Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-9rk55 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-23T00:25:48.500Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in the Philosophy of Science

The Philosophy of Linguistics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 July 2025

Ryan M. Nefdt
Ryan M. Nefdt
Affiliation:
University of Cape Town and University of Bristol

Summary

The philosophy of linguistics reflects on multiple scientific disciplines aimed at the understanding of one of the most fundamental aspects of human existence, our ability to produce and understand natural language. Linguistics, viewed as a science, has a long history but it was the advent of the formal (and computational) revolution in cognitive science that established the field as both scientifically and philosophically appealing. In this Element, the topic will be approached as a means for understanding larger issues in the philosophy of science more generally.
Get access

Keywords

philosophy of sciencephilosophy of linguisticsscientific modellinginfinite generalisationlarge language models

Information

Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in the Philosophy of Science
Online ISBN: 9781009491952
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 31 August 2025

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.)

Element purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allott, N., Lohndal, T., & Rey, G. (2021a). Chomsky’s ‘Galilean’ explanatory style. In Allott, N., Lohndal, T., & Rey, G. (Eds.), A Companion to Chomsky (pp. 517–528). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allott, N., Lohndal, T., & Rey, G. (Eds.). (2021b). A Companion to Chomsky. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119598732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allott, N., & Smith, N. (2021). Chomsky and Fodor on modularity. In Allott, N., Lohndal, T., & Rey, G. (Eds.), A Companion to Chomsky (pp. 529–543). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alter, S. G. (1999). Darwinism and the linguistic image: Language, race, and natural theology in the nineteenth century. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alter, S. G. (2013). Darwin and language. In Ruse, M. (Ed.), The Cambridge encyclopedia of Darwin and evolutionary thought (pp. 182–187). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ananthaswamy, A. (2024). Why machines learn: The elegant math behind modern AI. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R., & Lightfoot, D. W. (2002). The language organ: Linguistics as cognitive physiology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ankeny, R., & Leonelli, S. (2011). What’s so special about model organisms? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 41, 313–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ankeny, R., & Leonelli, S. (2020). Model organisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appiah, K. A. (2017). As if: Idealization and ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, E. (2013). Linguistic universals and particulars. In Kiefer, F., Ladányi, M., & Siptár, P. (Eds.), Eight decades of general linguistics (pp. 489–502). Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baggio, G. (2020). Epistemic transfer between linguistics and neuroscience: Problems and prospects. In Nefdt, R. M., Klippi, C., & Karstens, B. (Eds.), The philosophy and science of language (pp. 279–300). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Baggio, G. (2022). Neurolinguistics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baggio, G., & Murphy, E. (2024). On the referential capacity of language models: An internalist rejoinder to Mandelkern & Linzen. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.00159.Google Scholar
Balari, S., Benítez-Burraco, A., Longa, V. M., & Lorenzo, G. (2013). The fossils of language: What are they? who has them? how did they evolve? In Grohmann, K. K. & Boeckx, C. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Biolinguistics (pp. 489–523). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balari, S., & González, G. L. (2013). Computational phenotypes: Towards an evolutionary developmental biolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Balari, S., & Lorenzo, G. (2009). Computational phenotypes: Where the theory of computation meets evo-devo. Biolinguistics, 3(1), 2–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balashov, Y. (2020). The translator’s extended mind. Minds and Machines, 30, 349–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balashov, Y. (2022). The boundaries of meaning: A case study in neural machine translation. Inquiry, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, D. (2018). Semantics as measurement. In Ball, D. & Rabern, B. (Eds.), The science of meaning: Essays on the metatheory of natural language semantics (pp. 381–410). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, D., & Rabern, B. (Eds.). (2018). The science of meaning: Essays on the metatheory of natural language semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baroni, M. (2022). On the proper role of linguistically oriented deep net analysis in linguistic theorising. In Lappin, S. & Bernardy, J.-P. (Eds.), Algebraic structures in natural language (pp. 1–16). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Becker, A. (2018). What is real?: The unfinished quest for the meaning of quantum physics. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Behme, C. (2014). A ‘Galilean’ science of language. Journal of Linguistics, 50, 671–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bender, E. M., & Koller, A. (2020, July). Climbing towards NLU: On meaning, form, and understanding in the age of data. In Jurafsky, D., Chai, J., Schluter, N., & Tetreault, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (pp. 5185–5198). Online: Stroudsburg PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benítez-Burraco, A., & Murphy, E. (2019). Why brain oscillations are improving our understanding of language. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 13, 190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berwick, R. C., & Chomsky, N. (2016). Why only us: Language and evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R. C., Friederici, A. D., Chomsky, N., & Bolhuis, J. J. (2013). Evolution, brain, and the nature of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(2), 89–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bever, T. G. (2013). The biolinguistics of language universals: The next years. In Sanz, M., Laka, I., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (Eds.), Language down the garden path: The cognitive and biological basis for linguistic structures (pp. 385–405). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bever, T. G. (2021). How cognition came into being. Cognition, 213, 104761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, S. D. (2019). Combining finite and infinite elements: Why do we use infinite idealizations in engineering? Synthese, 196, 1733–1748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1975). Dynamics of a creole system. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (2014). More than nature needs: Language, mind, and evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1936). Language or ideas? Language, 12, 89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boden, M. A. (2016). AI: Its nature and future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2006). Linguistic minimalism: Origins, concepts, methods, and aims. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2010). Linguistic minimalism. In Heine, B. & Narrog, H. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis (pp. 485–505). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C., & Grohmann, K. K. (2007). The biolinguistics manifesto. Biolinguistics, 1(1–2), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L. , & Phillips, W. (2003). Sex, syntax, and semantics. In Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition (pp. 61–79). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botha, R. P. (1982). On ‘the Galilean style’ of linguistic inquiry. Lingua, 58, 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromberger, S. (1989). Types and tokens in linguistics. In George, A. (Ed.), Reflections on chomsky (pp. 58–90). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bromberger, S., & Halle, M. (1989). Why phonology is different. Linguistic Inquiry, 20(1), 51–70.Google Scholar
Bueno, O., & Colyvan, M. (2011a). An inferential conception of the application of mathematics. Noûs, 45(2), 345–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno, O., & Colyvan, M. (2011b). An inferential conception of the application of mathematics. Noûs, 45(2), 345–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno, O., & French, S. (2018). Applying mathematics: Immersion, inference, interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno, O., French, S., & Ladyman, J. (2002). On representing the relationship between the mathematical and the empirical. Philosophy of Science, 69, 497–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, P. (1990). Linguistic realities: An autonomist metatheory for the generative enterprise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Caucheteux, C., & King, J.- R. (2022). Brains and algorithms partially converge in natural language processing. Communications Biology, 5, 134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chaabouni, R., Kharitonov, E., Dupoux, E. , & Baroni, M. (2019). Anti-efficient encoding in emergent communication. ArXiv, abs/1905.12561.Google Scholar
Chater, N., Clark, A., Goldsmith, J. A., & Perfors, A. (2015). Empiricism and Language Learnability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chemla, E., & Nefdt, R. M. (2024). No such thing as a general learner: Language models and their dual optimization. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.09544.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1955/1975). The logical structure of linguistic theory. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1956). Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions on Information Theory, 2(3), 113–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1959a). On certain formal properties of grammars. Information and Control, 1, 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1959b). Review of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language, 35, 26–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1963). Formal properties of grammars. In Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R., & Galanter, E. (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology II (pp. 323–418). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1966). Cartesian linguistics: A chapter in the history of rationalist thought. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1991a). Linguistics and adjacent fields: A personal view. In Kasher, A. (Ed.), The Chomskyan Turn (pp. 3–25). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1991b). Linguistics and cognitive science: Problems and mysteries. In Kasher, A. (Ed.), The Chomskyan Turn (pp. 26–53). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory ( Tech. Rep. No. 1). MIT, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995a). Language and nature. Mind, 104, 1–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995b). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2000). New horizons in the study of language and mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2002). On nature and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. In Freidin, R., Otero, C. P., Zubizarreta, M. L., Keyser, S. J. (Eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud (pp. 133–166). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2013). Lecture 1: What is language? Journal of Philosophy, 110(12), 645–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2017). Two notions of modularity. In Almeida, R. G. De & Gleitman, L. R. (Eds.), On concepts, modules, and language: Cognitive science at its core (pp. 25–40). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2023). Conversations with Tyler: Noam Chomsky. https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/noam-chomsky/(Podcast).Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., & McGilvray, J. (2012). The science of language: Interviews with James McGilvray. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N., Roberts, I., & Watumull, J. (2023). Noam chomsky: The false promise of ChatGPT. The New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2023/03/08/opinion/noam-chomsky-chatgpt-ai.html.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., Seely, T. D., Berwick, R. C. et al. (2023). Merge and the strong minimalist thesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cichy, R. M., & Kaiser, D. (2019). Deep neural networks as scientific models. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(4), 305–317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A., & Lappin, S. (2012). Computational learning theory and language acquisition. In Kempson, R., Fernando, T., & Asher, N. (Eds.), Philosophy of linguistics (pp. 445–475). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Tree, J. E. F. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84(1), 73–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, J. (2023a). Generative linguistics: ‘Galilean style’. Language Sciences, 100, 101585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2023.101585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, J. (2023b). Internalist priorities in a philosophy of words. Synthese, 201(110), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, C., & Stabler, E. (2016). A formalization of minimalist syntax. Syntax, 19(1), 43–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dabrowska, E. (2015). What exactly is universal grammar, and has anyone seen it? Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1-17, Article 852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Dediu, D., & Levinson, S. C. (2013). On the antiquity of language: The reinterpretation of Neandertal linguistic capacities and its consequences. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 397, 1-17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dekker, P. (2012). Dynamic semantics. Netherlands: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (1981). The intentional stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (1991). Real patterns. Journal of Philosophy, 88(1), 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (2017). From bacteria to bach and back. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Deutscher, G. (2010). Through the language glass: Why the world looks different in other languages. New York: Metropolitan Books.Google Scholar
Devitt, M. (2005). Realism/anti-realism. In Curd, M. & Psillos, S. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to philosophy of science (pp. 224–235). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Devitt, M. (2006). Ignorance of language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, H. (2009). Reintroducing prediction to explanation. Philosophy of Science, 76(4), 444–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupre, G. (2021). (What) can deep learning contribute to theoretical linguistics? Minds and Machines, 31, 617–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupre, G. (2022). Reference and morphology. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 106(3), 655–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupre, G. (2024). Acquiring a language vs. inducing a grammar. Cognition, 247(C), 1-12, 105771.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Easwaran, K., Hájek, A., Mancosu, P., & Oppy, G. (2023). Infinity. In Zalta, E. N. & Nodelman, U. (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2023 ed.). Palo Alto: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Egré, P. (2015). Explanation in linguistics. Philosophy Compass, 10(7), 451–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, N., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(5), 429–448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Everaert, M. B., Huybregts, M. A., Chomsky, N., Berwick, R. C., & Bolhuis, J. J. (2015). Structures, not strings: Linguistics as part of the cognitive sciences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(12), 729–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everett, D. (2005). Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: Another look at the design features of human language. Current Anthropology, 46(4), 621–646. https://doi.org/10.1086/431525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everett, D. (2012). What does Pirahã grammar have to teach us about human language and the mind? WIREs Cognitive Science, 3(6), 555–563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Everett, D. (2017). How language began: The story of humanity’s greatest invention. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. (2007). Data in generative grammar: The stick and the carrot. Theoretical Linguistics, 33, 269–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fedorenko, E., Piantadosi, S. T., & Gibson, E. A. F. (2024). Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought. Nature, 630, 575–586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fedorenko, E., & Varley, R. (2016, April). Language and thought are not the same thing: Evidence from neuroimaging and neurological patients. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1369(1), 132–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, S. C., Palacios, P., Ruetsche, L. et al. (2019). Infinite idealizations in science: An introduction. Synthese, 196, 1657–1669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1974). Special sciences (or: The disunity of science as a working hypothesis). Synthese, 28(2), 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A., Bever, T. G., & Garrett, M. F. (1974). The psychology of language: An introduction to psycholinguistics and generative grammar. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Frank, M. C. (2023). Bridging the data gap between children and large language models. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 27(11), 990–992.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franke, M. (2013). Game theoretic pragmatics. Philosophy Compass, 8(3), 269–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankish, K., & Ramsey, W. M. (Eds.). (2012). The Cambridge companion to cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Freidin, R. (2013). Noam Chomsky’s contribution to linguistics: A sketch. In Allan, K. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the history of linguistics (pp. 438–467). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, S. (2014). The philosophy of science: Key concepts. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
French, S. (2016). Philosophy of science: Key concepts. London: Bloomsbury Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friederici, A. D., Chomsky, N., Berwick, R. C., Moro, A., & Bolhuis, J. J. (2017). Language, mind and brain. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(10), 713–722. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0184-4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, H. (1985a). The mind’s new science: A history of the cognitive revolution. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1985b). The mind’s new science: A history of the cognitive revolution. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Futrell, R., Piantadosi, S. T. et al. (2019). How efficiency shapes human language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(5), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, E., Futrell, R., Piantadosi, S. T. et al. (2021). How efficiency shapes human language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(5), 389–407.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., & Poliak, M. (Eds.). (2024). From fieldwork to linguistic theory (No. 15). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glanzberg, M. (2014). Explanation and partiality in semantic theory. In Burgess, A. & Sherman, B. (Eds.), Metasemantics: New essays on the foundations of meaning (pp. 135–167). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2006). The strategy of model-based science. Biology and Philosophy, 21(5), 725–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2016). Other minds: The octopus, the sea, and the deep origins of consciousness. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Gold, E. M. (1967). Language identification in the limit. Information and Control, 10(5), 447–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2015). Compositionality. In Dabrowska, E. & Divjak, D. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 473–492). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. A. (2001). Unsupervised learning of the morphology of a natural language. Computational Linguistics, 27(2), 153–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, J. A., & Laks, B. (2019). Battle in the mind fields. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gopnik, M. (1990). Feature-blind grammar and dysphasia. Nature, 344, 715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graf, T. (2022). Subregular linguistics: Bridging theoretical linguistics and formal grammar. Theoretical Linguistics, 48(3–4), 145–184. https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2022-2037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hagoort, P., Brown, C., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(4), 439–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, R. A. (2021). The linguistics wars: Chomsky, Lakoff, and the battle over deep structure (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2024). Breadth versus depth: Theoretical reasons for system-independent comparison of languages. In Nefdt, R. M., Dupre, G., & Stanton, K. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hasson, U., Nastase, S. A., & Goldstein, A. (2020). Direct fit to nature: An evolutionary perspective on biological and artificial neural networks. Neuron, 105(3), 416–434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hauser, M., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298(22), 1569–1579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst. (File Change Semantics)Google Scholar
Hellman, G. (1989). Mathematics without numbers: Towards a modal-structural interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15, 135–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, J. M., Choi, W., Lowder, M. W., & Ferreira, F. (2016). Language structure in the brain: A fixation-related fMRI study of syntactic surprisal in reading. NeuroImage, 132, 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesse, M. B. (1963). Models and analogies in science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1999). The emperor’s new intuitions. Journal of Philosophy, 96(3), 127–147.Google Scholar
Hinzen, W., & Sheehan, M. (2015). The philosophy of universal grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hinzen, W., & Uriagereka, J. (2006). On the metaphysics of linguistics. Erkenntnis, 65(1), 71–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L., & Kecskes, I. (2013). Pragmatics, discourse, and cognition. In Anderson, S., Moeschler, J., & Reboul, A. (Eds.), The language-cognition interface (pp. 353–375). Geneva: Librairie Droz.Google Scholar
Hsu, A. S., & Chater, N. (2010). The logical problem of language acquisition: A probabilistic perspective. Cognitive Science, 34(6), 972–1016.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hsu, A. S., Chater, N., & Vitányi, P. M. (2011). The probabilistic analysis of language acquisition: Theoretical, computational, and experimental analysis. Cognition, 120(3), 380–390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huck, G. J., & Goldsmith, J. A. (1995). Ideology and linguistic theory: Noam chomsky and the deep structure debates. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. I. G. (1997). Models and representation. Philosophy of Science, 64, S325–S336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huybregts, M. A. C. (2019). Infinite generation of language unreachable from a stepwise approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Itkonen, E. (2001). Concerning the philosophy of phonology. Puhe ja kieli, 21, 3–11.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2018). Representations and rules in language. In Huebner, B. (Ed.), The Philosophy of Daniel Dennett (pp. 95–126). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R., & Wittenberg, E. (2014). What you can say without syntax: A hierarchy of grammatical complexity. In Newmeyer, F. & Preston, L. (Eds.), Measuring linguistic complexity (pp. 65–82). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, B. B. (2020). Model-theoretic semantics as model-based science. Synthese, 199(1–2), 3061–3081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, P. (1999). Sapir’s legacy and the science of linguistics. Journal of Linguistics, 35(2), 225–240.Google Scholar
Jacobson, P. (2012). Direct compositionality. In Hinzen, W., Machery, E., & Werning, M. (Eds.), The oxford handbook of compositionality (pp.109–128). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199541072.013.0005 (Online edition, accessed 16 March 2025)Google Scholar
Jäger, G., & Rogers, J. (2012). Formal language theory: Refining the Chomsky Hierarchy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1598), 1956–1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jech, T. (2005). Set theory. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 11(2), 243–245.Google Scholar
Jelinek, F. (1988). Applying information theoretic methods: Evaluation of grammar quality. In Proceedings of the workshop on evaluation of natural language processing systems. Wayne, PA.Google Scholar
Jerne, N. K. (1985). The generative grammar of the immune system. Bioscience Reports, 5(6), 439–451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, K. (2007). The legacy of methodological dualism. Mind and Language, 22(4), 366–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2007.00313.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K. (2015). Notational variants and invariance in linguistics. Mind & Language, 30(2), 162–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M., & Lakoff, G. (2002). Why cognitive linguistics requires embodied realism. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(3), 245–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, J. E. (1999). How structuralist was ‘American Structuralism’? Henry Sweet Society for the History of Linguistic Ideas Bulletin, 33(1), 23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joshi, A. K. (1985). How much context sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural descriptions: Tree adjoining grammars. In Dowty, D., Karttunen, L., & Zwicky, A. (Eds.), Natural language processing: Psycholinguistic, computational and theoretical perspectives (pp. 206–250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallini, J., Papadimitriou, I., Futrell, R., Mahowald, K., & Potts, C. (2024). Mission: Impossible language models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.06416.Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. (1990). Words. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 64(1), 93–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, J. (1972). Linguistic philosophy: The underlying reality of language and its philosophical import. East Melbourne: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Katz, J. (1981). Language and other abstract objects. