On Chomskyan mentalism: A reply to Peter Slezak

Conclusion Introducing his paper, Slezak (p. 428) proposes to examine Botha's criticisms in detail with a view to demonstrating that they are without foundation and are based on the most fundamental misunderstandings. Concluding his paper, Slezak (p. 439) expresses the hope that he has shown that the conceptions on which these criticisms rest are so seriously flawed as to make it unprofitable to attempt to unravel the rest of his analysis. These formulations, by all standards, represent rather strong rhetoric. But, as the preceding paragraphs have shown, Slezak's discussion sadly lacks the relevant and accurate analyses needed to give substance to his rhetoric.I would like to thank Marina Savini and Thereza Botha for suggestions which led to improvements in the formulation of this paper.