Ambiguous terms are applicable to different kinds of things, but so are general terms, since a general kind may include various species. Thus a bank may be the side of a river or a certain kind of financial institution, and an animal may be a dog or a cat. Similarly, an ambiguous sentence is true in different kinds of situations, and so is a general sentence in that different specific situations may make the same general sentence true. Thus the sentence, (...) The bank collapsed yesterday,’ can be true of different varieties of banks, and the sentence, The animal is untrained,’ can be true of different varieties of animals. These similarities of ambiguity and generality have led many linguists and philosophers to confuse the two. Basic to this confusion is a failure to notice a difference in the scopes of disjunctions involved in ambiguity and generality. (shrink)

If some aspects of human behavior are too murky to see into, others are too close and transparent to examine; one that has eluded both scientists and philosophers is how speakers of natural languages make words and expressions refer to specific objects in the world. Marshalling his expertise in philosophy, computers, and system science (State U. of.

Arnold Zwicky and Jerrold Sadock object to my test for distinguishing ambiguity from generality by offering a counterexample and general criticisms about the use of intuitions in the test. Though I disagree with their criticisms, their paper has helped me to become aware of the unclarity of my earlier paper in regard to generality.

The paper discusses how abduction relates tochildren's early acquisition of words, and has three sections: (a) a brief description of Peirce's notion of abduction; (b) a developmentof a hypothesis for the content-related symbolic functioning of words; and (c)arguments that children's knowledge of such functioning involves two kinds of abduction. In (b), children's knowledge of the content-related symbolic functioning of words is argued to consist in practical knowledge ofhow to use words to direct attention to kindsof things. To acquire such knowledge, (...) a childmust form a practical causal hypothesis aboutthe kind of thing to which a word directs attention. I argue that forming such ahypothesis involves abduction. On the basis of empirical work of several developmentalists, I also argue that children use abduction notmerely in forming practical hypotheses for the functioning of their earliest words, but also in forming theoretical hypotheses about core(as contrasted perceptual and functional)features of natural and artificial kinds. (shrink)

Abduction is reasoning which produces explanatory hypotheses. Models are one basis for such reasoning, and language use can function as a model. I treat children’s early use of mental verbs as a model for dealing with a problem from developmental psychology, namely, how children’s early non-referential use of mental verbs might give children an early grasp of the mental realm. The present paper asks what practical knowledge of mental actions accompanies children’s competent use of mental verbs. I begin with examples (...) of non-referential verb uses and some theories from Diessel and Tomasello as bases for discussion. I argue that in using mental verbs non-referentially children understand several kinds of relations which people have to situations. Children learn how to use mental verbs to request someone to search for a situation in the past or in the physical surroundings; they learn to express hopes so as to affect their future; they learn to vouch strongly or weakly for the existence of a situation. In all of these cases it appears that the children’s main focus is on interactions with people, in which one person’s mental action in relation to a situation described in a COMP-clause is intended to have an effect on the other person. Children do not understand the nature or mechanisms of any of these mental actions, but instead focus on practical matters: how to use the verbs to perform certain actions in relation to other people and various situations. It appears that in these early uses children do not view mind as at all separate from the interactional and physical world. (shrink)