Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T03:47:56.055Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hybrid vigor and conceptual structure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2010

Frank Keil
Frank Keil
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520. frank.keil@Yale.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Machery rightly points out a diverse set of phenomena associated with concepts that create challenges for many traditional views of their nature. It may be premature, however, to give up such views completely. Here I defend the possibility of hybrid models of concept structure.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 33 , Issue 2-3 , June 2010 , pp. 215 - 216
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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.)

References

Fodor, J. A. (1998) Concepts, Where cognitive science went wrong. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampton, J. A., Storms, G., Simmons, C. L. & Heussen, D. (2009) Feature integration in natural language concepts. Memory and Cognition 37:1721–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keil, F. C. (1989) Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keil, F. C. & Newman, G. E. (2010) Darwin and development: Why ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny for human concepts. In: The making of human concepts, ed. Mareschal, D., Quin, P. & Lea, S.. pp. 317–34. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1972) Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. In: Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, IL, pp. 183–228. Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Machery, E. (2009) Doing without concepts. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar