The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Languages and Language
Open accessAbstract
Lewis attempts the synthesis of two rival accounts: the thesis, according to which languages are a semantic system abstracted from the nature and history of human affairs; and the antithesis, according to which language is a rational, convention‐governed human social activity. Upon answering an extended series of objections, Lewis concludes that the philosophy of language is best understood as a single subject.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
On Quantifier Domain Restriction
Stanley, J., & Gendler Szabó, Z. (2000) · Mind & Language · doi:10.1111/1468-0017.00130 · Cited by 1,074
Lewis, D. (1980) · Philosophy and Grammar · doi:10.1007/978-94-009-9012-8_6 · Cited by 621
Self-citationPaul Grice and the philosophy of language
Neale, S. (1992) · Linguistics and Philosophy · doi:10.1007/bf00630629 · Cited by 578
Presupposition and Implicature
Potts, C. (2015) · The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory · doi:10.1002/9781118882139.ch6 · Cited by 301
The emergence of consensus: a primer
Baronchelli, A. (2018) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.172189 · Cited by 161
Metadata
- Authors
- Lewis, D.
- Venue
- Philosophical Papers Volume I
- Publisher
- Oxford University PressNew York
- Published
- 1983-08-18
- Pages
- 163-188
- OpenAlex
- W2478905867
- Cited by
- 433
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.80
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Languages and Language. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/0195032047.003.0011
- The paper
- Lewis, D. (1983). Languages and Language. Philosophical Papers Volume I. https://doi.org/10.1093/0195032047.003.0011
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
