![Why Peirce matters: the symbol in Deacon's Symbolic Species [An article from: Language Sciences]](https://www.ebooknetworking.net/books/B00/0PC/bigB000PC0ORM.jpg)
Why Peirce matters: the symbol in Deacon's Symbolic Species [An article from: Language Sciences]
Price not available for France
You can still browse on Amazon. Try another country above.
Book Details
Author(s)
T. de Villiers
Publisher
Elsevier
ISBN / ASIN
B000PC0ORM
ISBN-13
978B000PC0OR2
Marketplace
France 🇫🇷
Description
This digital document is a journal article from Language Sciences, published by Elsevier in 2007. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Media Library immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
Description:
In ''Why brains matter: an integrational perspective on The Symbolic Species'' Cowley (2002) [Language Sciences 24, 73-95] suggests that Deacon pictures brains as being able to process words qua tokens, which he identifies as the theory's Achilles' heel. He goes on to argue that Deacon's thesis on the co-evolution of language and mind would benefit from an integrational approach. This paper argues that Cowley's criticism relies on an invalid understanding of Deacon's use the concept of ''symbolic reference'', which he appropriates from Peirce's semiotic. Peirce's analysis as well as Deacon's appropriation will be examined in detail. Consequently it will be argued that an integrationist reading would add very little to Deacon's core thesis.
Description:
In ''Why brains matter: an integrational perspective on The Symbolic Species'' Cowley (2002) [Language Sciences 24, 73-95] suggests that Deacon pictures brains as being able to process words qua tokens, which he identifies as the theory's Achilles' heel. He goes on to argue that Deacon's thesis on the co-evolution of language and mind would benefit from an integrational approach. This paper argues that Cowley's criticism relies on an invalid understanding of Deacon's use the concept of ''symbolic reference'', which he appropriates from Peirce's semiotic. Peirce's analysis as well as Deacon's appropriation will be examined in detail. Consequently it will be argued that an integrationist reading would add very little to Deacon's core thesis.
