Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Deirdre Wilson is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Deirdre Wilson.


Archive | 2012

Meaning and Relevance: The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon

Dan Sperber; Deirdre Wilson

© Deirdre Wilson and Dan Sperber 2012. Introduction There are words in the language we speak and concepts in our minds. For present purposes, we can use a relatively common-sense, unsophisticated notion of a linguistic word. A bit more needs to be said, now and later, about what we mean by a concept. We assume that mental representations have a structure not wholly unlike that of a sentence, and combine elements from a mental repertoire not wholly unlike a lexicon. These elements are mental concepts: so to speak, ‘words of mentalese’. Mental concepts are relatively stable and distinct structures in the mind, comparable to entries in an encyclopaedia or permanent files in a data-base. Their occurrence in a mental representation may determine matching causal and formal (semantic or logical) relationships. On the one hand, there are relationships between the mind and the world. The activation of a concept may play a major role in causal interactions between the organism and external objects that fall under that concept. On the other hand, there are relationships among representations within the mind. The occurrence of a concept in a mental representation may play a causal role in the derivation of further representations, and may also contribute to the justification of this derivation. Three types of mapping What kind of mapping is there (if any) between mental concepts and public words? One extreme view is that natural languages such as English or Swahili are the sole medium of thought. In this case, there is obviously a genuine one-to-one correspondence between public words and mental concepts. An opposite extreme view is that there are no such things as individual mental concepts at all, and therefore no conceptual counterparts to public words. We will ignore these extreme views. We assume that there are mental concepts, and that they are not simply internalisations of public words, so that the kind and degree of correspondence between concepts and words is a genuine and interesting empirical issue.


Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society | 1986

IX—Loose Talk

Dan Sperber; Deirdre Wilson


Archive | 2012

Meaning and Relevance: Explaining irony

Deirdre Wilson; Dan Sperber


Archive | 1996

Fodor's Frame Problem and Relevance Theory (reply to Chiappe & Kukla)

Dan Sperber; Deirdre Wilson


Archive | 2012

Meaning and Relevance: Introduction

Dan Sperber; Deirdre Wilson


Journal of Semantics | 1986

THE SELF-APPOINTMENT OF SEUREN AS CENSOR A Reply to Pieter Seuren

Deirdre Wilson; Dan Sperber


AS - Actes Sémiotiques | 2013

Le ragioni di una scelta (im)pertinente

Giulia Ceriani; Joseph Courtés; Algirdas Julien Greimas; André Martinet; Michel Meyer; Piergiorgio Odifreddi; Dan Sperber; Alain Touraine; Deirdre Wilson


Archive | 2012

Meaning and Relevance: Notes

Deirdre Wilson; Dan Sperber


Archive | 2012

Meaning and Relevance: Truthfulness and relevance

Deirdre Wilson; Dan Sperber


Archive | 2012

Meaning and Relevance: Preface

Deirdre Wilson; Dan Sperber

Collaboration


Dive into the Deirdre Wilson's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Dan Sperber

Central European University

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge