Notes

Thomas Reid doesn’t even contain an entry for ‘language’ (though it does have one for Reid’s interest in botany!), and contains only a meagre entry for ‘signs’. Compare that to the multiple entries for ‘language’ and extensive entry for ‘signs’ in The Cambridge Companion to Berkeley, and the extensive entry for ‘language’ in The Cambridge Companion to Locke’s “Essay Concerning Human Understanding”. Moreover, the Berkeley Companion dedicates an entire chapter to Berkeley’s theory of signs, and the Locke Companion dedicates a chapter to Locke’s philosophy of language. (But compare Jensen [1979] and Castagnetto [1992].)

2. Since Immerwahr (1978), some have accepted that Reid’s views changed significantly between his early work in the Inquiry and his later work in the Essays. I reject this reading of Reid, but it isn’t necessary to belabor the point here, because I am focused on Reid’s interesting and neglected discussion in the Inquiry.