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Katzir, R. (2023, 12). Why large language models are poor theories of human linguistic cognition: A reply to Piantadosi. Biolinguistics, 17, 1-12, e13153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keiser, J. (2022). Non-ideal foundations of language. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempson, R. M., Meyer-Viol, W., & Gabbay, D. (2001). Dynamic syntax: The flow of language understanding. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kenneally, C. (2007). The first word: The search for the origins of language. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Kincaid, H. (2008). Structural realism and the social sciences. Philosophy of Science, 75(5), 720–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1989). Explanatory unification and the causal structure of the world. In Kitcher, P. & Salmon, W. (Eds.), Scientific explanation (pp. 410–505). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Knuuttila, T., & Merz, M. (2009). Understanding by modeling: An objectual approach. In de Regt, H. W., Leonelli, S., & Eigner, K. (Eds.), Scientific understanding: Philosophical perspectives (pp. 146–168). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kodner, J., Payne, S., & Heinz, J. (2023). Why linguistics will thrive in the 21st century: A reply to Piantadosi (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03228.Google Scholar
Korta, K., & Perry, J. (2008). Pragmatics. In Korta, K. & Perry, J. (Eds.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Palo Alto: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kragh, H. (2014). The true (?) story of Hilbert’s infinite hotel. https://doi.org/arXiv:1403.0059.Google Scholar
Kretzschmar, W. A. J. (2015). Language as a complex system. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (1st ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Revised editions published in 1970 and 1996).Google Scholar
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621–647.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jäger, G., & Rogers, J. (2012) Formal language theory: Refining the Chomsky hierarchy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 367, 715–762.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Labov, W. (1969). Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language, 45, 715–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladyman, J. (1998). What is structural realism? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 29(3), 409–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladyman, J., & Ross, D. (2007). Everything must go: Naturalized metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1991). Cognitive versus generative linguistics: How commitments influence results. Language & Communication, 11(1/2), 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Landman, F. (1991). Structures for semantics. Netherlands: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langendoen, D. T. (2010). Just how big are natural languages? In van der Hulst, H. (Ed.), Recursion and human language (pp. 139–146). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lappin, S. (2024). Assessing the strengths and weaknesses of large language models. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 33, 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lappin, S., Levine, R. D., & Johnson, D. E. (2000). The structure of unscientific revolutions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 18(3), 665–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, E., Phillips, C., & Poeppel, D. (2008). A cortical network for semantics: (de)constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(12), 920–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. (2008). An introduction to the theory of formal languages and automata. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. K. (1969). Convention: A philosophical study. Amsterdam,: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. K. (1975). Languages and language. In Gunderson, K. (Ed.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (pp. 3–35). Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. K. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. K. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lian, Y., Bisazza, A., & Verhoef, T. (2021). The effect of efficient messaging and input variability on neural-agent iterated language learning. ArXiv, abs/ 2104.07637.Google Scholar
Linnebo, O., & Shapiro, S. (2017). Actual and potential infinity. Noûs, 53(1), 160–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linzen, T., & Baroni, M. (2021). Syntactic structure from deep learning [Journal Article]. Annual Review of Linguistics, 7, 195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lobina, D. J. (2017). Recursion: A computational investigation into the representation and processing of language. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewer, B. (2009). Why is there anything except physics? Synthese, 170(2), 217–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludlow, P. (2011). Philosophy of generative grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Machery, E. (2017). Philosophy within its proper bounds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallory, F. (2020). Linguistic types are capacity-individuated action-types. Inquiry, 63(9-10), 1123–1148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallory, F. (2023). Why is generative grammar recursive? Erkenntnis, 88, 3097–3111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallory, F. (2024). Generative linguistics and the computational level. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 24(71), 195–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandelkern, M., & Linzen, T. (2024). Do language models’ words refer? https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.05576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, A. (2005). Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language. The Linguistic Review, 22(2–4), 429–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, G. F. (1993). Negative evidence in language acquisition. Cognition, 46(1), 53–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Markus, I., & Bringmann, L. F. (2021). The theory crisis in psychology: How to move forward. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 779–788.Google Scholar
Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Martins, P. T., & Boeckx, C. (2019). Language evolution and complexity considerations: The no half-merge fallacy. PLOS Biology, 17(11), 1–5, e3000389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matthews, P. (2001). A short history of structural linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, J. H. (2014). The language hoax: Why the world looks the same in any language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, R., & Nefdt, R. M. (in press). Sociolinguistics as deidealisation. In Nefdt, R., Dupre, G., & Stanton, K. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the philosophy of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (forthcoming)Google Scholar
