Devitt Linguistics What's Wrong With the Right View PDF

8/12/2019 Devitt Linguistics What's Wrong With the Right View PDF

1/36

Ridgeview Publishing ompany

Linguistics: What's Wrong with "The Right View"Author(s): Michael Devitt and Kim SterelnySource: Philosophical Perspectives, Vol. 3, Philosophy of Mind and Action Theory (1989), pp.497-531Published by: Ridgeview Publishing CompanyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2214279.

Accessed: 14/02/2014 20:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Ridgeview Publishing Companyis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Philosophical Perspectives.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 75.97.192.97 on Fri, 14 Feb 2014 20:41:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rpchttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2214279?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2214279?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rpc


2/36

Philosophicalerspectives,PhilosophyfMind nd Action heory, 989

LINGUISTICS:WHAT'SWRONGWITH THE RIGHTVIEWMichaelDevittUniversityfMarylandKimSterelnyAustralian ationalUniversity

1. IntroductionWhat s linguisticsbout?A simple nough uestion, oumightthink, utone thathas generatedurprisingontroversy,uchliterature,nd novery onvincingnswer.Thefocusf he ontroversyasbeenonthe ransformationalp-proach osyntacticheory,centralubdomainf inguistics.hatwillbe ourconcern.Jerryodor, ho hould nowbout uchmatters,ays hatthereare...reallynly wo chools f houghtnthis uestion 1981:197).

With areful eutralityenames hese theRight iew nd theWrongView .The RightView is the standard iew of NoamChomskyndhisfollowers,ncludingodor.Fodor ttributesheWrongView pp.198-9) oStephen tich1972) ndJerrold atz(1977).1TheWrong iew s a sort f nstrumentalism.hetask f inguistsis to constructgrammarhat implyapturestsdatabase, thelinguisticntuitionsf peakers;ntuitionsbout rammaticality,m-biguity,assives,ndso on.Providedhe inguistets hingsightatthe evel f hentuitiveudgments,ehasdone llthatsrequired.Thetheorys ust n nstrumentor redictingome uchudgmentsonthe asis f thers. ccordingotheWrong iew, hen,inguisticsis not bout nythingeyond heconcernsfthoseudgments;tis not bout nydeeperreality.

This content downloaded from 75.97.192.97 on Fri, 14 Feb 2014 20:41:27 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/36

498 /MichaelDevitt/ Kim SterelnyRelatedtoour openingquestion s another:What does linguisticsexplain?The WrongView holds that inguisticsxplainsnothing:linguisticheoryystematizesntuitiveudgments ut tdoes notex-plainthem.The WrongView is thus typical f instrumentalism.Classical instrumentalismwas motivated by a positivistepistemologynd semantics. he WrongView is not. ndeed, thasa perfectlyespectablemotivation.t arisesfrom roubleswith heRightView,togetherwith n inabilityo see anyother lternativeto thatview.We think hatthere s another lternative.f we areright,henthe motivation or heWrongView evaporates.So we

shallnot discussthatview any further.The RightView is popularand familiar.ts main claim is thatlinguisticsescribes grammar hathas been internalizedy eachspeaker; the grammar s, as theysay,psychologically eal. Thespeaker's inguisticompetence onsistsnthe nternalizationfthisgrammarJ.A. Fodor 1981: 199).2 o, according otheRightView,linguisticss about inguistic ompetence. Linguisticsssimply hatpart fpsychologyhat s concernedwith ne specific lass of teadystates, hecognitive tructureshat re employed nspeaking ndunderstanding Chomsky1975b: 160).3Whatdoes linguisticsxplain?According o theRightView, t s,liketherest fpsychology,art ftheexplanationfbehaviour.Mostobviously, grammarxplains inguisticehaviour, ut t s alsorele-vantto the explanationof non-linguisticehaviour.To follow o-meone's instructions,or xample,one mustfirstnderstand hem;that understandingtilizes he internalized rammar.

Chomskynsists n a distinctionetweencompetence ndperfor-mance. The theoryof performance s concerned with all thepsychological actorshatbear on theproductionnd understandingof inguisticymbols. o it sconcernednotonlywith he ompetencethat s,according oChomsky,hesubjectmatter f inguistics,utalsowith uchfactorss memory,ttentionnd interest. hetheoryofcompetence s the core of thetheory fperformance.How can we tell what inguisticss about? Thoughwe must akenote ofwhat inguistsay it is about,we cannotrestcontentwiththat.Doing inguisticss one thing, eflectingn it, nother. inguistsmayhave incorrectlybstracted hegoal oftheir ctivity.We havetoexaminetheir ctivity or urselves.The bestreasonthatwe canexpectto find or hinkinghat inguisticss aboutx rather hanyis thatthe considerationsnd evidence thathave guidedthecon-



4/36

What'sWrongWith The Right View / 499structionf inguisticheoryustifyurthinkinghat hetheorystruebout but oty. owe shallook o ee which iew f inguisticsmakes inguisticheory eemtrue.Oversimplifying,urconclusionsre as follows. he Right iewis wrong; inguisticss not partofpsychology.he right iew sanother nealtogether,hichwe will all Grandma'siew .Ouractual onclusionsremuchmore omplicatedecauseof an im-portantonflation.ewill rgue hat he ransformationalinguistsconflatewodistinctheoreticalasks: ne concerned ithinguisticsymbolsndtheotherwith inguisticompetence.42. Two Versionsofthe RightViewTheRight iewholdshat grammarsan account fpsychologicalreality.utwhat s it for grammaro be internalizednthewaythis equires?here retwoanswers othis uestion.Agrammars a setofrules eneratingll andonly he entencesofa language. hesetfor nynaturalanguagesstillargely n-discovered. et us suppose, ptimistically,hattransformationallinguistsavediscoveredomemembersf he etfor nglish. allthis ragmentf grammar,G .Threewayswemightescribecompetentnglishpeaker's elationoG areas follows:

1. She behaves s if he is governedy G2. She is governedyG3. She knows hatG is part fthegrammaror nglishndapplies t.51 isnot nough or heRight iewbecause1can be true s theresult f the peakerhavingnternalizedomethingther hanGwhich ields he ame behavioralutputs G.TheRight iewre-quires ither or3. Which? he most ommonxpressionsftheViewsuggest : thecompetencehat inguisticsescribess thespeaker'sacit nowledgehat herules f hegrammarre as theyare;she hasknowledge-that,rpropositionalnowledge,fG.We

need namefor his ersionf heRight iew.We shall all t theCrazy ersion .heRight iew s sometimesresentednways hatseem orequirenly :theresno mplicationhat he peaker nowsabout, rhasanyother ropositionalttitudeoward, . Theonlyknowledgemight equiresknowledge-how,cognitivekill.Weshall all this theSensibleVersion ftheRight iew.



5/36

500 / Michael evitt Kim terelnyThedifferencesetween ,2 and 3 can bebroughtutby a sim-ple nalogy.upposehat sa rule or ddition.o R sa mechanicalprocedureuaranteeingherightnswer oproblemsfaddition;it is an algorithm.onsider, ow, pocket alculator.We mightdescribet nanyofthe followingays:

1*. It behaves s if t s governedyR2*. It s governedy R3*. Itknows hatR is an algorithmor dditionndapplies t.Clearly,*might etruewithout*or3* beingo. There re manyways oadd and thecalculatormaybe governed ya ruleotherthanR; for xample,R might e in thedecimal otationnd thegoverningule n he inary otation.ext,* mightetruewithout3* being o.Anobject an be builto thatt s governedyR,andthushave nternalized,and yetnot xplicitlyepresent. And fitdoesnotrepresent it cannothaveany propositionalttitudetoward . Hencet annotnow boutR. n he aseof he alculator,wecan be certainhat tdoesnotknow boutR,becausethasbeenbuiltnsuch waythat t couldnotknow bout nything.63. The CrazyVersionofthe RightViewDo transformationalinguistselieve heCrazy ersion?heques-tionhasbeen aired t great engthndyet, mazingly,o clearanswer as emerged. heydo not ypicallyssert nythingike3,yetkey igureselievehat he peaker'selationoG s ppropriatelycalledknowledgeorsomethinglose).Chomsky'savourite ayofdescribinghisknowledges nothelpful:esays hat he peakeracitlynows he ules rprinciplesof her anguage. nfortunately,he mportf knows herules rprincipless not rystallear.We are inclinedothinktrequiresknowledge-thatut heres room or oubtbout his: erhapsmereknowledge-hows sufficient.he nclusionf tacitly' ay eemtosettlehe uestion,orweordinarilyake person'sacit nowledgetobepropositionshathehas not ntertainedutwhich ewouldacknowledgemmediatelyn uitableircumstances.hus, on acitlyknowshat abbitson'tay ggs; he houghtasnever rossed ismind, uthewoulddeny hat heyaideggs f hequestionwereever to arise.However, homskynows etterhan nyone hat



6/36

What'sWrongWith TheRightView 501the rdinarypeakerwouldnot cknowledgehe ules fG.So thiscan'tbewhathe means y tacitly'.urther,noccasions homskyexplicitlyenies hat hespeaker's nowledges knowledge-that(1969a:86-7;1969b:153-4).Themysteryeepensbecause thetransformationalistso oftenwrites if he peaker idhave propositionalnowledgefGandits consequences. hus Chomsky escribes he knowledges asystemf beliefs 1969a:60-1; ee also 1980:225);as a mentalrepresentationf grammar1975a:304).Learning languagesseen as learning theory:

Itseemsplain hat anguage cquisitions based on thechild's iscoveryfwhatfrom formaloint fview sadeep andabstractheory-agenerativerammarf hislanguage.Chomsky965:58)Fodordescribeshomsky'siew s propositional1983:4-10); t sthe iew hatyouringuisticapacities...are...explainedyreferencetothe ontentfyour eliefs p.7).Finally,f heknowledgesnotpropositional,tmust urely eknowledge-how.nd, fweassumedescription, t splausibleothinkhatt s particularlyomplicatedpiece of knowledge-how.owever,Chomsky enies that t isknowledge-how1969a:87) or,at least, hat tis knowledge-howwithoutn intellectualomponent1975a:314-8).Here ndelsewhere1975b: 62-4) homskyeems ent n under-mininghedistinctionetween nowledge-thatndknowledge-how,between nowledgeffactsndcognitivekills. et, sJohn nder-son says,thisdistinctionis fundamentalo modern ognitivepsychology1980:223).Thus, ong-termemorys taken o con-sistnthepropositionalperhapslso magisticepresentationf n-formation94-123). his is knowledge-that.n the otherhand,cognitivekillsikemazerunning,dditionndchess laying,hichmaymake seofrepresentationsf nformation,renot een scon-sistingn uchrepresentations,ut athern,for xample,produc-tion ystems 222-92). heseskills reknowledge-how.We are eft ncertainfthenaturefthe laim hat he peakerhastacitknowledgefG.7We setaside theexegeticalssuefor he substantivene. Is itreasonableo upposehat he rdinarypeaker nowshat spartof hegrammaror nglishnd pplies his nowledgenproducingandunderstandingtterances? ethink ot.We think hat ,and



7/36

502/Michael evitt KimSterelnyhence heCrazyVersion,regrosslymplausible.First,o onehasproducedsingle oodreason or heCrazyVer-sion; heconsiderationsdduced or heRight iew reonly nesfor he ensible ersion;heyrefor not3.8 ntheface f wentyyears f pparentlyverwhelmingbjectionso theCrazyVersiontransformationalistsavehardlyonceded point.When hey orespondothe riticisms,hey osowithbscurities.utmostlyheycontinuen as if t ssheer edantryo nsistnthedistinctione-tween hetwoversions.9Second,Gilbert arman1967)hasraised hefollowingroblemfor heCrazyVersion. ccordingo thatVersion,nderstandinglanguage equires epresentingtsgrammar.hatrepresentationmusttselfe n language.Whats t ounderstandhatmore asiclanguage?fwesupposehemore asic anguagesthe ame s theoriginalanguagehenwearecaughtna vicious ircle.fwesup-posethatt s someotheranguage Mentalese erhaps),hentsgrammarlsohastoberepresented.his equires stillmore asiclanguage. nd o on. Theonlywayto avoid vicious ircle raninfiniteegresssto allow hat tleastonelanguages understooddirectly,ithoutepresentingtsgrammar. hy ot hen llow hisofthe originalanguage,he onespoken?Some inguists,articularlyodor1975; eealsoChomsky969a:87-8; 969b: 55-6), ave n answerothis uestion.hey hinkhatthere regood easonsor upposinghatnordero earna languageyouhave to understandnother ne already.However,we canunderstandhatone directly, ithoutepresentingtsgrammar,because t s not earned;t s nnate. o,the nswer oHarman e-quires strongnnatenesshesis.Third,tich1971, 978) ringsut he mplausibilityf heCrazyVersion icely ycontrastinghe peaker's elationo Gwith n-problematicasesofpropositionalnowledge.f person nowshatp,weexpecthim obe awareofp,or at east o beable to becomeawareof twhengiven suitable rompt;ndwe expecthim ounderstandxpressionsf .Theordinarypeakeruite learlyacksthis warenessndunderstandingormost fG.If person nowsthat ,hisknowledgehouldoin pwith ther nowledgendbeliefsto generatemore eliefs.f speaker asknowledgefG t sclear-lynot nferentiallyntegratednthisway.Considern example.Withoutuition,speakersunlikelyohave he onceptualecoursesto understandventherelativelyimple laim hatNP-> Det +Adj+ N' s a rule fEnglish.f hetacitlynows hat hiss a rule,



8/36

What'sWrongWith TheRightView 503herknowledges argelynferentiallysolated rom er ther eliefs.Fourth,tich's oint sstrengthenedy n mportantspect f hetransformationalists'iews.At tsmost xplicit nd extreme,hisaspect eesthe reaof hemind hat mploys , he entence-parsingarea, s modular. odor sthemain xponent fmodularity1983),butChomskylsospeaksfavourablyf the dea 1980:40-7).Inthefunctionalrganizationf hemind,modularystemsiebe-tween ransducersndthecentral rocessor. ransducersre thefamiliarenseorganswhich onvertncomingtimulintoneuralcode. The central rocessors the iteofhighermental unctions;what oeson theres whatwewould rdinarilyhink f sthinking.Modularystemsnalyze heraw data received rom ransducersand pass on someofthe results o the central rocessor. hesesystemsre domain pecific ,pecializingn a particularort fstimulus; orexample, entences r faces.Theyare innatelyspecified nd hardwired ,associated ithpecific,ocalized,ndelaboratelytructuredeuralystems J.A. odor 983: 6-7). heyare mandatory :heres nodecisionooperate; heyrecognitivereflexespp. 52-3). inally,nd most mportantlyor tich's oint,they re autonomous pp. 36-7).On theonehand, there sonlylimitedentral ccessto themental epresentationshatmodularsystemsomputep. 57).On theotherhand, he ystems avenoaccess o nformationeld lsewhere;heyre informationallyn-capsulated p. 64).Hence he nferentialegregationhat tich ointsto.The mere nternalizationf G in a module annot nvolve hespeakernanypropositionalttitudesowards ,for hemodule sinaccessibleothe entralrocessor hich s the ite fher roposi-tional ttitudes.f hemodularityhesissright,he peaker o moreknows nvirtue fbeingbletotalk han heknows heprinciplesofdepth erceptionnvirtue fbeingbleto ee. f he hesissright,theonly hinghat ould know G is the entence-parsingoduleitself.Themodularityhesisshighlypeculativendcontroversial.uteven if t is false, tich's oint s still upported.fChomskysanywhereearrightbout he entence-parser,t hasmany f hepropertiesf modularystem. e thinksf t s a relativelyncap-sulated mentalorgan inaccessible o our general cognitivecapacities. s n relativelyutonomousystem.hecontrastet-ween a speaker'spropositionalttitudesnd her relation o Gremains.



9/36

504 / Michael evitt KimSterelnyWe conclude hat escription, and hence heCrazyVersion ftheRight iew, re highlymplausible,erhapsven razy. t s timeto consider heSensibleVersion.

4. The SensibleVersion of the RightView: CriticismsThe Sensible ersionf heRight iewdoes notrequire hat hespeaker epresents,a fragmentfthegrammaror nglish hatlinguistsreontheir ay o discovering;he needhaveno proposi-

tional ttitudeoG. Itaccepts hatknowledgefa language s acognitive kill,and hence may be mere knowledge-howotknowledge-that.heSensible ersion oes notrequire escription3, but tdoesrequire . If inguisticheorys to be true,G must epsychologicallyeal nthattgovernshebehaviorf ach speakerand is descriptivefher ompetence.We doubt ven this.10The nternalizationfGrequireshe nternalizationf ll the evelsofanalysis ypothesizedy G: deep structure,ntermediatetruc-tures, urfacetructure,nd therules.11his s whatwedoubtndwhatweshall e discussingnthis ection ndthenext.Wedo notdoubt hat ome spects fG arepsychologicallyeal, nparticularthose spects hat o nto eterminingeaning.henaturendpointofthis ualificationillbecome learernsections to 8.Why houldwe suppose hatwe are entitledoclaim nythingstrongerhandescription?Afterll, grammarsre likeotheralgorithms.f heres one setofrules hat eneratessetofEnglishsentencesnd ssignshemppropriate eaning-relevanttructures,therewill be many; herewillbe a mathematicalxplosion falgorithms.upposeG' is oneofthose lternativeragmentsfagrammar. ivenhatG' has he ame utputsG,why upposehatit sGratherhanG' that spsychologicallyeal? heevidencendconsiderationshat aveguidedransformationalrammariansro-vide nsufficienteasonfor hinkinghat t s G.(1)Theearly vidence orGwas almostntirelybout inguisticsymbols:boutwhichtringsfwords regrammatical;bout heambiguityf ertainentences;bout he tatementormsndques-tion orms;bout he ynonymyf entenceshat resuperficiallydifferent;bout he ifferenceetweenentenceshat re uperficial-lysimilar;nd so on. This vidence slinguistic,otpsychological,andso doesnot eem tobe thesort o throwmmediateight n



10/36

What'sWrongWith TheRightView / 505what s n thehead; ontheprecisenature f speaker's ompetence,themental tatethatplaysthe keyrole in herunderstandingndproduction f entences.There s nobasis n this videncefor hink-ing that the speaker has internalizedG rather hanthe meaning-equivalent G'.Atthis oint, protests ikely romldhands: Whatyouare refer-ring to as linguisticvidence is reallythe evidence of thenativespeaker's intuitions. hese intuitions eflecther underlying om-petence and are psychological. he rolethat heyplay as evidenceshowsthat hegrammars indeedaboutcompetence. The protestraisesdifficultssueswhichwe willtake up later section9).We canset t side nowbecause tdoes not ffect urclaim hat his vidence,even iftheexpression fintuitions, ives no reasonforpreferringG to G'.(2) Transformationalistseek grammars hatnot onlymeet thelinguisticvidence but are also simpleand elegant.'2 So we canassume thatG issimpler nd moreelegantthanG'. Butwhy sthata reason for hinkinghatG is psychologically eal?Suppose thatRisthe implest nd most legant lgorithmor ddition.Onthatbasisalone we are not ustifiednascribingR toany calculator.Perhapsthecalculator sa childwhoaddsbycountingmarbles.What sneed-ed before scribingRorG toan object sevidence about tsdesign,about how tachieves ts ffect fproducing dditions rsentences.In thecase ofG,what is needed is psycholinguisticvidence.These remarks gainstthe bearingof the transformationalists'criteria fsimplicitynd elegance on psychological eality an bestrengthened.irst, he fact hatG ismoresimple nd elegantthanitsrivals srathermoreevidence gainst, han videncefor,Gbeingpart of thegrammar ur brain s builtto use. If nnateness laimsareright,urbrains respecificallydapted o a certain lass ofgram-mars.StephenJayGould 1980: 19-31)has used exampleslike thepanda's thumb o show that daptations retypicallyotmaximallyefficientngineeringolutions o theproblemshey olve.For, dap-tations reofpre-existingtructuresnd this onstrains he olutionspossible. econd,as David Lewishaspointed uttous,thefact hatG is maximally fficientnd elegantfrom hegrammarians' ointof viewdoes not entitle s tosupposeit s optimalfrom he brain'spointofview.13(3) A dominant oncern oftransformationalrammarhas beenlanguage acquisition, which should provide psycholinguist



11/36

506 /Michael Devitt / Kim Sterelnyevidence.14However,until ecently, ttention o language acquisi-tion has been more honorific han substantive:

Many generativistsssert that they aim to account forhowchildrenmaster heirnative anguages,butthe vast majorityoftheir nalyses do not contribute o that aim. (Hornsteinand Lightfoot 981b: 7)Nevertheless, acts bout anguageacquisitionhavemore nd morebeenplaying role n theconstructionf ransformationalrammars.We must ee their earing n theclaim hatGispsychologicallyeal.A language like English s a very complex system f rules. Yet,according oChomsky nd his followers, hildrenearn this ystemquicklyon thebasis ofmeagreand misleading ata. In particular,transformationalistsmphasizetheunavailabilityfnegativedata(that ertain yntactic onstructionso not occur), nd the absenceofsystematicnstructionboutambiguity.15hereare certain ortsof rrorshat hildreno notmakedespite everhaving een warnedagainst hem.Theyend up making orrectudgmentsboutambigu-itydespitethepatchy nd unsystematicvidenceaboutambiguityin theirdata. Giventhelack of evidence available to thechild, hetransformationalistslaimthat t s highlymplausible hat anguagelearning ses only hedevicesofempiricistearning heories. ather,they laim, earningnvolves n innate anguage-acquisitionevice.This deviceconstrainshegrammarwe can acquire.The system fconstraintss called universalgrammar .Recent versionsof transformationalrammarhave presentedvery richpicture f universalgrammar:t s a setofprinciples hatare incomplete chematizationsfphrase-structurendtransforma-tional rules. They are completed, n learning,by fixing ertainparameters ; or xample, fixing he ordering urface tructurefbasic constituents.hepopular governmentndbinding iew ex-emplifieshis pproach.16o transformationalistslaimthat he on-ly grammars hat can be learnt are completions f the specifiedschematizations.

Howmight heseconsiderationsupportG over G' as an accountofpsychological eality?G might it etter hanG' into theory flanguage cquisition:hedecompositionfG into earnedparametersand innately ixedprinciplesmightyielda moreplausible ccountof anguage acquisition hanthedecomposition fG'. For learnedparameters o be plausible, theyshould be simple,and robustly



12/36

What'sWrongWithTheRightView 507manifestednthe hild'singuisticxperience.or nnate rinciplestobe plausibleheymust,t east, e onesthat eem oplay rolein the acquisitionf otheranguages.We would lsowant oseeevidence or heprinciplesromhedevelopmentf anguagen achild nd fromanguage rocessing.Wethink hat rgumentslong hese ines ohelp orestricthegrammarshat recandidatesor sychologicaleality.nparticular,wethinkhat he ransformationalistsreon strongroundntheirclaims boutthedata availableto children.17evertheless,edoubt hat hese rgumentsomecloseto establishinghatG ispsychologicallyeal.First,he videnceorhe nnaterinciplessnot trong.ince heseprinciples ust lay role n the cquisitionfall languages, elookto otheranguages or vidence fthem. he troubles thatvery ew anguages avebeen tudiedn ufficientepthoprovideevidence.Worse, here n-depthtudieseem oagree n an nnateprinciple,here sa high isk hat his greements mposed ythemethod f tudyatherhan iscoverednnature. monghemanyalternativesoG equallyompatibleithhe inguisticvidence,owmany re tested or heir bilityo account or heacquisitionfEnglish?Veryfew: most are ruled out as candidates y thepsychologicallyrrelevantonsiderationf implicity;ee 2)above.And he amegoesfor ll the theranguageshat avebeen tudiedindepth.f he anguage-acquisitionest or ach anguagewasap-plied oa muchwider ange fgrammars,ll with he ameprimafacie laim obeing sychologicallyeal, erhaps e would et gree-ment ndifferentnnate rinciples. ore ikely, e wouldgetnoagreementt all.Insum, otheextenthat he anguage-acquisitionestdependsonanappeal o ndependentlyotivatednnaterinciples,t ssumesthat ertain rammarsor theranguagesrepsychologicallyeal.But heir sychologicalealitysas muchnquestions that fG.Whatwe need sa principledeason or ulingutthemembersfthemathematicalxplosion fgrammarsor ach language. hetheoryf anguagecquisitionoesnot upplyhis eason. he heorystartsrom-indeed,robably usttartrom-fairlyetailedssump-tions bout henature fthepsychologicaltates hat re the ndproductf anguagecquisition.'8nd henature f hose tatesreprecisely hat s inquestion.



13/36

508/Michael evitt KimSterelnyInterestingecent ork n anguage evelopmentndprocessingprovidesomeevidence or he nnate rinciples,ut annot losethe boveevidentialap.Facts f anguage evelopmentavebeenshown obe consistentith heprinciples.'9heworrys that hefactswouldbe consistentithmany ther rinciples ith quallygoodclaims o being onsidered.he evidence rom rocessingsnot xtensivend scontroversial.tdependsnsubstantialssump-tions bout heformsfrules ndthenature ftheprocessor.20We have laimedhat ssumptionsboutnnate rinciplesonotdealwith hemathematicalxplosionf lternativerammarsn aprincipleday.Suppose hatweweretosetthat side, akingheapparentgreementetweenanguages obe discovered ot m-posed.Our econd oubtbout he rgumentsromanguagecquisi-tionsthatwemay till ave mathematicalxplosionodealwith.Iftheres onesetofrules hat anbe plausiblyecomposedntolearned arametersnd greednnate rinciples,hen heremay emany.Considerationsf anguageearningertainlyestricthe ange f

candidatesobepart f hepsychologicallyealgrammar,ut heydonot stablishhatGispart f t.Whats needed o establishhisismuchmoredirect sycholinguisticvidence.(4) fGispsychologicallyeal hentplays role nperformance,in theproductionnd understandingf entences.Wecanlooktopsycholinguisticsor vidence hatGandnotG' does ndeed laythis ole. nprinciple,uch videnceould ettlehematter:videnceaboutreactionimes,21hetypes f errorswe make, herelativeease ofunderstandingentences,heordern whichentencesrelearned,nd oon.Thus,upposehat ccordingoGthe ctive e.g.'Maxbit am') s the asicformndthepassivee.g. SamwasbittenbyMax')thederived orm,ut hat ccordingoG' thereversesthe ase.Now uppose hatwe discoveredhat ctives re earnedbefore assives;hat hey re easier o understandndremember;that ewerrrorsremadewith hem. videncef his indwouldfavour overG' as an account fpsychologicaleality.

Inpractice,owever,sycholinguisticvidencef his ort asnotsupportedheview hatGratherhatG' hasbeen nternalizedythe peaker.We need oshow hat hedeep tructure,ntermediatestructures,urfacetructure,ndtherules fG,have ll been nter-nalized.t sgenerallygreedhatheres ittlevidencef his. hereareproblemsvenfindinghe ransformationalist'sevels ndrules



14/36

What'sWrongWith TheRight View /509at all, let alone theparticular etails pecified yG.22Even RobertBerwick and Amy Weinberg, who defend the psychologicalsignificancef transformationalrammar, mphasizethegreatdif-ficultyngetting erformanceata to bear on thepsychological eal-ity fgrammars1984: 35-45).The most hat heyhopetodo is showthefunctionallausibilityfthegeneralprinciplesfcurrent ransfor-mationalgrammar.Wecan sumupthediscussionn this ection s follows. o establishthatG is psychologically eal, hard psychological vidence is need-ed. Yet,as David Lightfoot ointsout, theoverwhelmingmass ofcrucialevidencebearingon thecorrectness fgrammar has beenlinguistic1982: 28).23 his inguisticatacannotdistinguishetweenmany grammarsgenerating he same sentenceswith the samemeaning-relevanttructures.5. The Sensible Version of the Right View: Responses

Whatresponseshave been made tocriticismsikeours?We shallstartwith one fromDavid Marr.Marr1982)has used his well-knownistinctionetween evelstodefendChomsky.Marrdistinguisheshree evels ofunderstandingan information-processingevice.Thefirsts thecomputationalevel:it pecifieswhat scomputed nd why.The second sthe lgorithmiclevel: t pecifies ow thecomputations done.The thirds the evelof mplementation:tspecifies heway thecomputations realizedphysically pp. 22-5).Marr laimsthatthedistinctionetweenthecomputational nd the algorithmicevels is roughly Chomsky's]distinction etweencompetence nd performance . e thinks hatcritics fChomskyhaveoverlooked hedistinctionetween evels,and havecriticized hegrammars if twereat thealgorithmicevelwhen t s actually t thecomputationalevel p. 28).24 he problemwith hisdefense s that verythingaid at the computational eveldoes stillhave to be trueof thedevice.So all aspectsof thegram-mar do haveto be psychologically eal; the speakerreallymust er-form hat omputationalask nall itsdetail.That spreciselywhatis in doubt. t is true,ofcourse, thattheremay be many differentwaysofcarrying ut thattaskat the algorithmicevel,differenceswhichare not the concern of the grammar.But that s beside thepointofour criticisms.



15/36

510/Michael evitt KimSterelnyNevertheless,e thinkhatMarr's istinctionelps o bring utwhatsrightndwrongbout heRight iew.Briefly,e thinkhattransformationalrammar onflatesMarr'scomputationalndalgorithmicevels.Weshalldiscuss his nsection .Chomskyndhisfollowersave standardesponseocriticismslike urs.25heypoint ut hat heirlaim boutgrammaticalulesisa typicalcientificypothesisasedon nferenceothebest x-planation. n ccountsneeded fhowweproducendunderstandEnglishentences.hebest xplanationf hiss thatwe havebuiltinto s the eryamerules hat varietyf videnceuggestsefineEnglishentencehood.o weareentitledo nferhatwedo havethose ules uiltn.Thegrammariansoontodraw ttentionotwoaspects fthisnferencehichtshareswithny nferenceothebestexplanation.(i) t s rrelevanto rgue hat he onclusionf he nference aybewrong. f ourse he vidence oesnot rove hehypothesison-clusively:t sunderdeterminedy he videnceike ny thercien-tific ypothesis.erhapsther ypothesesould rovide etterx-

planations.ut gain hat s true f nyhypothesisnd s thereforebeside hepoint. ntilther ypothesesreproduced e areentitl-ed to accept his ne.(ii)Whenweaccept theoreticalypothesise shouldnterpretitrealistically:tpurportso describen area ofrealitynderlyingourobservations.healternativeiew s nstrumentalism:heviewthat n hypothesisssimplyn instrumentor redictingbserva-tionsnthe asis fpast bservations;tdoesnot escribenunderly-ing eality.nstrumentalisms a general octrines discreditednditwould eunjustifiediscriminationoapplyt o inguisticsnpar-ticular.In um, hegrammariansoncludehatheyreentitledobelievethat heir rammaticalules eally o describeherealitynderly-ing inguisticehaviour.hat ealityspsychological,he peaker'scompetence.Chomskyffers nice analogy 1980: 189-92). upposethatphysicistsre unable oget nydirectvidencebout he nside fthe un.Thebest heyando sconstructtheoryf he nside hat,if t weretrue,would xplain heobserved ehaviourfthe un.Any uch heorymaybe wrong fcourse, ut hey reentitledobelieve hebestonethey ancomeupwith.Weagreewith hese eneral bservations.t spointlessoobject



16/36

What'sWrongWith TheRightView 511that he onclusionf n nferenceothebest xplanation ightewrong. nd, ertainlyhe onclusionhoulde construedealistically.(Sydneyealismsthemost irulentnowntrain.) owever, e donot hinkhathose eneral iews ield he esired esultn his ar-ticularase:they re nsufficiento ustifyand hence he ensibleVersion.The keyquestion s whetherhe nferenceo the psychologicalreality fG s an appropriatene. Nobody nows ow ocodifyn-ferenceso thebest xplanation,ut wo onditionsnappropriateonesareobvious nough. he proposedxplanation ust e bothgoodand better han tsrivals. t s nocanonof cience o accepta badexplanationecauseothers reworse, or o draw xplana-tions utof a hatwhenwe havea range f good ones.Is G-saya TraceTheoreticersion f ransformationalrammar-on thewaytoa goodexplanationfcompetence?urelywe mustbeagnosticere. olittles known f he omputationalechanismsofthe mind hatwe have no idea whether is evena candidatefor sychologicalxplanation.sGbetter hanG'? Again, uspen-sionof udgmentsappropriate. hat s thereason or referringG to themany ossible lternatives?Theseremarksan be strengthened.homskysksusto maginethat hysicistsave constructedtheoryorrectlyredictinghesun's ehaviour.f herewasgeneral greementhat hiswasa goodtheoryndthebest vailable, hents entativendorsementouldbeappropriate.ut ransformationalrammars notyetn nythinglike hat osition.ur arlieruppositionboutG s ndeed ptimistic:there ever asbeen stable onsensusbout ven he oughetailsoftheformnd structuref grammar. ecertainlyouldn'tt-tributeolar ealityo theoryhatwas upportedargelyy ndirectevidence, asrejected ymany xperts,ndwhich ast xperiencesuggested ouldbe abandonedwithin iveyears.In um,nferenceothe est xplanationoesnotwarranthe on-clusionhatGispsychologicallyeal.We arenotustifiednaccep-ting escription.Where oesourdiscussioneavethe ensible ersionf heRightView?Accordingo that ersion,inguisticss about ompetence-an nternalizedrammar-andspart f he xplanationfbehaviour.If hatwere he ase,then he ackofustificationor wouldeavelinguisticheorytselfnjustified.his s a goodreason or hinkingthat heSensible ersion s notright.26e thinkhat t s indeed



17/36

512 / Michael evitt KimSterelnynotright. ut t s notentirely rong ither. final erdictmustwaiton our discussionf thetheory f symbols,nd transforma-tionalists'onflationf hat heory ith he heory fcompetence.6. The Conflation f SymbolwithCompetence

Supposewewere o ask Grandma hat inguisticss about. hewouldbe likely osay: language .fwe pressed, e wouldhearaboutwords nd the way they it ogethernto entences;boutnouns ndverbs,ctivesndpassives,mbiguity,nd o on. nbrief,Grandmaees inguisticssbeing bout hepropertiesndrelationsof inguisticymbols.Wedoubthatwewouldhear word rom erabout ompetence;ot glimmerf heRight iew.This sa littleembarrassingor odor, ecausehe ikes othinkhatGrandma,nherroughndreadyway, srather ise.Weagree ndonlywishthatheandChomskyookmorenotice f her.The problemsnotthatChomskynd his followersenywhatGrandmaays.Rather,heyonflatehe deathatinguisticss aboutsymbols ith he deathatt sabout ompetence.urther,hey ivepriorityo the atter.Inthe pening ages f yntactictructures,heworkhat egantransformationalrammar,homskyescribesinguisticss follows:

The fundamentalim nthe inguisticnalysis fa languageL is to separate hegrammaticalequenceswhich resentencesf L fromheungrammaticalequenceswhich renot entencesf L andtostudyhe tructuref thegrammaticalequences. 1957: 13)

The stated oncern ere s withinguisticymbols. uch iscussionintransformationalrammarives hempressionhat his s ndeedthe oncern.hediscussionsabout uchmatterssambiguity,ordorder,ndsynonymy.Nevertheless,s we have een, hefavouredayofdescribinghelinguisticask s quitedifferent.hus, n another lassicalwork,Aspectsf heTheoryf yntax,lmostnthe amebreaths someremarksike hose uoted bove,Chomskyays:Theproblemor he inguist...isodetermine...thenderlyingsystemfrules hathasbeenmasteredythespeaker-hearer...Hence,n a technicalense, inguisticheorys



18/36

What'sWrongWithTheRightView 513mentalistic,ince t s concerned ith iscovering mentalrealitynderlyingctualbehavior.1965:4)

Heretheconcernsnotwith ymbols, human roduct, utwithcompetence,characteristicfthehumanmind. his stheRightView.27Signs f he onflationreto be foundnourrecent iscussionfthe ensible ersion.We sawthen hat ransformationalistsse twodifferentorts fevidencenconstructinggrammar.hesebeardirectlyn two uite ifferentheories.he inguisticvidence earsdirectlynthe heoryf ymbolsndthepsycholinguisticvidencebearsdirectlyn thetheoryfcompetence.Thepropertiesf ymbolshat oncern grammarre syntacticproperties.ull emantic roperties-theropertieshat eterminemeaning-includeeference.eferencenvolves ord-worldonnec-tions n which/ rammarastsno ight.imilarly,he ompetencethat oncernsgrammars yntacticompetence.ull emanticom-petence equiresettingeferenceight.eferences not ullyeter-mined y nythingnthehead. o,the onflationhatwe havebeendescribings that fthetheoryfthe yntax fsymbols ith hetheoryfsyntacticompetence.28These heoriesrevery ifferent.inguisticompetences a men-talstate f personhat xplains er inguisticehaviour;tplaysa keyrole n theproductionfthat ehaviour.inguisticymbolsare the result f thatbehaviour; hey re theproducts f thatbehaviour.hey re datable laceable arts f hephysical orld:soundsnthe ir,marks n thepage, nd so on.They re notmen-tal entitiest all. A theoryf part ftheproductionf inguisticsymbolss not theoryf heproducts,he ymbolshemselves.fcourse, iven he ausalrelation etweenompetencendsymbol,wecan expect theoryf he ne to bearona theoryf heother.Weconsiderhat elationn ection.But he elationoesnotmakethetwotheoriesdentical.Thetheoryf ymbolssconcerned ith hepropertiesf ym-bols hatmake hem oodfor ertainurposes. hat s t bout hemthat eadspeople oproducendrespondothem s they o? Thesimplenswersthatymbolsavemeaning.ut henwhat s mean-ing?t hasbeendiscoveredhatyntacticropertiesrepart f heanswer.Analogously,emighte nterestednwhatmakes certain ove-



19/36

514 / Michael evitt KimSterelnyment fa ball a goodtennis hot.Theanswerwouldbe in termsof uchpropertiess speed,directionndheight. rwe might einterestednwhatmakes certain hessmovegood.The answerwould be in terms f themyriad ossiblegame continuations;perhaps,n each of hese hemovegiveswhite n advantagendno othermoveguaranteeshis. nall of hese asesweareconcern-ed with bjects r eventsn thephysical orld outsidehehead .However,n each casewe might aveanother oncernwhich sverymuchwith omethinginside hehead or, t east, inside hebody ).Whatsthe xplanationf he ehaviour-certainovementsofhand nd arm, erhaps-producingood entences,ennis hotsor chessmoves? o answer his, eneed psychologicalperhaps,physiological)heory,theoryf ompetence;e need theoryhatexplains, or xample, owwhite new hat hatparticularhessmovewasgood.Such theorys differentrom theoryf heob-jects roducedy hebehaviouralutputf competence:ifferentfrom theoryf inguisticymbols,ennishots r chessmoves.Thedifferenceetweenhe heory f ymbolsndthe heory fcompetencean be madevividbyconsideringhemanyways nwhich person ouldbe competent. ccordingo the ransforma-tionalists,nglish ompetenceonsistsn nternalizinggrammar.Theygo further:llEnglishpeakers ave nternalizedear noughtheonegrammar;ompetence as a uniformtructurecross helinguisticommunity.ven f hissso, t s notnecessarilyo.Manyother rammarsould gree n themeaning-relevanttructuresheyassign o the entencesfEnglish. uppose hatMartiansecamecompetentnEnglish y nternalizingne of hese ther rammars.ThetheoryfMartianompetence ouldhave obedifferentromthetheoryfours.Yetthetheoryfsymbols ouldbe the ame,fort would till e Englishhat hey poke.ReturningoEarth,twould otmatterjot othe heoryf ymbolsf ompetencemongactualEnglishpeakerswasentirelydiosyncratic.29Insum,inguisticompetence,ogetherith arious therspectsof thespeaker's sychology,roducesinguisticehaviour. hatbehaviour, ogetherwiththe external nvironment,roduceslinguisticymbols.theoryf ymbolss not theoryf ompetence.The conflationf these two theoriess bewildering. hydotransformationalistsonflatehem?Weshall oncludehis aperwitha tentativeiagnosissection 0).



20/36

What'sWrongWith TheRightView 5157. Grandma'sViewHaving istinguishedymbolsrom ompetence,e urgeGrand-ma's Viewofwhat inguisticss about: t s about ymbolsnd ex-plains hepropertiesn virtue fwhich ymbols avetheir oles nour ives;more autiously,hat s what tought obe about nd do.We shall rgue orGrandma's iew y ayingmore bout he heoryofsyntaxnd, nthe next ection,more bout tsrelation o thetheoryf ompetence.omeof hesemattersrediscussednmoredetail n ourLanguage nd Reality1987:parts -III).(1) What rethepurposes orwhich ymbolsregood?The pur-poses, s almost veryone asseen, recommunicativenes.Peo-ple use symbolso communicatenformationo each other boutthehuman ndnonhumannvironment.eopleusethem ogreet,question,ommand,oke, ffend,buse, ntimidate,nd o on.Theseare socialpurposes.f urpublicanguages also ourmainmediumofthought,s we thinkt s,then inguisticymbols ave anotherimportant,utnot ocial, ole n our ives.(2) Symbolserve hosepurposesnvirtue ftheirmeaning.Wementionedbovesomepropertieshatwe thinkontributeo theexplanationf hemeaning.hosepropertiesere yntactic,eflec-tinghe oncerns f his aper.nourview, yntaxitsnto he otalexplanations follows. hecorenotionnthe xplanationfmean-ing s that ftruthonditions;t slargely ecause sentence ascertainruthonditionshat t has ts ole.The sentence'sropertyofhavinghose ruth onditionss to be explainednterms f ts

syntactictructurend thereferencef tsparts. eferences to beexplained artlyy descriptionheory ut, ltimately,y causaltheory akingnto ccountinks ononlinguisticeality.o syntaxhas tsplace n theexplanationf truth onditions.(3) The version f Grandma's iewthatwe are urgingakeslinguisticsobeabout ymbolokens, atable, laceable, artsf hephysical orld. his ersion f heView hould edistinguishedromanotherwhich akes inguisticso be about ymbolypes. alk oftypess oftenust convenienthorthandor alk f okensf hosetypes.f hatwere llthat alk f inguisticypesmountedo, hesecondversion f Grandma's iew wouldcollapse nto hefirst.However,t leastone linguist,atz 1977,1981,1984a), eems otake inguisticso be irreduciblybout ypes.t s about latonic b-jects ust s mathematicss oftenhoughtobe. Fodor reats his s



21/36

516 / Michael evitt KimSterelnyif thasa fair hance fbeing heWorst iew.Hisobjection, hichstrikess as sound,sthat hePlatonic iewmakes inguisticsnem-pirical 1981:205-6).The viewthat inguisticss about okens eems o havebecomediscreditedhroughts ssociation ith he nti-theoreticalracticesofpre-Chomskiantructuralinguistics.learly,hismisguidedastshould otbeallowed o countgainst heview.30 side romhat,there s a surprisinglyopular bjection o the view.31 rudely,linguisticsan't e about okensecause here ren't nough f hem.Thegrammaror nglishpplies oa potentiallynfiniteumberfsymbols. et there an be onlya finite umber f tokens. o,linguisticsan'tbe about okens.Onemightswell bject hat theoryf igers an't e about hebeasts hattalkndia nd xcitenterestn oos.Tiger heorysopen-ended. tfollows rom hetheoryhat f omethingedto theex-istence f tiger oken, hen hat okenwould e, ay, arnivorous.Similarly,hegrammaror nglishescribes hecharacteristicsfanythingualifyings a sentence fEnglish.ts pplications notlimitedo tokens ctually roduced.tfollows rom he heoryhatif omethingedto the xistence f nEnglishentenceoken,henthat okenwouldbe, say,tensed.(4) ndistinguishinghe heoryf ymbolsromhe heoryf om-petence, emay eem o havemade tmysterious.edo thinkhatlinguistics,s the heory f ymbols,asa certain utonomyromotherheories,ncludingsychology.owever, earephysicalistsand so must ee this utonomys onlyrelative:n some sense,linguisticsust ltimatelye explainednphysicalerms. ut hisrequirementoesnot emove he utonomyf inguisticsnymorethan t removes hat f, ay,biologyr economics.Linguisticss a social cience. ike llsocial ciences,t eems obeimmediatelyependentnpsychologicalactsndfactsbout henatural nvironment.he nature f his ort fdependencyscom-plex ndhard odescribe. eteach social cience roceedsargelyundisturbedy he ackof completeescription.nd o it hould.Considerome xamples f his ort fdependency. hatmakesa physical bject pawn ra dollar?Whatmakes physicalventa vote orunlawful?othingntrinsicotheobjects nd eventsnquestion; ather,t s thepsychologicaltates,within ertain n-vironments,fpeoplenvolved ithuch bjectsndevents. xact-lywhat tates,what nvolvement,ndwhat nvironment,s hard



22/36

What'sWrongWith The Right View / 517to say. Yet people quite properly eel free o theorize bout chess,money, electionsand the law. Similarly,we should feel freetotheorize bout linguistic bjectsand events.It would be interestingo consider he way in which he syntacticproperties hat have concernedus in thispaper are dependentonpsychological act.We must eave that to anotherplace.328. Symbols nd Competence

It is time for verdict n the RightView. To give thiswe mustfirst ay a briefword on the relationshipetween the two theoriesthat hetransformationalistsonflate: he theory fthe syntaxofalanguage and the theory f syntactic ompetence nthe language.The theory f yntax ssigns osentences tructureshat re rele-vanttothe entences'meanings. he theory f yntacticompetenceassignsto sentences tructureshatplaya psychological ole inthesentences' roductionndcomprehension.he latter tructures ustinclude the former.For, the production nd comprehension fsentencesbythecompetent peaker requires hematchingfthosesentenceswiththoughts avingthesame meaning-relevanttruc-tures.To be competents ust ohavethe kill fmatchingentencesand thought hat are, in thisway,alike.So,themeaning-relevanttructurehat hetheory f yntax ssignsto sentencesmust e the ame as themeaning-relevanttructurehetheory fsyntacticompetence ssignsto matching houghts. utthetheory f competence s interestedn more than this tructure:it is interestedn how the speaker matchesthemeaning-relevantstructuresf entences ndthoughts.herearemanydifferentaysofmatching nvolvingmanydifferenttructures.hese differencesare irrelevant o the theory f yntax utvital o the theory fcom-petencebecauseof ts oncernwith hepsychological rocesses hatcompetencecontributes o performance.Anearlier xample helpsto bring ut the differenceetweenthetheory f yntax ndthetheory fcompetence.According oG theactive e.g. MaxbitSam') is thebasic formndthepassive e.g. Samwasbitten y Max')thederived orm,ut ccordingo G' thereverseis the case. Since each sentence is assignedthe same meaning-relevant tructure yG and G', thisdifferenceoes notmatter tall to the theory fsyntax.Yet it is crucial to the theory f com-



23/36

518/ Michael evitt KimSterelnypetence.t s to settle reciselyhis ort f questionhat sychol-inguisticvidencebout cquisition,eactionimes,ndthe ike resought. hisevidencehasno immediateelevance omeaning.Marr'sarlier-mentionedistinctionetweenhe omputationalndalgorithmicevels section ) is helpful ere.The computationaltheory haracterizeshenature fthetask; a mappingromnekind f nformationo another 1982:24). InMarr'sxample facash register,hemappings from airsof numbersnto inglenumbers;nd, f ourse,hatmappingas to get he dditionight(p.22).So the haracterizationf he omputationalask hatmustbegin theoryf he egisternvolvespiece f rithmeticalheory.In the aseof syntacticallyompetentpeaker,hemappings be-tween yntactictructuresnd sentences;ndthatmappingastogetthemeaning ight.o the haracterizationf he omputationaltask hatmust egin theoryfcompetencenvolves theoryfmeaning-relevanttructure.heproblemith ransformationalram-mar s that tgoesbeyond his inguisticask oquestionsfhowthe peaker erformshis ask. t ntroducesnalysesnd psychol-inguisticata hat re rrelevantothe inguisticask. hese nalysesanddatabearonthe lgorithmicevel.Theconflatione have om-plained f sroughlyhat f his lgorithmicevelwith he omputa-tional evel.Marr laimsthatChomsky'sheory is a true computationaltheory :t is concernedolelywith pecifyinghat he yntacticdecompositionf nEnglishentencehould e,andnot t allwithhowthat ecompositionhould e achieved 1982:28).Butwhatis involvedn Chomsky'syntacticecomposition?t goeswaybeyondhe tructurehatsnecessaryodetermine eaning.o itgoesway beyond hecharacterizationftaskrequiredya com-putationalheoryf he ompetentpeaker. hough homskysnotconcerned ith he lgorithmor erformance,ispsychologicalp-proachogrammarseems learlyoncerned ith he lgorithmorcompetence.here re levelswithin healgorithmicevel.Consider owtheverdictn theRight iew.The View eemedwrong ecause tmade inguisticheoryepend n a dubiousn-ferenceothe est xplanation:hepsycholinguisticealityfG sec-tion ). Perhapshis nferenceas made ttractiveo transforma-tionalistsytheir onflationftheories;ection .)Incontrast,randma'siewmakesinguisticheoryeemprobablytrue.tmakes he ruthf he heoryepend n aninferenceothe



24/36


25/36

520/Michael evitt KimSterelny9. LinguisticntuitionsWe havementionedsection ) a likely rotestgainst ur rgu-ment:wehavefailedo takeproperccount f inguisticntuitionswhichplaysucha prominentole nthe practice ftransforma-tionalists.hese ntuitionsrespeakers'inguisticeliefs:eliefshata certainequence fwordss a sentence;hat nothersambiguous;that woothersreparaphrases,ndso on.Whenwe talk fthelinguisticvidence or he heoryf ymbols, hatweare reallyreferringoarethesentuitions.heevidencehese ntuitionsro-vide s psychologicalFodor,odor,ndGarrett975: 44).How hencanthetheoryasedon them otbe psychological?o,howcanitbe sosharplyistinguishedromhe heoryf ompetence?venthoughur ntuitionso not upport overG' as an account fpsychologicaleality,ur ejectionf heRight iew eems oohasty.We have aidthat,ccordingotheRight iew,inguisticsspartof he xplanationfbehaviour.he mportantvidentialole hattransformationalistsive o inguisticntuitionsfteneadsthem o

claim that linguisticslso, perhapsprimarily,xplainsthoseintuitions.34There retwo uite ifferenthingshatmightemeant y claimthatntuitionsreevidence. ne s:the act hat peakers ave theintuitionss evidence. he havingf n intuitionsa psychologicalphenomenonndso would e evidence or psychologicalheory.Inparticular,othe xtenthathe peaker'sompetencescausallyresponsibleorherhaving inguisticntuitions,hey re indeedpsychologicalvidence or he heoryfcompetence.ndtothatextent,inguistics,f dentifiedithhe heoryf ompetence,oesexplain he having f ntuitions.The having f an intuitionan be evidence or psychologicaltheoryventhoughhe ntuitions thoughtobe false.Thus, natheistantake hehavingfreligiousntuitionsobe evidence ororagainst theoryf, ay, rrationality.Thealternativenterpretationf he laims mportantlyifferentinthis espect.orthe lternatives tosuppose hat he ontentfthe ntuitionss evidence. nd hat anbesoif, ut nly f, he ntui-tions re ikelyobetrue. hecontentsf ruentuitionsre videncefor theoryf hephenomenaheyre about.ndeed,trictlypeak-ing,t s thephenomena,ot ur ntuitionsbout hem,hat retheevidence.nthisway,ntuitionsay ephysicalvidence,iological



26/36

What'sWrongWith TheRightView 521evidence,conomic vidence,rwhatever.hey re psychologicalevidence nly f hey re aboutpsychologicalhenomena.35Insofars thetheory fsymbolss supportedy inguisticntui-tions,t ssupportedy their ontents.hese ntuitionsre aboutlinguisticymbols.o,to the xtent hat hey re ikelyo be true,their ontentsre indeed vidence or theoryf symbols.heyare notpsychologicalvidence. inguistics,f dentifiedith hetheoryf ymbols,xplainswhatntuitionsreabout, ot hehav-ing f hosentuitions.urdistinctionetweenaskstands.heRightViewshould till e rejected.There sa more ubtle bjectionasedon theroleof ntuitions.36Theobjectionccepts hat here re two asks obe performed,utclaims hat heir onflationsharmless,ven appropriate,ecausethe nlyway othrowightn symbolss by xaminingompetence.For, ur inguisticntuitionsrovidehe nly vidence orhe heoryof ymbols;nd t splausibleo see these ntuitionss reflectionsof urunderlyinginguisticompetencethe oice f ompetence ).TheRight iew'sfailureomentionymbolssexcusable ecausethetheoryf ymbolss completelyerivativeromhetheoryfcompetence.Somethingas lreadyeen oncededothis bjection. epointedout that heRight iew s notentirely rong ecausethe samemeaning-relevanttructures to be foundnsymbolnd matchingthought.o thetheoryf the tructuref theone must lso be atheoryf the tructuref theother.Of ourse,he heoryf ompetences concerned ithmore hanthis tructurefmatchinghoughts.t s concerned ith ther truc-turesnvolvednmatching.his oncerns rrelevantothe heoryof ymbols.owever,his oesnot nderminehe bjection.ccord-ing o theobjection,he heoryfcompetencencludeshe heoryofsymbolsut s wider han t.It s theobjection'slaim fepistemicriorityor hetheoryfcompetencehat eems amagingoourposition:he laim hat hetheoryf ymbolssderivative.his laim s basedonassumptionsabout inguisticntuitions:i)that heyretheonly videnceboutsymbols;ii)that hey rereflectionsfcompetence.(i)must eanexaggeration.eopleproducendreact o inguisticsymbols.We can use nformationbout uchphenomena,ndanyothernformatione have abouthumansndtheirocial ife,ntheorizingbout ymbols.



27/36

522 / Michael evitt KimSterelny(ii) s more ifficulto deal with. uppose hat escriptionweretrue fthe peaker: er ompetenceonsistsn tacit ropositionalknowledgef hegrammar,s theCrazyVersion equires.ii)wouldthen eem veryplausible.If he peaker as this nowledgefthegrammar,t s plausibletosee her ntuitionss stemmingromheknowledgen omeway.Most imply,he ntuitions ight e seen as a straightforwardn-ference romheknowledge,nwhich ase her ntuitionsould ethevery est vidence f henature fher ompetence. owever,linguistsavegenerallyreferredo ee the ntuitionss relatedessdirectlyhan his othe acit nowledge:hat nowledge,ogetherwith ther actors,xplain hehavingf ntuitionsJ.A. Fodor 981:200-1). till, he ntuitionsould e largely eflectionsf heunderly-ing ompetence,s (ii) laims. ince hey argely eflectnowledge,they houldbe true, nd hence good evidence fthe nature fsymbols.However, he speaker's ompetence oes not consist n tacitknowledge f the grammar.o (ii) must e reassessed.Wethinkt ikelyhat speaker'sompetenceesidesn sentence-parsingmodule, rinsomethingimilarlynaccessibleo thecen-tral rocessorsection ).The central rocessors thehome f ntui-tions.Given he naccessibilityf he entence-parser,t s anopenquestion hat ole hemodule as nproducinghe ntuitions.t scertainlynlikelyhat herewould e anythingloseto the bovestraightforwardnference.hemodulemaynot ven speakhe amelanguage s thecentral rocessor.What lsebut ompetence ightave role nproducinginguisticintuitions?he central rocessorstheobvious andidate. ustsphysicalntuitions,iologicalntuitions,ndeconomicntuitionsanbe produced y central-processoresponses o theappropriatephenomena,o also can linguisticntuitions. hese linguisticphenomenare not o bediscoveredy ookingnwardt ourowncompetenceutby ookingutwardt the ocialrole hatymbolsplay nour ives.Wheninguistso this ow, hey o not tart rom

scratch.eoplehavebeenthinkingbout hesemattersormillen-nia.The result f his entral-processorctivitysfolk,rotherwiseprimitive,heoryropinion:he inguisticisdomf he ges.Thewisdomwillbe a good, lbeit alliblend ncomplete,uide o thenature f inguisticymbols.Suppose hatinguisticntuitionsere ntirelyhe esult f entral-



28/36

What'sWrongWith TheRightView 523processorctivity,ast ndpresent.heywouldnot hen e reflec-tions fcompetencend ii)wouldbe false.As a result,inguisticswould ot xplainurhaving f hentuitionse have.Furthermore,the laim hat he heoryf ompetences epistemicallyrior othatofsymbols ouldbe groundless.Whichof our two possible ources s mainly esponsible orlinguisticntuitions?he entence-parser'sain ole s obviouslyodo thingswith anguagenot toprovideus with houghtsboutlanguage.Nevertheless,e thinkt ikely hat he entence-parserdoeshave a significantolewith hemost asic ntuitions-forx-ample, udgmentsf imilaritynddifference.imilarly,t s likelythat heperception odules avea significantolewith hemostbasicperceptualntuitions.owever,t s unlikelyhat hepercep-tionmodules re the olesource f hose ntuitions;ecognitionndclassificationepends artlyn centralmemory.t s also unlikelythat he entence-parsers the ole source fbasic inguisticntui-tions., any ave rguedhat person'singuisticntuitionsresen-sitive o her context.37fso they re sensitive o informationrepresentedn he entral rocessor.urthermore,othe xtent hatintuitionsependn the cquisitionf heoreticalonceptsike ram-matical,mbiguous,assive,ndnoun hrase,entralrocessingillplay role.38To sustainii), he entral rocessormust avehardlynyrole nforminginguisticntuitions.t wouldhave to be thecase that urintuitionsre argely ninfluencedyanythinkingbout inguisticphenomena,ndby nythinge earn bout anguagethome ndat school. inguistichenomenaould ave odifferromllother-physical,iological,conomic,nd o on-in failingomake sthink.In um,weaccept hat heres a closerelationetweenhe heoryof ymbolsnd the heoryfcompetence.oweverwedo not c-ceptthat heroleof inguisticntuitionshows hat heconflationof the two theoriess appropriate,or that he formerheorysepistemicallyrior o the atter. heintuitionsrenot implyhereflectionf ompetence; edoubt hat heyre argelyo.To theextenthat hey re notreflections,hey renot, trictlypeaking,evidencefor hetheory fsymbols. he evidence s rather helinguistichenomenahat ive ise othe ntuitions.n ny ase, heintuitionsre not he oleevidence or he heory. e seeno reasonto revise ur verdictn theRight iew.



29/36

524 / Michael evitt KimSterelny10. Diagnosis of the ConflationA major heme fthis aperhas been that inguistsonflatehetheoryf he yntacticropertiesf ymbols ith he heoryf yn-tactic ompetence. hy othey othis?We shall inishyhazard-ing fewguesses.First,quivocationetweenakingknowledge'oreferothe on-tent fknowledgendtakingtto refer o the tate fknowledgemay eadtoa slide romhe heoryf ymbolsothe heoryf om-petence.39 he initial onception f the task is to describelanguage . L is what -speakersnow;t s their nowledge.o thetask stodescribe -speakers'nowledge.his ollows,owever,nlyifknowledge' efersocontent.heslide omes fwe movefromthis, ndthefacthat -speakers'nowledges their ompetencenL, to theconclusionhat hetask s to describe heir ompetence.For thismove holds nly fknowledge' eferso the tate.Second, hefact hat hegrammariansend othinkf ompetenceas propositionalnowledgef yntax acilitateshe onflation.or,

a theoryfcompetence ould hen e a theoryfthe yntacticalrules nown y he peaker. nd f he peaker nows hat certainrule pplies o a linguisticymbolhen, fcourse,tdoesapply;knowledgempliesruth.o,once he peaker's nowledgeadbeendescribed,herewouldbe nothingurtherosayabout inguisticsymbols.Third, onfusionverthenature ndroleof inguisticntuitionsmaybesignificant.e have een section )thatf hese ntuitionsaretaken obe reflectionsf ompetencend lsothe nly videncefor he heoryf ymbols,hen t splausibleosee that heorysderivative rom hetheoryfcompetence.Fourth,he trange bjectionhat inguisticsan'tbe about ym-bol tokens ecause there ren't nough f themsection ) hasdiscreditedhe deathat inguisticsan literallye about ymbolsatall.For hatdea sthenhoughtobethatinguisticss bout ypes.If twereabout uchPlatonicntitiestcouldnotbe empirical.tmay hen ethoughthatinguisticsanbemade mpirical,nd bleto accommodatehe nfiniteumberfsentencesn a language,onlyby takingt tobe aboutourcapacityoproducend unders-tand nyofthose entences.Fifth,he theory f symbols,ikeother ocialtheories,spartlydependentnpsychologicalacts.Wethink,houghwe have not



30/36

What'sWrongWithTheRightView 525argued,hat his ependencysparticularlytrikingn thecase ofthesyntacticropertiesf thesymbols. erhaps hisdependencypreventseople romeeing he elativeutonomyf he heoryfsymbolsrom sychology.These ointsrederivedromurdiscussion.henext wo renot.Sixth,t seemsthat t s hard onotice he differenceetweenlinguisticehaviournd inguisticymbols. et they bviouslyredifferent.hebehaviours a series fbodilymovements,suallyfvocalchords r hands. he ymbolsan objectntheworld roduc-edby he ehaviourithhehelp f he nvironment,suallysoundoraninscription.heexplanationf inguisticehaviourhatstheconcern f he heoryf ompetencesa psychologicalescriptionof ts ause.The explanationf linguisticymbolhats thecon-cern f he heoryf ymbolss a semanticescriptionf tsnature.(In ome ign anguageshebehaviours the ymbol,ut hat oesnot lter hepoint: e have differentxplanatorynterestn t uasymbol rom ua behaviour.) erhaps he failure o distinguishbehaviourromymbolncouragesheconflationf theoryhatpartlyxplains he former ith theoryhat xplains he atter.Seventh,we have found place forsyntaxwithin truth-conditionalheory fmeaningsection ).Yet t svery ifficultoseewhyweneedsuch theory.What oes texplain?40 ethinkthat hedistinctione have ustmadebetweeninguisticehaviourand inguisticymbolssvital nansweringhis uestion1987: ec.9.4).Theabsence f clear ndagreed nswermay eadpeople omiss he taskofexplainingymbolsltogether.

Inconclusion,he onflationf theoryf ymbols ith theoryofcompetence as causedconfusionboutthesubjectmatterflinguistics.e thinkhat he ubjectmatters argely,nd oughtobe entirely,ymbols. versimplifying,randmasright, ightndWrongrebothwrong.41Notes1. TheattributionoKatz s probablymistaken;ee Katz 1984a.2. Linguistsf heRightersuasionhus se grammar'ith systematicambiguity:oth s the heorist'sonstructionnd as thepossessionfeachnative peaker Chomsky965:25).3. HornsteinndLightfootlaim hat a psychologicalnterpretationorgrammaticallaims asofteneen dopted ymodern ritersndbysome raditionalrammarians1981c: 8n). ndeed,uch n nterpreta-



31/36

526 / Michael Devitt/ KimSterelnytion eems ohave a longhistory;ee Saussure 916:77,90.4. After e had deliveredn earlier ersion fthis aper, ur ttentionwas drawn o an excellent aper, oames1984a.This akes similarviewto ourson theconflationnd onwhat inguisticss about.5. In an earlierwork 1987: 13442),weused heverb follow'nsteadf'govern'.Wehave hanged ecause followingrule' uggestsomanythat herule srepresentednd o undermineshevery istinctioneareemphasizing.6. Our hree-wayistinctionetween escriptionssanalogousoStabler'sthree-wayistinctionetween evels fcomputationalheory1983:391-2).7. In recent ears homskyaspreferredhe echnicalermcognize'o'tacitlynow'1975b: 64-5; 980: 9-70). owever,he nterpretativedifficultyemains.oes cognizing requiretandingn propositionalattitude oGor s it a mere kill?8. Stabler'srguments1983) re very ersuasiveothis ffect,ivenhisplausiblenterpretationf heCrazy ersionsing he omputernalogy.9. The most evealingxchange s that etween homskynd Harman:Harman967; homsky969a;Harman 969; homsky969b. ee alsoChomsky975a.10. We are not hefirst oubters,fcourse;ee, for xample, tich 972,Pylyshyn972, nd Katz 1977.11. BerwickndWeinbergallthis heview hat he elationshipetweena grammarndtheparser hat mbodiest stransparent.hey eem,obscurely,o hold hat he elationshipould e essdirect,et he arserwould till ealize hegrammar1984:75-82).12. Baker uts herequirement,omewhat aively,s follows:Therulesshould e asgeneralspossible,othathey onotmake he anguageappear obe more omplicatedhan tactuallys 1978:8).13. The same pointsmadeby BerwickndWeinberg984:94-5.14. We are indebtedo a Maryland afia f Norbert ornstein,avidLightfootndAmyWeinbergor riticismsnd uggestionshat edtothis iscussionf anguage cquisition.15. See particularly,aker 979;HornsteinndLightfoot981c; ightfoot1981; 1982, specially:5-21;npress.16. Chomsky981aand 1982aredetailed xpositionsf this pproach;Chomsky981b s an overview.ee alsoWexler 982;BerwickndWeinberg 984, hs1 and5; Van Reimsdijknd Williams986.17. Evenhere ome autionsappropriate:t s not lways bviouswhatcan be gleaned romata.Forexample,the hildmayhave ntona-tionalccess omajor hrase oundariesGleitmanndWanner982:37).18. See, e.g.,GleitmanndWanner 982:27,35.19. See, e.g.,Lightfootnpress.20. Evidence or he nnate rinciplef ubjacencysprovided yBerwickandWeinberg984:153-71. .D. Fodor 985 sa detailedriticism,owhich erwickndWeinberg985 sa reply.



32/36

What'sWrongWith TheRight View /52721. Pylyshynas pointed ut some problemsn using eactionimes sevidencenpsychology1980:116-19).22. Fordiscussionsasedonthepsycholinguisticvidencehat omostlyagainsthe asefor hepsychologicalealityfG, ee Bresnan 978:1-3;Anderson980:382-3; yons 981:259-60;Johnson-Laird983:276-95.23. Anexaminationf ctual rgumentsor grammaronfirmshis. ee,for xample, aker1978:3-27;HornsteinndLightfoot981c:17-24.24. Supportorhis nterpretationfChomskyomes rom is xplicite-jectionf heview hat grammars a model or speaker rhearer;see, e.g.,1965:9, 139-40.25. See, e.g.,Chomsky980: 189-201.26. If inguisticss trulybranchfpsychology.., s is oftennilaterallyasserted y inguists,t s so far hebranchwith hegreatestreten-sions nd thefewesteliable esults Gazdar tal 1985:5).27. For ome therxamplesf he onflation,eeChomsky966, ndKatz1971, h. 4.28. Philosophersypically ake similarmistake,onflatinghe heoryfthe ullemanticropertiesf ymbols-particularlyf ruthonditions-withhe heoryffull emanticompetence.ummettsthemost x-plicit:a theoryfmeaningsa theoryfunderstanding1975:99).

Philosophersftenompoundhismistakey akingpropositionaliewofcompetencecf. heCrazyVersion).or referencesnd criticisms,see Devitt 981:92-110; 984:205-11; oames1984b.29. Katzmakes similaroint; 977:266.30. Katz emarkshathe tructuralistpproachogrammarsas insuffi-cientlybstract 1984a:18).But theoryf okens anbe as abstractas you ike.31. Wehave een onfrontedith hisbjection anyimesn onversation.32. See Devittnpreparation.33. Compare:it spossible,nd rguablyroper,or linguistqua inguist)to gnoremattersfpsychology.ut t shardly ossible or psychol-inguisto ignoreanguage Gazdar t al 1985:5).34. See,for xample,ees1957: 6;Chomsky969a: 1-2; aker 978: -5.35. Katzmakes similaristinctionetweenhe source nd import fintuitions;977:258.36. Weare indebtedoJerryodorfor n objectionlong hese ines nresponseoan earlier ersion fthis aper.37. See,for xample, abov 1972:192-201.38. CfBaker,who seemsto regard ll intuitiveudgmentss simplymanifestationsfcompetence1978:4-5).

