey Edition22
ReviewsA wealth of careful distinctions and detailed arguments...an example of how serious philosophy of a very technical area may be conducted with thoroughness, lucidity, and elegance.
Dewey Decimal401.9
Table Of ContentI. Linguistics is not Psychology1. Introduction2. A grammar as a theory of linguistic realityII. Positions on Psychological Reality3. Some possible positions on psychological reality4. Some actual postions on psychological realityIII. 'Philosophical' Arguments for the Representational Thesis5. The Rejection of Behaviourism6. Folk Psychology7. IntuitionsIV. The Relation of Language to Thought8. Thought before language9. A case for the psychological reality of language10. Thought and the language facultyV. Language Use and Acquisition11. Language use12. Language acquisition
SynopsisThe Chomskian revolution in linguistics gave rise to a new orthodoxy about mind and language. Michael Devitt throws down a provocative challenge to that orthodoxy. What is linguistics about? What role should linguistic intuitions play in constructing grammars? What is innate about language? Is there a "language faculty?" These questions are crucial to our developing understanding of ourselves; Michael Devitt offers refreshingly original answers., The Chomskian revolution in linguistics gave rise to a new orthodoxy about mind and language. Michael Devitt throws down a provocative challenge to that orthodoxy. What is linguistics about? What role should linguistic intuitions play in constructing grammars? What is innate about language? Is there a 'language faculty'? These questions are crucial to our developing understanding of ourselves; Michael Devitt offers refreshingly original answers., The Chomskian revolution in linguistics gave rise to a new orthodoxy about mind and language. Michael Devitt throws down a provocative challenge to that orthodoxy. What is linguistics about? What role should linguistic intuitions play in constructing grammars? What is innate about language? Is there a 'language faculty'? These questions are crucial to our developing understanding of ourselves; Michael Devitt offers refreshingly original answers. He argues thatlinguistics is about linguistic reality and is not part of psychology; that linguistic rules are not represented in the mind; that speakers are largely ignorant of their language; that speakers' intuitionsdo not reflect information supplied by the language faculty and are not the main evidence for grammars; that the rules of 'Universal Grammar' are largely, if not entirely, innate structure rules of thought; indeed, that there is little or nothing to the language faculty. Devitt's controversial theses will prove highly stimulating to anyone working on language and the mind., The Chomskian revolution in linguistics gave rise to a new orthodoxy about mind and language. Michael Devitt throws down a provocative challenge to that orthodoxy. What is linguistics about? What role should linguistic intuitions play in constructing grammars? What is innate about language? Is there a 'language faculty'? These questions are crucial to our developing understanding of ourselves; Michael Devitt offers refreshingly original answers. He argues that linguistics is about linguistic reality and is not part of psychology; that linguistic rules are not represented in the mind; that speakers are largely ignorant of their language; that speakers' intuitions do not reflect information supplied by the language faculty and are not the main evidence for grammars; that the rules of 'Universal Grammar' are largely, if not entirely, innate structure rules of thought; indeed, that there is little or nothing to the language faculty. Devitt's controversial theses will prove highly stimulating to anyone working on language and the mind.