- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
The narrow faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how is it defined?
Theoria Et Historia Scientiarum 9:217-229 (2012)
Abstract
This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)My notes
Similar books and articles
The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?Hauser Marc, D. Chomsky, Noam Fitch & W. Tecumseh - 2002 - Science 298 (22):1569-1579.
The nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language (Reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky).Ray Jackendoff - 2005 - Cognition 97 (2):211-225.
The nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language (Reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky).Steven Pinker - 2005 - Cognition 97 (2):211-225.
What Remains of Our Knowledge of Language?: Reply to Collins.Barry C. Smith - 2008 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 8 (22):557-75.
Cortical-striatal-cortical neural circuits, reiteration, and the “narrow faculty of language”.Philip Lieberman - 2008 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (5):527-528.
In the Name of a Becoming Rhetoric: Critical Reflections on the Potential of Aristotle's Rhetoric 1355b.Erik Doxtader - 2013 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 46 (2):231-233.
Narrow content.Robert Stalnaker - 1990 - In C. Anthony Anderson & Joseph Owens (eds.), Propositional Attitudes: The Role of Content in Logic, Language, and Mind. Stanford: Csli.
What narrow content is not.Ned Block - 1991 - In Barry M. Loewer (ed.), Meaning in Mind: Fodor and His Critics. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Narrow content: Fodor's folly.Fred Adams, David Drebushenko, Gary Fuller & Robert Stecker - 1990 - Mind and Language 5 (3):213-29.
Analytics
Added to PP
2013-10-30
Downloads
2 (#1,807,551)
6 months
1 (#1,477,342)
2013-10-30
Downloads
2 (#1,807,551)
6 months
1 (#1,477,342)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
What are the levels and mechanisms/processes of language evolution?Nathalie Gontier - 2017 - Language Sciences 1 (63):12-43.
Language Evolution: Why Hockett’s Design Features are a Non-Starter.Sławomir Wacewicz & Przemysław Żywiczyński - 2015 - Biosemiotics 8 (1):29-46.
A contemporary look at language origins.Sławomir Wacewicz - 2016 - Avant: Trends in Interdisciplinary Studies 7 (2):68-81.
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-5ff6c685cb-cc9fg uwo