Agustin Vicente

Sentence meanings and propositions are intimate, but don’t exactly get on. Two familiar divergences are (i) the diversity of linguistic forms (within and between languages) that intuitively ‘say’ the same thing, such as active/passive pairs, and (ii) the contextual determination of propositional content that the type linguistic form leaves undetermined. The paper doesn’t raise doubts about these phenomena, but offers a general framework under which sentence meaning is best theorised as mere constraints upon what can be said with a given sentence, where propositions themselves, as what can be said, are artefacts that do not require any theorising beyond an understanding of the states, linguistic or otherwise, they are employed to track for our descriptive and explanatory purposes. Two principal considerations will be presented in favour this general picture: semantic underdetermination and, more especially, polysemy/copredication. The former is not the familiar contextual underdetermination, but the more significant condition that linguistic material alone essentially leaves propositions underdetermined, whatever the context. The latter is where a lexical item can express, selectively or simultaneously, distinct extensions relative to distinct predicates.

Speech production models typically assume that such production begins with the message that the speaker wants to convey. Such a message must be formatted in such a way that the other stages in speech production go swiftly, which means that it must be formatted according to the expressive demands and powers of the language that the speakers employ. Levelt and followers think that there can be a re-formatting stage that translates thoughts, couched in some other non-linguistic format, into messages. We argue that such a translation is particularly challenging, and propose an account of thinking that dispenses with the translation process. According to our proposal, linguistic creatures think in lexical concepts, that is, concepts that correspond to morphemes of the language they speak. Such lexical concepts are representations of sounds or of external signs that learners acquire in the process of word learning and are able to combine into phrases.

We present the design and preliminary validation of a new scale for the study of inner speech and visualization in verbal autism, the Inner Speech and Visualization in Verbal Autism Questionnaire (ISVAQ). The questionnaire contributes to the study of inner speech, visualization and private speech from a first-person approach. We ran a study with 79 autistic and 81 neurotypical participants, and the results of the study showed that there was no significant difference in the (reported) uses of inner speech in autistic people compared to controls, although there was a weak though significant difference in higher visualization scores. Results also showed a significant difference in higher scores in private speech in the autistic population, as well as greater levels of dialogic inner speech in autistic women. We discuss these results in relation to existing empirical and theoretical research.

The present study embarks on a comprehensive investigation of whether the influence of the moral valence, as highlighted by Knobe, remains a predominant factor in subjects’ attributions of intentionality across diverse scenarios and populations. In addition to examining the harm dimension, our research explores the potential presence of this effect in other circumstances, assessing whether there is a comparable influence on attributions of intentionality for cases with side effects not describable as harmful. A comparative analysis between neurotypical and autistic populations is conducted –-in line with Zalla & Leboyer’s work, but extending the study to other scenarios–-, revealing some disparities in how these two groups attribute intentionality and praise and blame. Final analyses were conducted on the gender variable, which revealed significant gender differences within both populations.

According to Chomsky and followers, natural language is a computational system that generates syntactic structures that are counterfunctional with respect to communication. Consequently, language is more appropriately considered as being “designed” for thought rather than communication. In this paper, we argue that, while natural language, understood as an internal computational system along standard generative lines, is recruited for distinctive human thinking, such recruitment also requires, and is strongly influenced by, a process we dub lexical externalisation. We first show that there is good reason to believe that the atomic items that go to form words essentially include phonological information of externalised words. After that, we explore what externalisation implies with respect to the relation between lexical items and concepts. We suggest that externalisation has profound effects on what concepts we think with, as well as how concepts relate to lexical items (i.e., how thinking processes ultimately relate to linguistic computations).

Recently, several philosophers have discussed conjunction reduction and other tests for polysemy/homonymy with reference to the potential ambiguity of certain expressions central to various philosophical debates. However, it has been argued that the conjunction reduction tests are not decisive in settling such matters, because some polysemous terms are acceptable under conjunction reduction. For example, conjunctions involving polysemous book and lunch can be reduced: The book is heavy and interesting and Lunch was delicious but took forever. Against this contention, the paper argues that polysemy does not undermine ambiguity tests. Terms that are acceptable in copredicational contexts in some or even in many cases also generate zeugma in other cases. We also argue, however, that conjunction reduction and similar tests have holes: monosemous terms can also give rise to zeugmatic readings. We analyze two classes of verb as potential examples.

According to a model defended by some authors, dispositional predicates, or concepts, can be legitimately used in causal explanations, but such a use is not necessary. For every explanation couched in dispositional terms, there is always a better, and complete, explanation that makes use of a different vocabulary, that of categorial bases. In what follows, I will develop this view, and then argue that there is a kind of use of dispositions in explanations that does not fall within this model. That is, I will argue that we would miss some explanations if we were to forsake dispositional concepts and dispositional explanations.

The by now famous exclusion problem for mental causation admits only one possible solution, as far as I can see, namely: that mental and physical properties are linked by a vertical relation. In this paper, starting from what I take to be sensible premises about properties, I will be visiting some general relations between them, in order to see whether, first, it is true that some vertical relationship, other than identity, makes different sorts of causation compatible and second, whether physical and mental properties can be pairs of such relationship.

En este artículo reevaluamos la tesis de la relatividad lingüística tomando corno referencia la vision de la mente que Fodor ha venido ofreciendo. Partiendo de su argumento clásico a favor del lenguaje del pensamiento, veremos como el desarrollo de su tesis de la modularidad y de su mas reciente teoria psicosemántica (el atomismo informacional), permiten compatibilizar su posición con, al menos, una variedad de relatividad, la relatividad léxica. Así mismo, examinaremos su ultimo argumento en favor de la prioridad explicativa del pensamiento, basado en la composicionalidad que éste exhibe, a diferencia del lenguaje.This paper reevaluates the thesis of linguistic relativity in the context of Fodor’s views on the nature of mind. We begin with Fodor’s classical argument for the language of thought, and follow the development of his ideas as he adds a general account of the structure of mind (the modulariry thesis) and a psychosemantical theory (informational atomism). Finally, we examine his most recent altempt to support the explanatory prioriry of thought, based on the compositionaliry that thought, but not language, exhibits. We argue that Fodor’s position is compatible a variety of lexical relativiry.

Characterizations of autism include multiple references to rigid or inflexible features, but the notion of rigidity itself has received little systematic discussion. In this paper we shed some light on the notion of rigidity in autism by identifying different facets of this phenomenon as discussed in the literature, such as fixed interests, insistence on sameness, inflexible adherence to routines, black-and-white mentality, intolerance of uncertainty, ritualized patterns of verbal and non-verbal behavior, literalism, and discomfort with change. Rigidity is typically approached in a disjointed fashion (i.e., facet by facet), although there are recent attempts at providing unifying explanations. Some of these attempts assume that the rigidity facets mainly relate to executive functioning: although such an approach is intuitively persuasive, we argue that there are equally plausible alternative explanations. We conclude by calling for more research on the different facets of rigidity and on how they cluster together in the autistic population, while suggesting some ways in which intervention could benefit from a finer-grained view of rigidity.

Despite several criticisms surrounding the DSM classification in psychiatry, a significant bulk of research on mental conditions still operates according to two core assumptions: a) homogeneity, that is the idea that mental conditions are sufficiently homogeneous to justify generalization; b) additive comorbidity, that is the idea that the coexistence of multiple conditions in the same individual can be interpreted as additive. In this paper we take autism research as a case study to show that, despite a plethora of criticism, psychiatric research often continues to operate in accordance with this model. Then we argue that such a model runs into problems once facts about comorbidity are taken into account. Finally, we offer some suggestions on how to tackle the challenge raised by comorbidity and its impact on heterogeneity. To do so, we explore transdiagnostic stratification accounts and network models to show that combining these approaches can move us in the right direction.

Autistic individuals are commonly said – and also consider themselves – to be excessively literalist, in the sense that they tend to prefer literal interpretations of words and utterances. This literalist bias seems to be fairly specific to autism and still lacks a convincing explanation. In this paper we explore a novel hypothesis that has the potential to account for the literalist bias in autism. We argue that literalism results from an atypical functioning of the predictive system: specifically, an atypical balance between predictions and error signals in language processing may make individuals more uncertain about their own predictions. Such uncertainty is then often resolved by resorting to the safest interpretation, that is, the literal one. We start by reviewing existing explanations of other autistic traits that appeal to predictive processing. We then apply these insights to language, by showing that predictions play a key role in everyday comprehension and that a low level of confidence in one’s own predictions is likely to escalate comprehension difficulties. Finally, we take a deeper look at non-literal uses of language by discussing the case of metaphors, to illustrate how a predictive processing account offers a promising explanation of the literalist bias in autism.

