| Abstract: | Definitional accounts of language structure are explored in this paper. Several classes of arguments for definitions are reviewed; those which connect to: classical theories of reference, theories of informal validity, theories of sentence comprehension, and theories of concept learning. We suggest that, for each of these areas, accounts which rely upon definition are, in fact, not to be preferred on evidential grounds to plausible non-definitional alternatives. We also present a series of experimental observations bearing on one of these areas — that of sentence comprehension. We show that one widely cited class of examples of definitional structures — that of “causative verbs” — fails to affect subject judgements of those relations among the words of causative sentences which depend upon the putative definitional structures. Such subject judgements are independently demonstrated to be sensitive to structural relations of comparable type for other linguistically non-problematic types. |
