Journal Article

Linguistic Intuitions Revisited

Michael Devitt

in The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

Published on behalf of British Society for the Philosophy of Science

Volume 61, issue 4, pages 833-865
Published in print December 2010 | ISSN: 0007-0882
Published online November 2010 | e-ISSN: 1464-3537 | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axq018
Linguistic Intuitions Revisited

More Like This

Show all results sharing these subjects:

  • Philosophy of Science
  • Science and Mathematics

GO

Show Summary Details

Preview

Why are linguistic intuitions good evidence for a grammar? In ‘Intuitions in Linguistics’ ([2006a]) and Ignorance of Language ([2006b]), I looked critically at some Chomskian answers and proposed another one. In this article, I respond to Fitzgerald’s ‘Linguistic Intuitions’ ([2010]), a sweeping critique of my position, and to Culbertson and Gross’ ‘Are Linguists Better Subjects?’ ([2009]), a criticism of one consequence of the position. In rejecting these criticisms, I emphasize that the issue over linguistic intuitions concerns only metalinguistic ones. And I argue that my critics, like many others, make too much of the distinction between grammaticality and acceptability intuitions.

1 Summary and Developments

1.1 Summary

1.2 ‘Intuitions’ in what sense?

1.3 Grammaticality versus acceptability

2 Fitzgerald

2.1 Do Chomskians subscribe to VoC?

2.2 The main case against VoC

2.3 Fitzgerald’s defense of VoC

2.4 Two additional criticisms of VoC

2.5 Fitzgerald’s criticisms of my alternative

2.6 Conclusion

3 Culbertson and Gross

3.1 Acceptability versus grammaticality

3.2 The experiment

Journal Article.  14237 words. 

Subjects: Philosophy of Science ; Science and Mathematics

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.