I really want to respond to your interesting post, but I have to be out a lot of the day. I'll check in later . . .

It's worth mentioning here that I reject many an historical dichotomy when it comes to the ontological basis for my position; they're found sorely lacking in their ability to take proper account of that which consists of both and is thus neither one nor the other. Thought and belief are such things. Belief content matters. The inadequate dichotomies include subject/object, physical/nonphysical, material/immaterial, internal/external, objective/subjective, linguistic/nonlinguistic.

Convention has been employing these for centuries. If they were capable of taking adequate account of thought and belief, they would have done a better job by now.

Does it matter if we include some non-artifactual objects in the list of things that are existentially dependent upon language? I don't think so. We can add sand dunes and the like without changing your schema. — J

Not according to the position I argue for/from.

On my view, sand dunes are not existentially dependent upon language. "Sand dunes" is. Sand dunes are not equivalent to "sand dunes".

That which is existentially dependent upon language cannot exist prior to language. Sand dunes existed in their entirety prior to language use. "Sand dunes" did not. Sand dunes consist of grains of sand. "Sand dunes" does not. "Sand dunes" consists of meaningful marks. Sand dunes do not. You can find "sand dunes" in some books/literature. You cannot find a sand dune in any book.

"Sand dunes" is existentially dependent upon language use. Sand dunes are not.

The human intention to see it as a dune -- because we have uses for which the term "sand dune" is needed -- can't be ignored. — J

If I may...

In the above quote, does the term "it" refer to a sand dune? I think it must, because we do not see the term "sand dune" as a dune.

Substitution results in the following:

"The human intention to see a sand dune as a dune --- because we have uses for which the term "sand dune" is needed --- can't be ignored"

While the manner of speaking/writing I'm critiquing seems innocuous to many. I do not find a need for it. I'd rather not equivocate the term "see", because our visual capacity plays an integral role in the formation of thought and belief. Some content of thought are things we see. This holds good regardless of whether or not we've developing naming and descriptive practices about those things.

We use language(naming and descriptive practices) to talk about, learn about, and think about sand dunes, including knowing what "sand dunes" picks out of this world. <-----On my view that's much better than 'seeing sand dunes as dunes'. We use our eyes to see sand dunes - before and after - naming and describing them.

That's the point I want to return to. How does the question of whether a belief concerns a) something that is existentially dependent on language, or b) something that is not so dependent, affect whether a non-linguistic animal can be said to have linguistic beliefs or not? — J

I'm not okay with saying language less animals have linguistic beliefs.

Do you simply mean that we ought to extend the normal meaning of "linguistic belief" so that it can also mean "A belief about something that is existentially dependent on language"?

No, that's not what I mean. I reject the dichotomy for the reasons already explained. In addition, the terms have baggage I'm not willing to carry or explain away as a result of not practicing the normal usage. I find it's much better for me to employ a different framework. As above, I'm not okay with saying that a language less animal is capable of having linguistic belief. I'm okay with saying that language less belief can consist of some things that are existentially dependent upon language(assuming a shared world of course).

Nice additions. I'd like to give your post the attention it deserves. That's my intent...

Manana!