Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCash, Lukeen
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T14:33:55Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T14:33:55Z
dc.date.issued2017-10en
dc.identifier.issn0190-0536
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/264001
dc.description.abstractWittgenstein's notorious sample of a ‘complete primitive language’ ($\textit{viz}$. the builders’ game of the $\textit{Philosophical Investigations}$) is often thought to be closer in kind to animal forms of communication than human language. Indeed, it has been criticised on precisely these grounds. But such debates make little sense if we take seriously Wittgenstein's idea that language is a family resemblance concept. So, rather than argue that the builders’ game ‘really is a language’ (or not), I propose to turn the debate on its head and welcome the comparison. By changing our perspective in this way, I suggest that we can see that the learning of language is crucially dependent on forms of communication that are animal in nature. I then discuss how these lessons might shed light on empirical research into both the ontogenetic and phylogenetic origins of linguistic communication.
dc.languageEnglishen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherWiley
dc.titleWittgenstein and the Animal Origins of Linguistic Communicationen
dc.typeArticle
prism.endingPage328
prism.publicationDate2017en
prism.publicationNamePhilosophical Investigationsen
prism.startingPage303
prism.volume40en
dc.identifier.doi10.17863/CAM.9362
dcterms.dateAccepted2016-05-19en
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1111/phin.12150en
rioxxterms.versionAMen
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserveden
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2017-10en
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen
cam.issuedOnline2016-07-26en
rioxxterms.freetoread.startdate2018-07-26


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record