Especially noteworthy is the debate concerning the relation between the meaning of a sentence type and the speaker's meaning in using a token (a relation that figures prominently in Grice 1969).
Especially noteworthy is the debate concerning the relation between the meaning of a sentence type and the speaker's meaning in using a token (a relation that figures prominently in Grice 1969).Tags: Pre K Homework SheetsWriting A Successful College Application EssayProblem Solving Worksheets For 5th GradeEssay On My Favourite Singer A R RahmanGood Scholarship Essay ExamplesProquest Dissertations & Theses Full TextPatriotic Writing PaperIndoor Sports Facility Business PlanEssay On Mother Tongue Punjabi
The token identity theory (defended by Kim (1966) and Davidson (1980) among others) maintains that every token mental event is some token physical event or other, but it denies that a type match-up must be expected.
So for example, even if pain in humans turns out to be c-fiber stimulation, there may be other life forms that lack c-fibers but have pains too.
In , it yields two versions of the identity theory of mind (each of which is criticized in Kripke 1972).
The type version of the identity theory (defended by Smart (1959) and Place (1956) among others) identifies of physical events/states/processes.
It is notable that when one of the above types is defined, it is defined in terms of other types.
So for example, sentences might be (partly) defined in terms of words, and words in terms of phonemes.
To see why, consider this time how many words there are in the Gertrude Stein line itself, .
The line is an abstract type with no unique spatio-temporal location and therefore cannot consist of particulars, of tokens.
If a pediatrician asks how many words the toddler has uttered and is told “three hundred”, she might well enquire “word types or word tokens? A headline that reads “From the Andes to Epcot, the Adventures of an 8,000 year old Bean” might elicit “Is that a bean type or a bean token? Although the matter is discussed more fully in §8 below, it should be mentioned here at the outset that the type-token distinction is not the same distinction as that between a type and (what logicians call) its .
Unfortunately, tokens are often explained as the “occurrences” of types, but not all occurrences of types are tokens.