39. Fora passage uggestivefsuch slide ee Baker1978:3.40. On this eeLeeds1978, ield1978,Churchland979, nd Stich 983.41. Wearegratefulor ommentseceivedwhen arlier ersionsfthispaperwere ead n1985 t theUniversityf ydney,a TrobeUniver-sityndtheUniversityfNew outhWales; nd n 1986 t theUniver-sityfMaryland.e are lso ndebtedoFionaCowie nd tephentich.



33/36

528 / MichaelDevitt/ KimSterelnyReferencesAnderson, ohnR. 1980.Cognitivesychologynd ts mplications.anFrancisco:W.H. Freeman nd Company.Baker,C. L. 1978. ntroductiono Generative-Transformationalyntax.Englewood liffs,J: rentice-Hall,nc.Baker, . L. 1979. Syntacticheorynd heProjectionroblem .inguisticInquiry 0:533-81.Baker,C.L., and J. J. McCarthy,ds. 1981.The Logical Problem fLanguageAcquisition.ambridge,ass.:MITPress.Berwick, . C., and A. S. Weinberg. 984.The Grammaticalasis ofLinguisticerformance:anguage se ndAcquisition.ambridge,ass.:MITPress.Berwick, . C., and A. S. Weinberg.985. DeterministicarsingndLinguisticxplanation .anguage nd Cognitiverocesses : 109-34.Bever, . G.,J.M.Carroll,nd L. A. Miller,ds.1984.Talking inds: heStudy fLanguagenCognitivecience.Cambridge,ass.:MITPress.Block,Ned, d. 1981.ReadingsnPhilosophyf Psychology,olume .Cambridge,ass.:Harvard niversityress.Bresnan, oan.1978. ARealistic ransformationalrammar .nHalle,Bresnan,nd Miller 978: 1-59.Chomsky,oam.1957. yntactictructures.heHague:Mouton Co.Chomsky,oam. 965.Aspectsf heTheoryf yntax. ambridge,ass.:MITPress.Chomsky,oam. 966.TopicsntheTheoryfGenerativerammar.heHague:Mouton Co.Chomsky,oam. 969a. LinguisticsndPhilosophy .nHook1969: 1-94.Chomsky,oam.1969b. Commentsn Harman's eply .n Hook1969:152-9.Chomsky,oam.1975a. KnowledgefLanguage .nGunderson975:299-320.Chomsky,oam.1975b.ReflectionsnLanguage.New York:PantheonBooks.Chomsky,oam.1980.Rules ndRepresentations.ew York:ColumbiaUniversityress.Chomsky,oam. 981a. ecturesn GovernmentndBinding.ordrecht:ForisPress.Chomsky,oam.1981b. Principlesnd ParametersnSyntacticheory .In HornsteinndLightfoot981a:32-75.Chomsky,oam. 982. omeConceptsndConsequencesf heTheoryfGovernmentndBinding. ambridge, ass:MIT Press.Churchland,aul M. Scientific ealismand the Plasticityf Mind.Cambridge:ambridgeniversityress.Devitt,Michael. 981.Designation.ewYork:Columbia niversityress.Devitt, Michael. 1984. Realism and Truth.Oxford:Blackwell.(Princeton:rincetonniversityress.)Devitt,Michael.npreparation.Meaningnd Psychology .



34/36

What'sWrongWith The RightView / 529Devitt,Michael nd Kim Sterelny. 987. Languageand Reality:AnIntroductiono the Philosophy f Language.Oxford:Blackwell.(Cambridge,ass.:MITPress.)Dummett, ichael. 975. What s a Theory fMeaning? nGuttenplan1975:97-138.Field, artry.978. Mental epresentation .rkenntnis3:9-61. eprintedwith ostscriptnBlock1981:78-114.Fodor,JanetDean. 1985. Deterministicarsing nd Subjacency.Language nd Cognitiverocesses : 342.Fodor,JanetDean, Jerry . Fodor, nd Merrill . Garrett.975. ThePsychologicalnrealityf emanticepresentations .inguisticnquiry6: 515-31. eprintednBlock 981: 38-52.Pagereferences toBlock.)Fodor,Jerry . 1981. Introduction:ome Notes nWhatLinguisticssTalking bout .n Block1981: 197-207.Fodor,Jerry . 1983.The Modularityf Mind:An Essayon FacultyPsychology.ambridge, ass.:MITPress.Gazdar,Gerald,Ewan Klein,Geoffreyullum, nd Ivan Sag. 1985.Generalizedhrase tructurerammar. xford: asilBlackwell.Gleitman,ilaR.,and EricWanner. 982. LanguageAcquisition:heState ftheState ftheArt . n Wanner nd Gleitman982:3-48.Gould, . J. 1983.ThePanda'sThumb. armondsworth:enguin.Gunderson, eith, d. 1975. Minnesotatudies n thePhilosophyfScience,VolumeVII:Language,Mind,ndKnowledge.Minneapolis:Universityf Minnesota ress.Guttenplan,.,ed. 1975.Mind ndLanguage.Oxford: larendonress.Halle,Morris,oanBresnan,nd GeorgeA. Miller,ds. 1978.LinguisticTheorynd Psychologicaleality. ambridge, ass.:MITPress.Harman, ilbert.967. Psychologicalspects ftheTheory fSyntax .JournalfPhilosophy4: 75-87.Harman, ilbert.969. Linguisticompetencend Empiricism .nHook1969: 143-51.Hook, idney, d. 1969.Language nd Philosophy: Symposium.ewYork:NewYorkUniversityress.Hornstein, orbert,nd David Lightfoot,ds. 1981a.ExplanationnLinguistics:he LogicalProblem fLanguageAcquisition.ondon:Longman.Hornstein, orbert,nd David Lightfoot,ds. 1981b. Preface . oHornsteinndLightfoot981a:7-8.Hornstein, orbert,ndDavidLightfoot,ds. 1981c. Introduction .oHornsteinndLightfoot981a:9-31.Johnson-Laird,hilipN. 1983. MentalModels:Towards Cognitive

Science fLanguage,nference,nd Consciousness.ambridge,ass.:Harvard niversityress.Katz,Jerrold . 1971. The Underlyingeality f Languageand ItsPhilosophicalmport. ewYork:Harper Row.Katz,Jerrold . 1977. The Real Status f Semantic epresentations .Linguisticnquiry: 559-84.Reprintedn Block 1981:253-75.Pagereferencesre to Block.)



35/36

530 / Michael Devitt / Kim SterelnyKatz,Jerrold . 1981.Language nd OtherAbstract bjects. otowa,N.J.:Rowman nd Littlefield.Katz,Jerrold . 1984a. An Outline f a Platonist rammar .n Bever,Carroll,nd Miller 984:1748.Katz, Jerrold ., ed. 1984b. The Philosophy f Linguistics. ondon:Oxford niversityress.Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguisticatterns. hilidelphia: niversityfPennsylvaniaress.Leeds, tephen. 978. Theories f Referencend Truth . rkenntnis3:111-29.Lees, RobertB. 1957. Review f Syntactictructures .anguage33:375-407. eprintednGilbertarmaned.), nNoamChomsky:riticalEssays.GardenCity,N. Y.: Anchor ress/Doubleday:4-79. Pagereferences toHarman.)Lightfoot,avid.1981. TheHistoryfNoun hraseMovement .n BakerandMcCarthy981:86-119.Lightfoot,avid. 1982. The LanguageLottery: oward Biology fGrammars.ambridge, ass.:MIT Press.Lightfoot,avid. In press. The Child'sTrigger xperience: egree-OLearnability .ehavioral nd Brain ciences.Lyons, John. 1981. Language and Linguistics:An Introduction.

Cambridge:ambridgeniversityress.Marr, avid.1982.Vision: Computationalnvestigationnto heHumanRepresentationndProcessingfVisualnformation.anFrancisco: .H. FreemanndCompany.Pylyshyn,enonW. 1972. Competencend Psychological eality .American sychologist:46-52.Pylyshyn,enonW. 1980. Computationnd Cognition:ssues n theFoundationsfCognitivecience . ehavioralnd Brian ciences :111-32.Saussure,Ferdinand e. 1916. Course in GeneralLinguistics,ds,Charles ally nd Albertechehaye,rans.,WadeBaskin, ewYork:McGraw-HillookCo, 1966.1st.Frenchd.,1916.Soames,Scott.1984a. Linguisticsnd Psychology .inguisticsndPhilosophy: 155-79.Soames, cott. 984b. SemanticsndPsychology .n Katz1984b: 04-26.Stabler,dward .,Jr. 983. How reGrammarsepresented?ehavioraland Brain ciences : 391-402.Stich, tephenP. 1971. WhatEverySpeakerKnows .PhilosophicalReview 0: 476-96.Stich,StephenP. 1972. Grammar, sychology,nd Indeterminacy .Journalf hilosophy9:799-818.eprintednBlock 981: 08-22.PagereferencesretoBlock.)Stich, tephen . 1978. Beliefsnd Subdoxastic tates . hilosophyfScience45:499-518.Stich, tephen . 1983.From olkPsychologyoCognitivecience:TheCaseAgainst elief. ambridge, ass.:MITPress.



36/36

What's WrongWith The RightView / 531Van Riemsdijk,.,and E. Williams. 986. ntroductiono the Theory fGrammar.ambridge, ass.:MITPress.Wanner, ric, nd Lila R. Gleitman,ds. 1982.LanguageAcquisition:The State ftheArt.Cambridge:ambridge niversityress.Wexler, enneth.982. A Principleheory or anguage cquisition .nWannernd Gleitman982:288-315.

Devitt Linguistics What's Wrong With the Right View PDF

Documents

Transcript of Devitt Linguistics What's Wrong With the Right View PDF