Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:24:22.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cutting Philosophy of Language Down to Size

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2010

Ruth Garrett Millikan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When asked to contribute to this lecture series, my first thought was to talk about philosophy of biology, a new and increasingly influential field in philosophy, surely destined to have great impact in the coming years. But when a preliminary schedule for the series was circulated, I noticed that no one was speaking on language. Given the hegemony of philosophy of language at mid-century, after ‘the linguistic turn’, this seemed to require comment. How did philosophy of language achieve such status at mid-century, and why is it losing it now? Has the Anglo-American tradition really begun to put the philosophy of language in better perspective? I hope so. Indeed, I will end with suggestions for how to keep it more securely in its proper place.

Type
Papers
Information
Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements , Volume 48 , September 2001 , pp. 125 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy and the contributors 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Block, N., ‘Advertisement for a Semantics for Psychology’, Midwest Studies in Philosophy 10 (1986), 615–78.Google Scholar
Burge, T., ‘Individualism and the Mental’, Studies in Metaphysics, Midwest Studies in Philosophy IV 4 (1979), 73–121.Google Scholar
Fumerton, R., ‘Russelling Causal Theories’ Rereading Russell: Essays in Bertrand Russell's Metaphysics and Epistemology, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12, Savage, C. W. and Anderson, C. A. (eds), (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989), 108–18.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G., 1950, 1965. ‘Empiricist Criteria of Cognitive Significance: Problems and Changes’, reprinted in Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science (New York: The Free Press, Macmillan Co., 1965), 101–22.Google Scholar
Kripke, S., Naming and Necessity (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972).Google Scholar
Lockwood, M., ‘Identity and Reference’, Identity and Individuation, Munitz, M. K. (ed.) (New York University Press 1971), 199–211.Google Scholar
Millikan, R. G., On Clear and Confused Ideas, (Cambridge University Press, 2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H., Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers i, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975).Google Scholar
Putnam, H., ‘The Meaning of “Meaning”’, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science VII, Gunderson, Keith (ed.) (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1975). Also in Putnam, Mind Language and Reality (1975.)Google Scholar
Putnam, H., 1978a. Meaning and the Moral Sciences (London, Hently and Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978).Google Scholar
Putnam, H., ‘Realism and Reason’, Meaning and the Moral Sciences (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978).Google Scholar
Quine, W. V., ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism’, From a Logical Point of View, (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1953) 20–46.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V., Word and Object, (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1960).Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F., Subject and Predicate in Logic and Grammar (London: Methuen and Co. Ltd., 1974).Google Scholar