Article published in:
Language and Dialogue
Vol. 5:3 (2015) ► pp. 449470
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Kwok, Sinead
2020. The human-animal divide in communication: anthropocentric, posthuman and integrationist answers. Language & Communication 74  pp. 61 ff. Crossref logo
Pablé, Adrian
2019. In what sense is integrational theory lay-oriented? Notes on Harrisian core concepts and explanatory terminology. Language Sciences 72  pp. 150 ff. Crossref logo
Pablé, Adrian
2019. Integrating the (dialogical) sign: or who's an integrationist?. Language Sciences 75  pp. 72 ff. Crossref logo
Teubert, Wolfgang
2017. Agency. Language and Dialogue 7:2  pp. 253 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 august 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

References

References

Atran, Scott, Douglas Medin, and Norbert Ross
2004 “Evolution and Devolution of Knowledge: A tale of Two Biologies.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 10: 395–420. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Daniel R.
1997 “The Three-Dimensional Sign.” Language Sciences 19 (1): 23–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Friedkin, William
2006Bug. Lions Gate Films. USA.Google Scholar
Harris, Roy
1980The Language-Makers. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
1981The Language Myth. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
1987The Language Machine. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
1996Signs, Language and Communication. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
1998Introduction to Integrational Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
2006Integrationist Notes and Papers. 2003–2005. Crediton: Tree Tongue.Google Scholar
2009After Epistemology. Gamlingay: Bright Pen.Google Scholar
Love, Nigel
1998 “Integrating Languages.” In Integrational Linguistics: A First Reader, ed. by Roy Harris and George Wolf, 96–110. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Pablé, Adrian
2011 “Why the Semantics of ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ Isn’t Good Enough: Popular Science and the Language Crux.” Language Sciences 33 (4): 551–558. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 “An Integrational Response to Searlean Realism, or How Language Does not Relate to Consciousness.” Semiotica 193 (1): 101–118.Google Scholar
2014 “Reality Re-Checked and Galileo Re-Integrated: A Reply to Jones and Spurrett.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective (SERRC) 3 (2): 49–57. Web. Published: 28 January 2014. Google Scholar
Pack, Adam
2010 “The Synergy of Laboratory and Field Studies of Dolphin Behavior and Cognition.” International Journal of Comparative Psychology 23: 538–565.Google Scholar
Sealey, Alison
2014 “Cats and Categories – Reply to Teubert.” Language and Dialogue 4 (2): 299–321. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sealey, Alison, and Bob Carter
2013 “Response to Elder-Vass: Seven Ways to Be a Realist About Language.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 44 (3): 268–281. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Teubert, Wolfgang
2013 “Was There a Cat In the Garden? Knowledge between Discourse and the Monadic Self.” Language and Dialogue 3 (2): 273–297. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig
2001Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wolf, George
1999 “Quine and the Segregational Sign”. Language & Communication 19 (1): 27–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar