Of words and uses 1

This paper is devoted to an investigation of one variant of the ‘use theory of meaning’. It explores the possibility of characterizing the use of a linguistic unit in terms of non‐linguistic facts regularly associated with utterances of the unit in question. It is argued that such regularities are associated with only a small sub‐set of English sentences, and then only when these sentences occur in ‘standard’ contexts. An attempt is then made to characterize the relevant sense of ‘standard‐ness’ in terms of the role of this concept in a theory of language. In the final section of the paper, some consideration is given to the problem of generalizing the theory to cover sentences which are not regularly associated with recurrent non‐linguistic features.     

Subclinical inclination toward manic-depression and creative performance on the Remote Associates Test

An experiment examined manic-depressive inclination in college students as an influence on creativity. The Bipolar: Manic Disorder scale of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory determined manic-depressive inclination or its absence. The Remote Associates Test was the basis for assessing creativity. The experiment was a 2×2 factorial design with manic-depressive inclination (presence or absence) as the first factor, and a mood-enhancing experience as the second. The mood-enhancing experience required that students write an essay about an activity they once had performed superbly well. Students assigned to the control condition wrote an essay about how they organized and sequenced activities in an ordinary day. As hypothesized, students with high Bipolar scores who wrote about a peak performance obtained especially high Remote Associates Test scores in comparison with students in other conditions of the experiment (p<0.02). High Bipolar scores did not result in high Remote Associates Test scores in the control condition, suggesting that mood enhancement is a necessary prerequisite for manic-depressive inclination to potentiate creative performance.     

An evaluation of assumptions underlying the single-patient-only position in neuropsychological research: a reply.

This note challenges the position adopted by A. Caramazza and W. Badecker (1989, Brain and Cognition 10, 256-295) that, since the a priori classification of patients can only be theoretically arbitrary, the basic unit of analysis in cognitive neuropsychology must be the individual patient. We argue that even if there is no prior theory to justify patient classification, this does not preclude group studies; syndromes are what the world gives us--they constrain theory, permitting groups to be formed for research purposes. We also reexamine a particular example of group-based research that was extensively criticized by Caramazza and Badecker. We confront each of their criticisms, and, again, demonstrate the validity of group-based research.