Does the Argument from the Systematicity of Thought to the Language of Thought Hypothesis Work?
Summary :
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- The theory put forward by Fodor and Pylyshyn
- The idea that thought is not just systematic
- The set of problems discussed by Robert Cummins
- Conclusion
- Bibliography
Abstract
One of the main arguments to support the language of thought hypothesis (LOTH), as proposed by Fodor (1975), is that of the systematicity of thought. This argument consists of the idea that the ability to entertain certain thoughts is linked to the ability to entertain certain other thoughts. This concept is quite hard to explain directly, so the easiest way to look at this theory is through the systematicity of language, as Fodor and Pylysyhn (1988) do. I believe that the analogy between systematicity of language and systematicity of thought is a valid one. However, through the work of R. Cummins (1996, 2001, in press), I hope to show that the argument for systematicity of thought does not show the concrete support for the LOTH that is usually prescribed to it. I believe that this will have the impact of eroding the LOTH, because if one of the main arguments for it is shown to be false, then the theory becomes open to criticism in this area.
Latest in the category : Linguistics
2
Linguistic diversity in Europe: Strength or weakness?
Case study | 05/17/2009 | en | .doc | 5 pages
Most downloaded in the last 30 days : Linguistics
From the same author : Linguistics
Change Currency
Our guarantee :
How it works?
Quality guaranteed
Refunds
Secure payment
Who are we ?