Miller, P. (1999). Strong generative capacity: The semantics of linguistic formalism. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Miller, G. (2003). The cognitive revolution: A historical perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 141–144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, J. (2021a). A bundle theory of words. Synthese, 198, 5731–5748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. (2021b). Words, species, and kinds. Metaphysics, 4(1), 18–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. T. M., & Hughes, T. J. (2023). The Philosophy of Words, Synthese, https://link.springer.com/collections/cgicihfcie.Google Scholar
Millière, R. (2025). Language models as models of language. In Nefdt, R. M., Dupre, G., & Stanton, K. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Millière, R., & Buckner, C. (2024). A philosophical introduction to language models–part I: Continuity with classic debates. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.03910.Google Scholar
Millikan, R. G. (1984). Language, thought, and other biological categories: New foundations for realism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millikan, R. G. (2003). In defense of public language. In Antony, L. M. & Hornstein, N. (Eds.), Chomsky and his critics (pp. 215–237). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millikan, R. G. (2005). Language: A biological model. Oxford: Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, J., & Bowers, J. S. (2020). Priorless recurrent networks learn curiously. In Scott, D., Bel, N., & Zong, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th international conference on computational linguistics (pp. 5147–5158). Barcelona (Online): International Committee on Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Montague, R. (1970). Universal grammar. Theoria, 36(3), 373–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, M. S. (2013). Nature’s experiments and natural experiments in the social sciences. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 43(3), 341–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, M. S., & Morrison, M. (1999). Models as mediators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moro, A. (2016). Impossible languages. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moro, A., Greco, M., & Cappa, S. F. (2023). Large languages, impossible languages and human brains. Cortex, 167, 82–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrison, M. (2015). Reconstructing reality: Models, mathematics, and simulations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukerji, N. (2022). The Human Mind through the Lens of Language. New York: Bloomsbury Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, S. (2018). Grammatical theory: From transformational grammar to constraint-based approaches. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, E. (2012). Biolinguistics and philosophy: Insights and obstacles. Lulu.com: Morrisville, NC: Lulu.Google Scholar
Murphy, E. (2023). The oscillatory nature of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nefdt, R. M. (2016). Scientific modelling in generative grammar and the dynamic turn in syntax. Linguistics and Philosophy, 39(5), 357–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nefdt, R. M. (2018). Languages and other abstract structures. In Behme, C. & Neef, M. (Eds.), Essays on linguistic realism (pp. 139–184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nefdt, R. M. (2019a). Infinity and the foundations of linguistics. Synthese, 196(5), 1671–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nefdt, R. M. (2019b). The ontology of words: A structural approach. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 62(8), 877–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nefdt, R. M. (2020a). Formal semantics and applied mathematics: An inferential account. Journal of Logic, Language & Information, 29(2), 221–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nefdt, R. M. (2020b). The role of language in the cognitive sciences. In Nefdt, R., Klippi, C., & Karstens, B. (Eds.), The philosophy and science of language (pp. 235–256). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nefdt, R. M. (2021). Structural realism and generative linguistics. Synthese, 199(1–2), 3711–3737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nefdt, R. M. (2023a). Language, science, and structure: A journey into the philosophy of linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nefdt, R. M. (2023b). Motivating a scientific modeling continuum: The case of ‘natural models’ in the covid-19 pandemic. Philosophy of Science, 90(4), 880–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nefdt, R. M. (2023b). Biolinguistics and biological systems: A complex systems analysis of language. Biology and Philosophy, 38(2), 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nefdt, R. M. (2024). The philosophy of theoretical linguistics: A contemporary outlook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nefdt, R. M., & Baggio, G. (2024a). Notational variants and cognition: The case of dependency grammar. Erkenntnis, (89), 2867–2897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nefdt, R. M., & Kac, M. B. (2025). Some thoughts on formalization in linguistics. In Nefdt, R. M., Dupre, G., & Stanton, K. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the philosophy of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nevins, A., Pesetsky, D., & Rodrigues, C. (2009). Pirahã exceptionality: A reassessment. Language, 85, 355–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (1986a). Has there been a ‘Chomskyan revolution’ in linguistics? Language, 62(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (1986b). Linguistic theory in America (2nd ed.). Orlando: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (1996). Generative linguistics: An historical perspective (1st ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Oppy, G. (2006). Philosophical perspectives on infinity. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papineau, D. (2016). Teleosemantics. In Smith, D. L. (Ed.), How biology shapes philosophy: New foundations for naturalism (pp. 95–120). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, B. H. (1984). Compositionality. In Landman, F. & Veltman, F. (Eds.), Varieties of formal semantics (pp. 281–311). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H., ter Meulen, A., & Wall, R. E. (1990). Mathematical methods in linguistics (Vol. 30). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Pasquiou, A., Lakretz, Y., Hale, J., Thirion, B., & Pallier, C. (2022). Neural language models are not born equal to fit brain data, but training helps. https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.03380.Google Scholar
Patel-Grosz, P., Mascarenhas, S., Chemla, E. et al. (2023). Super linguistics: An introduction. Linguistics and Philosophy, 46, 627–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearl, L. (2021). Poverty of the stimulus without tears. Language Learning and Development, 18(4), 415–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelletier, J., & Nefdt, R. M. (2025). Linguistic relativity: A guide to past debates and future prospects. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Percival, W. K. (1976). The applicability of Kuhn’s paradigms to the history of linguistics. Language, 52(2), 285–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereplyotchik, D. (2017). Psychosyntax: The nature of grammar and its place in the mind. Cham: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, C., & Lasnik, H. (2003). Linguistics and empirical evidence: Reply to Edelman and Christiansen. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 61–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piantadosi, S. T. (2024). Modern language models refute Chomsky’s approach to language. In Gibson, E. & Poliak, M. (Eds.), From fieldwork to linguistic theory: A tribute to Dan Everett (Vol. 15, pp. 353–414). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Pincock, C. (2007). A role for mathematics in the physical sciences. Noûs, 41, 253–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Planer, R. J., & Sterelny, K. (2021). From signal to symbol: The evolution of language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poeppel, D. (2012). The maps problem and the mapping problem: Two challenges for a cognitive neuroscience of speech and language. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 29(1–2), 34–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poeppel, D., & Embick, D. (2005). Defining the relation between linguistics and neuroscience. In Cutler, A. (Ed.), Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: four cornerstones (pp. 103–118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. (2009). The incoherence of Chomsky’s ‘biolinguistic’ ontology. Biolinguistics, 3(1), 104–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potts, C. (2024). Characterizing English preposing in pp constructions. Journal of Linguistics, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Progovac, L. (2015). Evolutionary syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Progovac, L. (2016). A gradualist scenario for language evolution: Precise linguistic reconstruction of early human (and Neandertal) grammars. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1714.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pullum, G. K. (2011). On the mathematical foundations of syntactic structures. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 20(3), 277–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, G. K. (2013). The central question in comparative syntactic metatheory. Mind and Language, 28(4), 492–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, G. K., & Scholz, B. (2002). Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review, 19, 9–50.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K., & Scholz, B. C. (2010). Recursion and the infinitude claim. In van der Hulst, H. (Ed.), Recursion and Human language (pp. 111–138). Netherlands: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975). Explanation and reference. In Putnam, H. (Ed.), Mathematics, matter and method: Philosophical papers, volume 1 (pp. 196–214). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1981). Reason, truth, and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1984). Computation and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1969). Epistemology naturalized. In Ontological relativity and other essays (pp. 69–90). New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1972). Methodological reflections on current linguistic theory. In Davidson, D. & Harman, G. (Eds.), Semantics of natural language (pp. 442–454). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapaport, W. J. (2012). Philosophy of computer science: An introduction to the issues and the literature ( Tech. Rep.). University at Buffalo, The State University of New York.Google Scholar
Rayo, A. (2019). On the brink of paradox. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiss, C. (2024). Research methods in armchair linguistics. In Nefdt, R., Dupre, G., & Stanton, K. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of philosophy of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Forthcoming)Google Scholar
Resnik, M. D. (1982). Mathematics as a science of patterns: Epistemology. Noûs, 16(1), 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rey, G. (2020). Representation of language: Philosophical issues in a Chomskyan linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richard, M. (2019). Meanings as species. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax (Ph.D. Dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Ryskin, R., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2023). Prediction during language comprehension: What is next? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 27(11), 1032–1052.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sampson, G. (2005). The ‘language instinct’ debate. London: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. (1929). The status of linguistics as a science. Language, 5(4), 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savitch, W. J. (1993). Why it might pay to assume that languages are infinite. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 8(1–2), 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schindler, S., Drożdżowicz, A., & Brøcker, K. (Eds.). (2020). Linguistic intuitions: Evidence and method. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2018). Visible meaning: Sign language and the foundations of semantics. Theoretical Linguistics, 44(3–4), 123–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholz, B. C., Pelletier, F. J., Pullum, G. K., & Nefdt, R. M. (2022). Philosophy of linguistics. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall ed.). Palo Alto: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/linguistics/.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. T. (1996). The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, W. (1953). Inference and meaning. Mind, 62(247), 313–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seuren, P. (2013). From Whorf to Montague. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, S. (1997). Philosophy of mathematics: Structure and ontology. New York: Oxford University Press. (Sometimes cited as Mathematics as a Science of Patterns).Google Scholar
Shea, N. (2018). Representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sinha, C. (2010). Cognitive linguistics, psychology, and cognitive science. In Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 1–30). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. (1957). Verbal behavior. Acton, MA: Copley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, N. (1994). Chomsky’s revolution. Nature, 367(6460), 521–522. https://doi.org/10.1038/367521a0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., & Almeida, D. (2012). Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syntax: Adger’s core syntax1. Journal of Linguistics, 48(3), 609–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1976). Possible worlds. Noûs, 10(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.2307/2214477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. Syntax and Semantics (New York Academic Press), 9, 315–332.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (2014). Context: Context and content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, J., & Szabó, Z. G. (2000). On quantifier domain restriction. Mind & Language, 15(2–3), 219–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanton, K. H. (2020). Linguistics and philosophy: Break up song. In Nefdt, R. M., Klippi, C., & Karstens, B. (Eds.), The philosophy and science of language (pp. 315–333). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Stanton, K. H. (2023). Composing words and non-words. Synthese, 202(179), 1-28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steedman, M. (2017). The emergence of language. Mind & Language, 32, 579–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokhof, M. (2013). Formal semantics and Wittgenstein. The Monist, 96(2), 205–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strevens, M. (2020). The knowledge machine: How irrationality created modern science. New York: Liveright.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1968). The desirability of formalization in science. Journal of Philosophy, 65(20), 651–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabó, Z. G. (2012). The case for compositionality. In Werning, M., Hinzen, W., & Machery, E. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality (pp. 64–80). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taran, S., Adhikari, N. K. J., & Fan, E. (2021). Falsifiability in medicine: What clinicians can learn from Karl Popper. Intensive Care Medicine, 47(9), 1054–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiede, H.- J., & Stout, L. N. (2010). Recursion, infinity, and modeling. In van der Hulst, H. (Ed.), Recursion and human language (pp. 147–158). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomalin, M. (2006). Linguistics and the formal sciences: The origins of generative grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2008). The origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. (1958). Grundzüge der phonologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. (Originally published in 1939)Google Scholar
Tuckute, G., Kanwisher, N., & Fedorenko, E. (2024, August). Language in brains, minds, and machines. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 47(1), 277–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Fraassen, B. C. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Rooij, I., & Baggio, G. (2020). Theory before the test: How to build high-verisimilitude explanatory theories in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(4), 1044–1056.Google Scholar
Vargha-Khadem, F., Gadian, D. G., Copp, A., & Mishkin, M. (2005). FOXP2 and the neuroanatomy of speech and language. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(2), 131–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N. et al. (2023). Attention is all you need. https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762.Google Scholar
Veltman, F. (1996). Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25(3), 221–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Humboldt, W. (1836). On language: On the diversity of human language construction and its influence on the mental development of the human species (Losonsky, M., Ed. & Heath, P., Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vong, W. K., Wang, W., Orhan, A. E., & Lake, B. M. (2024). Grounded language acquisition through the eyes and ears of a single child. Science, 383(6682), 504–511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weisberg, M. (2007). Three kinds of idealization. The Journal of Philosophy, 104(12), 639–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, M. (2013). Simulation and similarity: Using models to understand the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetzel, L. (2009). Types and tokens: On abstract objects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wigner, E. P. (1960). The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 13, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, E., Levy, R., Morita, T., & Futrell, R. (2018, January). What do RNN language models learn about filler–gap dependencies? In Linzen, T., Chrupała, G., & Alishahi, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and interpreting neural networks for NLP (pp. 211–221). Brussels: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Worrall, J. (1989). Structural realism: The best of both worlds? Dialectica, 43(1–2), 99–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yalcin, S. (2018). Semantics as model-based science. In Ball, D. & Rabern, B. (Eds.), The science of meaning: Essays on the metatheory of natural language semantics (pp. 334–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, K., & Hricko, J. (2017). Brain networks, structural realism, and local approaches to the scientific realism debate. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 64, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Y., & Piantadosi, S. T. (2022). One model for the learning of language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(5), 1-12, e2021865119.Google ScholarPubMed
Yax, N., Oudeyer, P.- Y., & Palminteri, S. (2024). PhyloLM : Inferring the phylogeny of large language models and predicting their performances in benchmarks. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.04671.Google Scholar
Yngve, V. H. (1996). Linguistics as a science. Indiana: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA

The PDF of this Element complies with version 2.1 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved user experiences and achieves the intermediate (AA) level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge-org.demo.remotlog.com is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Philosophy of Linguistics
  • Ryan M. Nefdt, University of Cape Town and University of Bristol
  • Online ISBN: 9781009491952
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The Philosophy of Linguistics
  • Ryan M. Nefdt, University of Cape Town and University of Bristol
  • Online ISBN: 9781009491952
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The Philosophy of Linguistics
  • Ryan M. Nefdt, University of Cape Town and University of Bristol
  • Online ISBN: 9781009491952
Available formats
×