Se realizó una revisión bibliográfica sobre el quehacer bioético contemporáneo e iberoamericano en el que continúa el debate abierto sobre las características de la bioética desarrollada en Iberoamérica y ofrece una razón de sus dificultades y desafíos. El objetivo es señalar la paradoja a la que se enfrenta la Bioética iberoamericana desde su particular contexto histórico, cultural y político. Esta paradoja se revela al tener que asimilar la bioética sanitaria estándar, surgida para hacer frente a problemas propios de la sociedad occidental, con la finalidad de resolver problemas biosanitarios y sociales característicos de la región iberoamericana. Al objeto de explicar esta idea, se hace una breve presentación del desarrollo de la bioética contemporánea y se exponen las características de la bioética realizada en Iberoamérica como respuesta a la influencia de la bioética denominada estándar. It was carried out a bibliographic revision about the Iberoamerican contemporary bioethics tasks, in which the open debate about the characteristics of the bioethics developed in Iberoamerican offers a reason of its dificulties and challenges. The objective is to point out the paradox Iberoamerican bioethics faces since its own historical, cultural and political context. This paradox is reveleaded while having to assimilate the standard sanitary bioethics, risen with the aim to solve biosanitary and social problems typical of the wastern region. In order to explain this idea, it is made a brief presentation of the contemporary bioethics development and were exposed the characteistics of the bioethics carried out in Iberoamerica as and answer to the influence of the bioethics caled standard

In this paper, we examine some basic linguistic abilities in a small sample of adults with minimal receptive vocabulary, whose receptive mental verbal age ranges from 1;2 to 3;10. In particular, we examine whether the participants in our study understand noun phrases consisting of a noun modified by an adjective. We use stimuli that they can recognise by name. Except for one participant, we find that, while all of them understand the noun and adjective in isolation, none seems to understand these noun phrases, which means that they seem to not do linguistic composition. In order to test whether the difficulty is linguistic or conceptual, we ran two other studies, one on concept composition, and the other on iconic symbolic composition (composition of pictograms). Results suggest that linguistic composition is particularly difficult in this population, and that vocabulary breadth may not predict compositional abilities.

Pragmatic difficulties are considered a hallmark of autism spectrum conditions (ASC), but remain poorly understood. We discuss and evaluate existing hypotheses regarding the literalism of ASC individuals, that is, their tendency for literal interpretations of non‐literal communicative intentions. We present evidence that reveals a developmental stage at which neurotypical children also have a tendency for literalism and suggest an explanation for such behaviour that links it to other behavioural, rule‐following, patterns typical of that age. We discuss evidence showing that strict adherence to rules is also widespread in ASC, and suggest that literalism might be linked to such rule‐following behaviour.

This paper reports an experiment that investigates interpretive distinctions between two different expressions of generalization in Spanish. In particular, our aim was to find out when the distinction between generic statements (GS) such as Tigers have stripes and universally quantified statements (UQS) such as All tigers have stripes was acquired in Spanish-speaking children of two different age groups (4/5-year-olds and 8/9-year-olds), and then compare these results with those of adults. The starting point of this research was the semantic distinction between GS and UQS in that the former admit exceptions, unlike the latter. On the other hand, several authors have observed a Generic overgeneralization effect (GOG) consisting in allowing for UQS to be felicitous in the face of exceptions, thus proposing that this “error” stems from GS being defaults (simpler, more easily learned and processed). In the current paper we aimed to test the “Generics as Default” (GaD) hypothesis by comparing GS and UQS in three different age ranges. Our data show that, overall, the accuracy of GS is greater than the accuracy of UQS. Moreover, we also confirm a hypothesized interaction between age and NP type (GS vs UQS). Further, we present several data points that are not predicted by the GaD, including an observed decline in the accuracy of GS in the older group of children as well as in adults, and that children fail at rejecting statements that are not considered to be true generalizations.

Phenomenal contrast arguments (PCAs) are normally employed as arguments showing that a certain mental feature contributes to (the phenomenal character of) experience, that certain contents are represented in experience and that kinds of sui generis phenomenologies such as cognitive phenomenology exist. In this paper we examine a neglected aspect of such arguments, i.e., the kind of mental episodes involved in them, and argue that this happens to be a crucial feature of the arguments. We use linguistic tools to determine the lexical aspect of verbs and verb phrases – the tests for a/telicity and for duration. We then suggest that all PCAs can show is the presence of a generic achievement-like phenomenology, especially in the cognitive domain, which contrasts with the role that PCAs are given in the literature.

Two connected questions that arise for anyone interested in inner speech are whether we tell ourselves something that we have already thought; and, if so, why we would tell ourselves something that we have already thought. In this contribution I focus on the first question, which is about the nature and the production of inner speech. While it is usually assumed that the content of what we tell ourselves is exactly the content of a non-linguistic thought, I argue that there can be a lot of transformation in the process of converting a thought into words. Thus, the content of what we tell ourselves, being intrinsically linguistic, is different from the content of the thought our speech transmits. Fleshing out this kind of approach implies dealing with complicated questions which we lack enough knowledge about: the nature of non-linguistic thinking, and how speech (inner and overt) is produced; i.e. how the speaker goes from format a (format of thought) to format b (language). I show that these are pressing issues for any other position, but also suggest ways in which we could tackle such complicated issues.

