Literature DB >> 15019555

Semantics, cross-cultural style.

Edouard Machery1, Ron Mallon, Shaun Nichols, Stephen P Stich.   

Abstract

Theories of reference have been central to analytic philosophy, and two views, the descriptivist view of reference and the causal-historical view of reference, have dominated the field. In this research tradition, theories of reference are assessed by consulting one's intuitions about the reference of terms in hypothetical situations. However, recent work in cultural psychology (e.g. Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: holistic vs. analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291-310.) has shown systematic cognitive differences between East Asians and Westerners, and some work indicates that this extends to intuitions about philosophical cases (Weinberg, J., Nichols, S., & Stich, S. (2001). Normativity and epistemic intuitions. Philosophical Topics 29(1&2), 429-459.) In light of these findings on cultural differences, an experiment was conducted which explored intuitions about reference in Westerners and East Asians. The experiment indicated that, for certain central cases, Westerners are more likely than East Asians to report intuitions that are consistent with the causal-historical view. These results constitute prima facie evidence that semantic intuitions vary from culture to culture, and the paper argues that this fact raises questions about the nature of the philosophical enterprise of developing a theory of reference. Copryright 2004 Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15019555     DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cognition        ISSN: 0010-0277


  7 in total

Review 1.  A Functional Contextual Account of Background Knowledge in Categorization: Implications for Artificial General Intelligence and Cognitive Accounts of General Knowledge.

Authors:  Darren J Edwards; Ciara McEnteggart; Yvonne Barnes-Holmes
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-03-02

2.  Responses to Herman Cappelen and Jennifer Nado.

Authors:  Edouard Machery
Journal:  Philos Stud       Date:  2020-10-30

3.  Statistical reporting inconsistencies in experimental philosophy.

Authors:  Matteo Colombo; Georgi Duev; Michèle B Nuijten; Jan Sprenger
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-04-12       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Trope analysis and folk intuitions.

Authors:  Stephanie Rennick
Journal:  Synthese       Date:  2021-01-11       Impact factor: 2.908

5.  The varying rationality of weakness of the will: an empirical investigation and its challenges for a unified theory of rationality.

Authors:  Michael Messerli; Julian Fink; Kevin Reuter
Journal:  Synthese       Date:  2022-08-26       Impact factor: 1.595

6.  Investigating conceptions of intentional action by analyzing participant generated scenarios.

Authors:  Alexander Skulmowski; Andreas Bunge; Bret R Cohen; Barbara A K Kreilkamp; Nicole Troxler
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-11-05

7.  For Whom Does Determinism Undermine Moral Responsibility? Surveying the Conditions for Free Will Across Cultures.

Authors:  Ivar R Hannikainen; Edouard Machery; David Rose; Stephen Stich; Christopher Y Olivola; Paulo Sousa; Florian Cova; Emma E Buchtel; Mario Alai; Adriano Angelucci; Renatas Berniûnas; Amita Chatterjee; Hyundeuk Cheon; In-Rae Cho; Daniel Cohnitz; Vilius Dranseika; Ángeles Eraña Lagos; Laleh Ghadakpour; Maurice Grinberg; Takaaki Hashimoto; Amir Horowitz; Evgeniya Hristova; Yasmina Jraissati; Veselina Kadreva; Kaori Karasawa; Hackjin Kim; Yeonjeong Kim; Minwoo Lee; Carlos Mauro; Masaharu Mizumoto; Sebastiano Moruzzi; Jorge Ornelas; Barbara Osimani; Carlos Romero; Alejandro Rosas López; Massimo Sangoi; Andrea Sereni; Sarah Songhorian; Noel Struchiner; Vera Tripodi; Naoki Usui; Alejandro Vázquez Del Mercado; Hrag A Vosgerichian; Xueyi Zhang; Jing Zhu
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-11-05
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.