Linguistic expressions are abstract objects.
But none of this speaks directly to the issue of linguistic nativism.
The fundamental notion in Goldberg’s linguistic theory is that of a construction.
His most frequent co-discussant in the text was Hui Shi, a rival linguistic relativist.
Conventional theories of linguistic meaning attract several different types of criticism.
Today there are many Essentialists who do hold that semantics is a component of a full linguistic theory.
It is the activity of effecting non-linguistic constructions out of something that is not of a linguistic nature.
And: “We are your linguistic nightmare, your linguistic aberration, your linguistic mestizaje …” (80).
Finally, one further issue that bears mentioning is the status of various claims regarding linguistic determinism and linguistic relativity.
And many Essentialists cast it in terms of whether anything but linguistic intuitions are ever really needed to support linguistic theorizing.
Genuine hypotheses about the effects of language on thought will always have a duality: there will be a linguistic part and a non-linguistic one.
is typically understood on the mental representation view as asking whether a pre-linguistic or non-linguistic agent can entertain mental representations of a particular kind.
Linguistic nativists, by contrast, claim that human infants have access to at least some specifically linguistic information that is not learned from linguistic experience.
The account thus views the contents of propositional attitudes as hybrids of linguistic and non-linguistic items; i.e., the expressions of the complement clauses and those expressions’s semantic values.
According to Conceptual Semantics, word meanings are essentially an interface phenomenon between a specialized body of linguistic knowledge (e.g., morphosyntactic knowledge) and core non-linguistic cognition.
Indexicals, by contrast, seem to have a single linguistic meaning that is fixed by linguistic convention, but also another sort of meaning (content) that varies from occasion to occasion, or context to context.
This abandonment of linguistic domain-specificity contrasts very sharply with the picture that was such a prominent characteristic of the earlier work on linguistic nativism, popularized in different ways by Fodor (1983), Barkow et al. (1992), and Pinker (1994).
Criticisms of the empiricist use of 2D semantics to explain linguistic coordination can be divided into two broad categories: (i) criticisms that target the account of linguistic conventions, and (ii) criticisms that target the account of individuals’ linguistic understanding.
Linguistic context versus extralinguistic context Considering the context of an utterance, one of the most intuitive distinctions is between the context as consisting of its previous and subsequent utterances — the linguistic contexts — and any other extra-linguistic circumstance surrounding the utterance.
First, even though the psychological abilities and mechanisms that Tomasello posits have been selected for linguistic functions, these abilities and mechanisms have continued to be used (and, plausibly, selected) for non-linguistic purposes, such as face recognition, theory of mind, non-linguistic perception, etc.
On this page, there are 20 sentence examples for linguistic. They are all from high-quality sources and constantly processed by lengusa's machine learning routines.
Just use the " " button to fragment sentence examples and start your learning flow.
Example output from one of your searches:
First even though the psychological abilities and mechanisms that Tomasello posits have been selected for linguistic functions these abilities and mechanisms have continued to be used and plausibly selected for non-linguistic purposes such as face recognition theory of mind non-linguistic perception etc