Product Description: The Chomskian revolution in linguistics gave rise to a new orthodoxy about mind and language. Michael Devitt throws down a provocative challenge to that orthodoxy. What is linguistics about? What role should linguistic intuitions play in constructing grammars? What is innate about language? Is there a "language faculty?" These questions are crucial to our developing understanding of ourselves; Michael Devitt offers refreshingly original answers...read more

The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Language is acollection of twenty new essays in a cutting-edge and wide-rangingfield. Surveys central issues in contemporary philosophy of languagewhile examining foundational topicsProvides pedagogical tools such as abstracts and suggestionsfor further readingsTopics addressed include the nature of meaning, speech acts andpragmatics, figurative language, and naturalistic theories ofreference

(view table of contents)

Product Description: In this provocative and wide-ranging book, Michael Devitt argues for a thoroughgoing realism about the common-sense and scientific physical world, and for a correspondence notion of truth. Furthermore, he argues that, contrary to received opinion, the metaphysical question of realism is distinct from, and prior to, any semantic question about truth...read more (view table of contents, read Amazon.com's description)

Michael Devitt is a distinguished philosopher of language. In this new book he takes up issues in semantics. Three important questions lie at the core of this book: What are the main objectives of semantics? Why are they worthwhile? How should we accomplish them? Devitt answers these "methodological" questions naturalistically and explores what semantic program arises from the answers. The approach is anti-Cartesian, rejecting the idea that linguistic or conceptual competence yields any privileged access to meanings. Devitt argues for a truth-referential localism and in the process rejects direct-reference, two-factor, and verificationist theories. The book concludes by arguing against revisionism, eliminativism, and the idea that we should ascribe narrow meanings to explain behavior. (view table of contents)