Synthese 120 (2):151-191 (1999) |Abstract||There is a common-
sense view of language, which is held by Wittgenstein, Strawson
Dummett, Searle, Putnam, Lewis, Wiggins, and others. According
to this view a language consists of conventions, it is rule-
governed, rules are conventionalised, a language is learnt,
there are general learning mechanisms in the brain, and so on. I
shall call this view the ‘ordinary language’ view of language.
Chomsky’s attitude towards this view of language has been rather
negative, and his rejection of it is a major motivation for the
development of his own theory. In this paper I shall review
Chomsky’s long-standing criticisms. I shall show that
(1)Chomsky’s argument does not constitute a dismissal of the
‘ordinarylanguage’ view of language, (2) Chomsky’s conclusions
about language do not follow from his argument, and (3) the
‘ordinary language’ view actually points to a promising way for
us to understand the true nature of language and mind.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)