Confl icting Grammatical Appearances 1

I explore one apparent source of confl ict between our naive view of grammatical properties and the best available scientifi c view of grammatical properties. That source is the modal dependence of the range of naive, or manifest, grammatical properties that is available to a speaker upon the confi gurations and operations of their internal systems—that is, upon scientifi c grammatical properties. Modal dependence underwrites the possibility of confl icting grammatical appearances. In response to that possibility, I outline a compatibilist strategy, according to which the range of grammatical properties accessible to a speaker is dependent upon their cognitive apparatus, but the properties so accessible are also mind-independent.

[1]  G. Pullum.  Language that dare not speak its name , 1997, Nature.

[2]  M. Kalderon.  The Multiply Qualitative , 2011 .

[3]  J. Fodor.  Introduction: Some Notes on What Linguistics Is About , 1981 .

[4]  Eric Funkhouser,et al.  The Determinable-Determinate Relation , 2006 .

[5]  Vivian Mizrahi,et al.  Color Objectivism and Color Pluralism , 2006 .

[6]  Jerrold J. Katz,et al.  Language and other abstract objects , 1980 .

[7]  H. Allison.  Kant’s Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense; Revised and Enlarged Edition , 2004 .

[8]  Visible Properties of Human Interest Only , 1996 .

[9]  Charles Siewert,et al.  Is Experience Transparent? , 2004 .

[10]  LaWanda Lewis,et al.  African American Vernacular English , 2008 .

[11]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind: Language as a natural object , 2000 .

[12]  Alexander George.  Whose Language is it Anyway? Some Notes on Idiolects1 , 1990 .

[13]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The Minimalist Program , 1992 .

[14]  A. White.  How to do things with words , 1963 .

[15]  Michael Devitt,et al.  Ignorance of Language , 2006 .

[16]  The Twilight of Empiricism , 2004 .

[17]  R. Horton.  Rules and representations , 1993, The Lancet.

[18]  H. Putnam,et al.  The analytic and the synthetic , 1962 .

[19]  James Mccloskey.  Quantifier Float and Wh-Movement in an Irish English , 2000, Linguistic Inquiry.

[20]  Michael Devitt,et al.  Intuitions In Linguistics , 2006, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[21]  Common Sense and Physics , 1979 .

[22]  Bernard Williams,et al.  Descartes: The Project of Pure Enquiry , 1980 .

[23]  Georges Rey.  Chomsky, Intentionality, and a CRTT , 2008 .

[24]  L. Bloomfield.  Linguistic Aspects of Science , 1935, Philosophia Scientiæ.

[25]  Csr Young,et al.  How to Do Things With Words , 2009 .

[26]  Georges Rey.  Mind, intentionality and inexistence : an overview of my work , 2005 .

[27]  Peter F. Strawson,et al.  In defense of a dogma , 1956 .

[28]  Robert J. Stainton,et al.  Meaning and Reference: Some Chomskian Themes , 2008 .

[29]  Ernest Lepore,et al.  The Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Language , 2006 .

[30]  John McDowell,et al.  Mind, Value, and Reality , 1998 .

[31]  D. Wiggins.  Languages as Social Objects , 1997, Philosophy.

[32]  S. Shoemaker.  On the Ways Things Appear , 2006 .

[33]  S. Shoemaker.  Content, Character and Color , 2003 .

[34]  D. Wiggins.  Truth, invention, and the meaning of life , 1980 .

[35]  D. Hilbert,et al.  Color and the Inverted Spectrum , 2000 .

[36]  L. Gleitman,et al.  [Language and thought]. , 1991, La Revue du praticien.

[37]  Languages and Idiolects: Their Language and Ours , 2008 .

[38]  James Higginbotham,et al.  Remarks on the metaphysics of linguistics , 1991 .

[39]  M. Martin,et al.  Setting Things before the Mind , 1998, Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement.

[40]  James W. Cornman.  Perception, common sense, and science , 1975 .

[41]  Christopher Kennedy.  Antecedent-contained deletion and the syntax of quantification , 1997 .

[42]  M. Lévesque.  Perception , 1986, The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine.