La naturaleza del lenguaje: un reto y una propuesta

Barra lateral de artigos

PDF (Espanhol)
Publicado: Apr 3, 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.32348/1852.4206.v9.n1.12931
Palavras-chave:
composicionalidad, adquisición del lenguaje, cambio histórico, multiplicidad

Conteúdo do artigo principal

Eduardo Garcia Ramirez
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas

Resumo

Prácticamente desde Frege (1892), la tradición filosófica ha dado cuenta de la práctica lingüística a partir de una gramática del lenguaje que determina todos sus contenidos por composición. En este texto me propongo dos metas. Primero, presentaré un nuevo reto a toda teoría del lenguaje. Según este reto es necesario dar cuenta no sólo del uso ordinario del lenguaje, sino también de la adquisición y desarrollo del lenguaje, los cambios que sufren las lenguas a lo largo de su historia y los usos del lenguaje en contextos de ficción. Al presentar este reto quedará en claro que la visión tradicional será incapaz de enfrentarlo a menos que presente una explicación satisfactoria, no ad hoc, de la evidencia empírica que presentaré. De ser así, la tradición habrá encontrado nueva evidencia a su favor. Mi segunda meta consiste en ofrecer una visión alternativa de la naturaleza del lenguaje: la visión abierta. Esta visión da lugar a una nueva teoría capaz de enfrentar el reto exitosamente. Más aún, lo hace a partir de una explicación más simple y con mayor poder predictivo.

Detalhes do artigo

Como Citar
La naturaleza del lenguaje: un reto y una propuesta. (2017). Revista Argentina De Ciencias Del Comportamiento, 9(1), 54-73. https://doi.org/10.32348/1852.4206.v9.n1.12931
Edição
v. 9 n. 1 (2017): Revista Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento
Seção
Artículos Originales

Commons Attribution License, CCAL). Com esta licença, os autores conservam o direito de propriedade sobre artigos mas permitem que qualquer pessoa façam download e distribuam os artigos publicados na RACC sem necessidade da permissão do autor ou editor. Uma última condição é que sempre, e em todos os casos, o autor e a fonte original de publicação (p.e., RACC) sejam citados. Esta licença foi desenvolvido para facilitar o acesso aberto, gratuito e livre a trabalhos originais do arte e ciência.

Biografia do Autor

Eduardo Garcia Ramirez, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas

Soy Investigador Titular del Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas de la UNAM desde 2010.

https://edugarciaramirez.wordpress.com/

Doctor en Filosofía con estudios en psicolingüística y psicología congitiva en la University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (EUA).

Como Citar

La naturaleza del lenguaje: un reto y una propuesta. (2017). Revista Argentina De Ciencias Del Comportamiento, 9(1), 54-73. https://doi.org/10.32348/1852.4206.v9.n1.12931

Referências

Akhtar, N., & Tomasello, M. (2000). The social nature of words and word learning. En R. M. Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (eds.), (2000). Becoming a word learner: A debate on lexical acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a ‘‘theory of mind’’? Cognition, 21, 37-46.

Bloom, P. (2000). How children learn the meanings of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Burge, T. (1973). Reference and proper names. Journal of Philosophy. 70(14), 426-39.

Clapp, L. J. (2012). Is even thought compositional? Philosophical Studies, 157, 299-322.

Diesendruck, G. (2005). The principles of conventionality and contrast in word learning: An empirical examination. Developmental

Psychology, 41, 451-63.

Diesendruck, G. (2007). Mechanisms of word learning. In E. Hoff & M. Shatz (eds.), (2007). Blackwell Handbook of Language Development. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Donnellan, K. (1972). Names and identifying descriptions. In G. Harman, & D. Davidson, (eds.), Semantics for Natural Language. Dordrecht-Holland: D. Reidel.

Ezcurdia, M. (1995). Modos de presentación y modos de determinación. Crítica. Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía, XXVII, 80, 57-96.

Ezcurdia, M. (2004). Pragmatic attitudes and semantic competence. Crítica. Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía, XXXVI, 108, 55-82.

Frege, G. (1892). On sense and nominatum. In A. P. Martinich (ed.), (2002). The Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Friedman, O., & Leslie, A. M. (2007). The conceptual underpinnings of pretense: Pretending is not ‘behaving as if’. Cognition, 105, 103-24.

Fodor, J. A. (2001). Language, thought and compositionality. Mind & Language, 16, 1-15.

García-Ramírez, E. (2011). A cognitive theory of empty names, Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2, 785-807.

Gerken, L. A. (2007). Acquiring linguistic structure. In E. Hoff, & M. Shatz, (2007). Blackwell Handbook of Language Development. Oxford: Blackwell.

Geurts, B. (1998). The mechanisms of denial. Language 74(2), 274-307.

Gleitman, L. R., Cassidy, K., Nappa, R., Papafragou, A., & Trueswell, J. C. (2005). Hard words, Language Learning and Development, 1, 23-64.

Gould, S. J., & Vrba, E. S. (1982). Exaptation, a missing term in the science of form Paleobiology, 8(1), 4-15.

Grice, H. P. (1989). Logic and Conversation. In H. P. Grice, 1989: Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, M. A: Harvard University Press.

Hall, G. (1996). Preschooler’s default assumptions about word meaning: Proper names designate unique individuals. Developmental Psychology, 32(1), 177-86.

Hall, G., & Graham, S. (1999). Lexical form class information guides word-to-object mapping in preschoolers, Child Development, 70(1), 78-91.

Hoff, E., & Shatz, M. (eds.), (2007). Blackwell Handbook of Language Development. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Jackson, F. (1998). Reference and description revisited, Philosophical Perspectives, 12, Language, Mind, and Ontology, 201-218.

Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, et. al., (eds.), (1989). Themes From Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kripke, S. (1979). A puzzle about belief. In A. Margalit (ed.), (1979). Meaning and Use. Dordrecht: Synthese.

Leslie, A. M. (1987). Pretense and representation: The origins of ‘‘theory of mind’’. Psychological Revie, 94, 412-26.

Leslie, A. M. (1994). Pretending and believing: Issues in the theory of ToMM. Cognition, 50, 211-38.

Leslie, A. M. (2002). Pretense and representation revisited. In N. L. Stein, P. J. Bauer, M., Rabinowitz, (eds.), (2002). Representation, Memory, and Development: Essays in Honor of Jean Mandler. Mahwah, N. J: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lewis, D. (1970). General semantics. Synthese, 1(2), 18-67.

Lewis, D. (1975). Languages and language. In D. Lewis 1983: Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1. USA: Oxford University Press.

Lewis, D. (1986). On The Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.

Maiden, M., Smith, J. C., & Ledgeway, A. (2011). The Cambridge History of Romance Languages. Volumen 1 y 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Maiden, M. (2011b). Morphonological Innovation. In Maiden, Smith y Ledgeway (eds.), (2011). The Cambridge History of Romance Languages. Volumen 1 y 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Markman, E. M. (1991). The whole object, taxonomic, and mutual exclusivity assumptions as initial constraints on word meaning. In

S.A. Gelman, & J. P. Byrnes, (eds.), (1991). Perspectives on Language and Thought: Interrrelations in Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Markman, E. M. (1992). Constraints on word learning: Speculations about their nature, origins, and domain specificity. In M. R. Gunnar & M. Maratsos (eds.). Modularity and constrains in language and cognition. Hillsdale, N. J: Erlbaum.

Montague, R. (1974). Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague. R. Thomasson (ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Nunberg, G. (1979). The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. In Linguistics and Philosophy 3, 143-84.

Nunberg, G. (1995). Transfers of meaning. In Journal of Semantics 12(2), 109-32.

Nunberg, G. (2004). The pragmatics of deferred interpretation. In L. Horn (ed) 2004: The Handbook of Pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Penn, D. C., Holyoak, K. J., & Povinelli, D. J. (2008). Darwin’s mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, 109-178. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Perner, J., Rendl, B., & Garnham, A. (2007). Objects of desire, thought, and reality: Problems of anchoring discourse referents in development. Mind & Language, 22(5), 475-513.

Perry, J. (1979). The case of the essential indexical. Nous, 13, 3-21.

Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of ‘meaning’. In H. Putnam, 1975: Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Quine, W. V. O. (1961). Reference and modality. In W. V. O., Quine, (1961). From a Logical Point of View. New York: Harper and Row.

Salmon, N. (1986). Frege’s Puzzle. Ridgeview Publishing.

Shatz, M. (1987). Bootstrapping operations in child language. In K. E. Nelson y A. van Kleeck (eds.), (1987). Children’s Language, Vol. 6, Hilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Shatz, M. (1994). A Toddler’s Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Shatz, M. (2007a). On the development of the field of language development. In E. Hoff & M. Shatz, (eds.), (2007). Blackwell Handbook of Language Development. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Shatz, M. (2007b). Revisiting a Toddler’s Life for the toddler years: Conversational participation as a tool for learning across knowledge domains. In C.A. Brownwell & C.B. Kopp (eds.), (2007). Socioemotional Development in the Toddler Years. Guilford Press.

Shatz, M. (2008). Language as a consequence and an enabler of the exercise of higher-order relational capabilities: Evidence from toddlers. Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 145-146.

Smith, J. C. (2011). Change and continuity in form-function relationships. In Maiden, Smith & Ledgeway (eds.), (2011). The Cambridge History of Romance Languages. Volumen 1 y 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Soames, S. (2002). Beyond Rigidity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Spelke, E. (2003). What makes us smart? Core Knowledge and Natural Language. In D. Gentner & S. Golding-Meadow, (eds.), (2003). Language in Mind: Advances in the Investigation of Language and Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stalnaker, R. (1987). Semantics for belief. In R., Stalnaker (1999). Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stanley, J. (2005). Semantics in context. In G. Preyer & G. Peter, (eds.), (2005). Contextualism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Strawson, P. F. (1950). On Referring. Mind. 59(235), 320-344.

Szabó, Z. (2012). The case for Compositionality. In Werning, Hinzen & Machery (eds.), (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tager-Flusberg, H. (2007). Atypical language development: Autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders. In E. Hoff & M. Shatz

(eds.), (2007). Blackwell Handbook of Language Development. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Travis, C. (1997). Pragmatics. In B. Hale & C. Wright. (eds.), (1997). A Companion to the Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.

Wellman, H. M., & Miller, J. G. (2008). Including deontic reasoning as fundamental to theory of mind, Human Development, 51, 105-35.