Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-42vt5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-15T05:37:08.574Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Behavioral Theories of Reference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

William W. Rozeboom
William W. Rozeboom*
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Efforts to bare the psychonomic nature of the semantic reference (representation) relation have been remarkably scanty; in fact, the only contemporary account developed with any care is the one proposed by Osgood. However, not even Osgood has looked deeply at the difficulties that beset any attempt to analyze reference in terms of common effects appropriately shared by a symbol and its significate.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , June 1979 , pp. 175 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, J. R. (1978), “Arguments concerning representations for mental imagery.” Psychological Review 85: 249–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bousfield, W. A. (1961), “The problem of meaning in verbal learning.” In Cofer, C. N., & Musgrave, B. S. (eds.) Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Bower, G. H. (1975), “Cognitive psychology: An introduction.” In Estes, W. K. (ed.) Handbook of Learning and Cognitive Processes, Vol. 1. Hillsdale, N. Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1965), “Could meaning be an rm?” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 4: 694–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A., Bever, T., & Garrett, M. (1974), The Psychology of Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics and Generative Grammar. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1960), “The concept of the stimulus in psychology.” American Psychologist 15: 694–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, C. L. (1943), Principles of Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Morris, C. (1946), Signs, Language and Behavior. New York: Prentice-Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mowrer, O. H. (1960), Learning Theory and the Symbolic Processes. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osgood, C. E. (1952) “The nature and measurement of meaning.” Psychological Bulletin 49: 197–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osgood, C. E. (1953), Method and Theory in Experimental Psychology. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Osgood, C. E. (1957), “A behavioristic analysis of perception and language as cognitive phenomena.” In Bruner, J. S., et al. (eds.) Contemporary Approaches to Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Osgood, C. E. (1963), “On understanding and creating sentences.” American Psychologist 18: 735–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osgood, C. E. (1966), “Meaning cannot be rm?” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 5: 402–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osgood, C. E. (1971), “Where do sentences come from?” In Steinberg, D. D., & Jakobovits, L. A. (eds.) Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1973), “What the mind's eye tells the mind's brain: A critique of mental imagery.” Psychological Bulletin 80: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Razran, G. (1965), “Empirical codifications and specific theoretical implications of compound-stimulus conditioning: Perception.” In Prokasy, W. F. (ed.) Classical Conditioning: A Symposium. New York: Appleton.Google Scholar
Rozeboom, W. W. (1960), “Do stimuli elicit behavior?—a study in the logical foundations of behavioristics.” Philosophy of Science 27: 159–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozeboom, W. W. (1970), “The crisis in philosophical semantics.” In Radner, M., & Winokur, S. (eds.) Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. IV. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Rozeboom, W. W. (1972) “Problems in the psycho-philosophy of knowledge.” in Royce, J. R., & Rozeboom, W. W. (eds.) The Psychology of Knowing. New York: Gordon & Breach.Google Scholar
Rozeboom, W. W. (1973), “Dispositions revisited.” Philosophy of Science 40: 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozeboom, W. W. (1974), “The learning tradition.” In Carterette, E., & Friedman, M. (eds.) Handbook of Perception, Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rozeboom, W. W. (1975), “What is semantics a theory of and how do I know there are such things?” In Freed, B., Marras, A., & Maynard, P. (eds.) Forms of Representation. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publ. Co., 1975. [Parts of this have been garbled by production blunders. A list of errata is available from me on request.]Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1948), Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1957), Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terwilliger, R. F. (1968), Meaning and Mind. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Werner, H., & Kaplan, B. (1963), Symbol Formation. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar