Advertisement

How Can Language be Sexist?

  • Merrill B. Hintikka
  • Jaakko Hintikka
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 161)

Abstract

Prima facie, our title question may seem pointless. Barring bigots, virtually everybody will agree that language is frequently used in a sexist way. Why, then, the question?

Keywords

World Line Evaluation Principle Feminist Philosophy Referential System Primitive Word 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Cf. Alfred Tarski, ‘The concept of truth in formalized languages’, in Alfred Tarski, Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1956, pp. 152–278.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cf. Richmond H. Thomason (ed.), Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague, Yale U.P., New Haven, 1974; D. R. Dowty, R. E. Wall, and S. Peters, Introduction to Montague Semantics, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1981.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cf., e.g., Jerry A. Fodor, The Language of Thought, Thomas Y. Crowell, New York, 1975.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Further observations concerning this distinction are made in Jaakko Hintikka and Merrill B. Hintikka, Towards a general theory of individuation and identification’, partly forthcoming in the proceedings of the Sixth International Wittgenstein Symposium, Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, Vienna, 1982.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    This point is well argued in the seminal last chapter The word “good” ’of Paul Ziff, Semantic Analysis, Cornell, U.P., Ithaca, N.Y., 1960.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cf. here A. Adkins, Merit and Responsibility, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1960.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. A. Schilpp (ed.), The Philosophy of G. E. Moore (The Library of Living Philosophers), Tudor, New York, 1952, pp. 3–39, especially p. 9.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yrjö Hirn, ‘Voltaires hjärta’, in Yrjö Hirn, De lagerkrönta skoplaggen, Söderström & Co., Helsinki, 1951.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    For an interesting discussion, see chapter 2 of C. S. Lewis, Studies in Words, second ed., Cambridge U.P., Cambridge, 1967.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cf. Inge K. Broverman, Donald M. Broverman, et al., ‘Sex-role stereotypes and clinical judgments of mental health’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 34 No. 1 (1970), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cf. Adkins, op. cit. (Note 6 above), especially chapter 3.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    See his books Models for Modalities, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1969, and The Intentions of Intentionality, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1975.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cf. W. V. Quine, ‘Worlds away’, Journal of Philosophy 73 (1976), 859–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cf. Saul Kripke, ‘Identity through time’, paper delivered at the Seventy-Sixth Annual Meeting of APA Eastern Division, New York, December 27-30, 1979.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    This point has been implicit in Jaakko Hintikka’s work ever since the last chapter of Knowledge and Belief, Cornell U.P., Ithaca, N.Y., 1962.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Op. cit. (note 12 above).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ‘Towards a general theory of individuation and identification’ (note 4 above).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    David Lewis, ‘Counterpart theory and quantified modal logic’, Journal of Philosophy 65 (1968), 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cf., e.g., J. Kagan, H. A. Moss, and I. E. Sigel, ‘The psychological significance of styles of conceptualization’, in J. C. Wright and J. Kagan (eds.), Basic Cognitive Processes in Children (Society for Research in Child Development Monograph 28, no. 2), 1963.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cf. e.g., Eleanor E. Maccoby, ‘Sex differences in intellectual functioning’, in Eleanor E. Maccoby (ed.), The Development of Sex Differences, Stanford U.P., Stanford, 1966, pp. 25–55.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Saul Kripke, Naming and Necessity, Harvard U.P., Cambridge, Mass., 1980.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cf. On the logic of perception’ in Models for Modalities (Note 12 above); ‘Knowledge by acquaintance — individuation by acquaintance’ in Jaakko Hintikka, Knowledge and the Known, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cf. Aristotle, Categories, ch. 5.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cf. Jaakko Hintikka, ‘Leibniz on plenitude, relations, and the “Reign of Law”’, in Simo Knuuttila (ed.), Reforging the Great Chain of Being, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1981, pp. 259–286.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Merrill B. Hintikka
  • Jaakko Hintikka

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations