The Current State of (Radical) Pragmatics in the Cognitive Sciences Export

@article{Breheny2002RadicalPragmaticsInTheCognitiveSciences, abstract = {This paper considers some issues for traditional and radical views of the semantic content of utterances. It suggests that, as the radical view denies that linguistic meaning solely determines explicit content, it is required to come up with an alternative account of content. We focus on cognitively oriented radical theories and argue that none of the current alternatives for delimiting content is adequate. An alternative radical account of content is sketched. We also consider Stanley's (2000) binding argument in support of the traditional view and suggest that it fails as it is based on an overly strong conception of binding in natural language.}, address = {Research Centre for English and Applied Linguistics, University of Cambridge}, author = {Breheny, Richard}, citeulike-article-id = {3519459}, citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00194}, citeulike-linkout-1 = {http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/118950262/ABSTRACT}, citeulike-linkout-2 = {http://dx.doi.org.monstera.cc.columbia.edu:2048/10.1111/1468-0017.00194}, doi = {10.1111/1468-0017.00194}, journal = {Mind \& Language}, keywords = {language, pragmatics, theoretical}, number = {1\&2}, pages = {169--187}, posted-at = {2008-11-15 18:42:37}, priority = {3}, title = {The Current State of (Radical) Pragmatics in the Cognitive Sciences}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00194}, volume = {17}, year = {2002} }

TY - JOUR ID - Breheny2002RadicalPragmaticsInTheCognitiveSciences L3 - citeulike-article-id:3519459 N2 - This paper considers some issues for traditional and radical views of the semantic content of utterances. It suggests that, as the radical view denies that linguistic meaning solely determines explicit content, it is required to come up with an alternative account of content. We focus on cognitively oriented radical theories and argue that none of the current alternatives for delimiting content is adequate. An alternative radical account of content is sketched. We also consider Stanley's (2000) binding argument in support of the traditional view and suggest that it fails as it is based on an overly strong conception of binding in natural language. IS - 1&2 JF - Mind & Language AD - Research Centre for English and Applied Linguistics, University of Cambridge EP - 187 TI - The Current State of (Radical) Pragmatics in the Cognitive Sciences VL - 17 SP - 169 KW - language KW - pragmatics KW - theoretical AU - Breheny, Richard PY - 2002/// UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00194 ER -