In this paper we address the question of what determines the content of our conscious episodes of thinking, considering recent claims that phenomenal character individuates thought contents. We present one prominent way for defenders of phenomenal intentionality to develop that view and then examine ‘sensory inner speech views’, which provide an alternative way of accounting for thought-content determinacy. We argue that such views fare well with inner speech thinking but have problems accounting for unsymbolized thinking. Within this dialectic, we present an account of the nature of unsymbolized thinking that accords with and can be seen as a continuation of the activity of inner speech, while offering a way of explaining thought-content determinacy in terms of linguistic structures and representations

In this paper, we offer a novel solution to the much discussed " answering machine puzzle " and similarly problematic cases for the Kaplanian view of temporal indexicals. The solution we propose consists in an appeal to a well-established and (for many still) useful framework: Reichenbach's theory of tense and aspect. Starting from some more recent articulations of the theory in its application to temporal adverbials, we show how it can be applied to 'now' so that to provide an easy and intuitive solution to the puzzle. In addition, the proposed solution, while departing in several important respects from the Kaplanian orthodoxy, it remains conservative in that it preserves some of Kaplan's central tenets about 'now', thus making it less radical than many of the alternative solutions found in literature.

In this paper I try to show that semantics can explain word-to-world relations and that sentences can have meanings that determine truth-conditions. Critics like Chomsky typically maintain that only speakers denote, i.e., only speakers, by using words in one way or another, represent entities or events in the world. However, according to their view, individual acts of denotations are not explained just by virtue of speakers’ semantic knowledge. Against this view, I will hold that, in the typical cases considered, semantic knowledge can account for the denotational uses of words of individual speakers.

Many word forms in natural language are polysemous, but only some of them allow for co-predication, that is, they allow for simultaneous predications selecting for two different meanings or senses of a nominal in a sentence. In this paper, we try to explain (i) why some groups of senses allow co-predication and others do not, and (ii) how we interpret co-predicative sentences. The paper focuses on those groups of senses that allow co-predication in an especially robust and stable way. We argue, using these cases, but focusing particularly on the multiply polysemous word ‘school’, that the senses involved in co-predication form especially robust activation packages, which allow hearers and readers to access all the different senses in interpretation.

Impairments in pragmatic abilities, that is, difficulties with appropriate use and interpretation of language – in particular, non-literal uses of language – are considered a hallmark of Autism Spectrum Conditions (ASC). Despite considerable research attention, these pragmatic difficulties are poorly understood. In this paper, we discuss and evaluate existing hypotheses regarding the literalism of ASC individuals, that is, their tendency for literal interpretations of non-literal communicative intentions, and link them to accounts of pragmatic development in neurotypical children. We present evidence that reveals a developmental stage at which neurotypical children also have a tendency for literal interpretations and provide a possible explanation for such behaviour, one that links it to other behavioural, rule-following, patterns typical of that age. We then discuss extant evidence that shows that strict adherence to rules is also a widespread feature in ASC, and suggest that literalism might be linked to such rule-following behaviour.

There is an ongoing debate about the meaning of lexical words, i.e., words that contribute with content to the meaning of sentences. This debate has coincided with a renewal in the study of polysemy, which has taken place in the psycholinguistics camp mainly. There is already a fruitful interbreeding between two lines of research: the theoretical study of lexical word meaning, on the one hand, and the models of polysemy psycholinguists present, on the other. In this paper I aim at deepening on this ongoing interbreeding, examine what is said about polysemy, particularly in the psycholinguistics literature, and then show how what we seem to know about the representation and storage of polysemous senses affects the models that we have about lexical word meaning.

Phil Dowe has argued persuasively for a reductivist theory of causality. Drawing on Wesley Salmon's mark transmission theory and David Fair's transferencetheory, Dowe proposes to reduce causality to the exchange of conserved quantities. Dowe's account has the virtue of being simple and offering a definite "visible" idea of causation. According to Dowe and Salmon, it is also virtuous in being localist. That a theory of causation is localist means that it does not need the aid of counterfactuals and/or laws to work. Moreover, it can become the means by which we explain counterfactuals and laws. In this paper, I will argue that the theory is not localist (and hence, that it is less simple than it seems). As far as I can see, the theory needs the aid of laws