Linguistic Intuitions and Cognitive Penetrability
نویسنده
چکیده
Metalinguistic intuitions play a very large evidential role in both linguistics and philosophy. Linguists think that these intuitions are products of underlying linguistic competence. I call this view “the voice of competence” (“VoC”). Althoughmany philosophers seem to think that metalinguistic intuitions are a priori many may implicitly hold the more scientifically respectable VoC. According to VoC, I argue, these intuitions can be cognitively penetrated by the central processor. But, I have argued elsewhere, VoC is false. Instead, we should hold “the modest explanation” (“ME”) according to which these intuitions are fairly unreflective empirical theory-laden central-processor responses to phenomena. On ME, no question of cognitive penetration arises. ME has great methodological significance for the study of language. Insofar as we rely on intuitions as evidence we should prefer those of linguists and philosophers because they are more expert. But, more importantly, we should be seeking other evidence in linguistic usage.
منابع مشابه
Linguistic Intuitions are the Result of Interactions Between Perceptual Processes and Linguistic Universals
We found o direct relationship between voriotion in informants’ grommoticality intuitions about pronoun coreference and variation in the same informants’ use of a clause segmentation strategy during sentence perception. It hos been proproposed that ‘c-command’, a structural principle defined in terms of constituent dominance relations, constrains within-sentence coreference between pronouns and...
متن کاملDoes the Emotional Modulation of Visual Experience Entail the Cognitive Penetrability or Emotional Penetrability of Early Vision?
I argue that emotive states affect perceptual processing either directly or indirectly with latencies that fall within late vision and not early vision. These effects differ from the effects of, and are subserved by different neuronal mechanisms than those that subserve, attentional effects on perception, although the two sorts of effects may interact. It follows that the emotive effects found ...
متن کاملCRITICAL D ISCUSSI ON What ‘‘Intuitions’’ are Linguistic Evidence?
In ‘‘Intuitions in Linguistics’’ (2006a) and Ignorance of Language (2006b) I took it to be Chomskian orthodoxy that a speaker’s metalinguistic intuitions are provided by her linguistic competence. I argued against this view in favor of the alternative that the intuitions are empirical theory-laden central-processor responses to linguistic phenomena. The concern about these linguistic intuitions...
متن کاملLinguistic Intuitions Revisited
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 c...
متن کاملLinguistic Explanation and ‘ Psychological Reality ’
Methodological questions concerning Chomsky’s generative approach to linguistics have been debated without consensus. The status of linguistics as psychology, the psychological reality of grammars, the character of tacit knowledge and the role of intuitions as data remain heatedly disputed today. I argue that the recalcitrance of these disputes is symptomatic of deep misunderstandings. I focus ...
متن کامل