Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Roger Brown, E. Lenneberg (1954)
A study in language and cognition.Journal of abnormal psychology, 49 3
(1956)
Logic, Semantics, and Metamathematics
P. Bloom (2005)
How Children Learn the Meaning of Words and How LSA Does It ( Too )
Noam Chomsky, N. Smith (1997)
New horizons in the study of language, 13
J. Higginbotham (1991)
Remarks on the metaphysics of linguisticsLinguistics and Philosophy, 14
(2001)
Minimalist inquiries
(1980)
Three-dimensional phonology, Journal of Linguistic
J. Pustejovsky (1995)
The Generative LexiconComput. Linguistics, 17
(1935)
1931–1935. Collected papers, 8 vols
J. McCawley (1978)
Conversational Implicature and the Lexicon
H. Kamp, Uwe Reyle (1993)
From discourse to logic
(1990)
Semantic structures, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jackendoff, Ray
Hauser (2002)
Noam Chomsky Tecumseh The faculty of language : What is it who has it and how did it evolveScience
M. Bierwisch (2007)
Semantic Form as Interface
Csr Young (2009)
How to Do Things With Words
(1996)
Frames of reference and Moulyneux’s question: Crosslinguistic
B. Bauch, A. Hoffmann, H. Engert
Beiträge zur Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus
Richard Wiese (1996)
The Phonology of German
(1978)
The sound shape of language. Brighton: Harvester
Kaminski (2004)
Julia Fischer Word learning in a domestic dog : Evidence for fast mappingScience
U. Eco (1976)
A theory of semiotics
Juliane Kaminski, J. Call, J. Fischer (2004)
Word Learning in a Domestic Dog: Evidence for "Fast Mapping"Science, 304
Expressibility, namely the condition that whatever can be thought can be said, is for strong reasons considered as an essential property of natural languages. To avoid circularity, thought cannot be identified here as what language expresses. The present paper argues that completeness of language with regard to thought is a natural consequence of the fact that the language faculty is essentially the capacity to acquire and use combinatorial systems of symbols. In contrast to iconic signs, symbolic systems do not depend on similarity between signal and meaning, but are based on convention. This symbolic nature of language provides access to any domain of human experience, since no situational connection or similarity between signal and denotatum is required; the combinatorial character allows for any degree of detail, as it provides for expressions of arbitrary complexity. The symbolic and combinatorial nature of human languages implies their discrete and abstract character, by which they are limited to the expression of discrete meanings. Mental structures that are bound to similarity with the signal they rely on are therefore outside the range of language. Percepts of faces and the meaning of music are briefly discussed as mental representations that cannot be verbalized. The symbolic nature of language sets the limits of expressibility, but it also allows for metalanguage and definitions, which in turn are means to overcome local constraints on expressibility. Finally, expressibility is to be distinguished from codability, i.e., the preference for optimal expression and its consequences, which shape conventions and use of symbols.
Linguistics - An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences – de Gruyter
Published: Jul 1, 2011
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.