Taylor on Meaning-Theories and Theories of Meaning

Mind ◽  
1984 ◽  
Vol XCIII (369) ◽  
pp. 85-90
Author(s):  
MARTIN DAVIES
Author(s):  
Paul M. Pietroski

This chapter and the next argue against the idea that children acquire languages whose sentences have compositionally determined truth conditions. The chapter begins by discussing Davidson’s bold conjecture: the languages that children naturally acquire support Tarski-style theories of truth, which can serve as the core components of meaning theories for the languages in question. The argument is that even if there are plausible theories of truth for these languages, formulating them as plausible theories of meaning requires assumptions about truth that are extremely implausible. Sentences like ‘My favorite sentence is not true’, which happens to be my favorite sentence, illustrate this point. But the point is not merely that “Liar Sentences” are troublesome, it is that theories of truth and theories of meaning have different subject matters.


1994 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul M. Pietroski

In a recent paper, Bar-On and Risjord (henceforth, ‘B&R’) contend that Davidson provides no good argument for his (in)famous claim that ‘there is no such thing as a language.’ And according to B&R, if Davidson had established his ‘no language’ thesis, he would thereby have provided a decisive reason for abandoning the project he has long advocated — viz., that of trying to provide theories of meaning for natural languages by providing recursive theories of truth for such languages. For he would have shown that there are no languages to provide truth (or meaning) theories of. Davidson thus seems to be in the odd position of arguing badly for a claim that would undermine his own work.


2021 ◽  
pp. 004728752110194
Author(s):  
Kun Lai ◽  
Xiang (Robert) Li

Although scholars have sought to theorize tourism from important philosophical turns (e.g., epistemological/antirational/postmodern/practice), one influential turn (viz. linguistic) has not received much attention. This study attempts to fill this gap by retheorizing tourism from the linguistic turn. We introduced major theories of meaning (a core part of the linguistic turn) from the philosophy literature, on the basis of which we constructed a new semantic space of “tourism” where multiple semantic dimensions (defined by particular types of meaning theories) coexist and possess different semantic veins (determined by a subtheory of meaning) consisting of numerous semantic dots (i.e., actual understandings of tourism). This prescriptive space captures the image of tourism in a semantic mirror, encompassing tourism ontologies in a semantic/linguistic realm. This space also offers solutions to four problems in prior tourism theorization. By innovatively linking tourism and philosophy of language, this study has expanded the options in addressing the question “What is tourism?”


2010 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-121
Author(s):  
Anik Waldow

This essay argues that Humean impressions are triggers of associative processes, which enable us to form stable patterns of thought that co-vary with our experiences of the world. It will thus challenge the importance of the Copy Principle by claiming that it is the regularity with which certain kinds of sensory inputs motivate certain sets of complex ideas that matters for the discrimination of ideas. This reading is conducive to Hume’s account of perception, because it avoids the impoverishment of conceptual resources so typical for empiricist theories of meaning and explains why ideas should be based on impressions, although impressions cannot be known to mirror matters of fact. Dieser Aufsatz argumentiert dafür, dass humesche Eindrücke („impressions“) Auslöser von assoziativen Prozessen sind, welche es uns ermöglichen, stabile Denkmuster zu bilden, die mit unseren Erfahrungen der Welt kovariant sind. Der Aufsatz stellt somit die Wichtigkeit des Kopien-Prinzips in Frage, nämlich dadurch, dass behauptet wird, für die Unterscheidung der Ideen sei die Regelmäßigkeit maßgeblich, mit der gewisse Arten von sensorischen Eingaben gewisse Mengen von komplexen Ideen motivieren. Diese Lesart trägt zu einem Verständnis von Humes Auffassung der Wahrnehmung bei, da sie die Verarmung der begrifflichen Mittel, die für empiristische Theorien der Bedeutung so typisch ist, vermeidet und erklärt, warum Ideen auf Eindrücken basieren sollten, obwohl Eindrücke nicht als Abbildungen von Tatsachen erkannt werden können.


Author(s):  
Paul M. Pietroski

This chapter summarizes the main themes. Humans naturally acquire generative procedures that connect meanings with pronunciations. These meanings are neither concepts nor extensions. Meanings are composable instructions for how to access and assemble concepts of a special sort. In particular, phrasal meanings are instructions for how to build monadic (i.e., predicative) concepts that are massively conjunctive. Theories of meaning should not be confused with theories of truth. Lexicalization is a process of introducing concepts that can be combined via simple operations whose inputs must be monadic or dyadic. In theorizing about meanings, we can and should eschew much of the powerful typology and combinatorial operations that the founders of modern logic introduced for very different purposes.


Author(s):  
Aleksa Jovanović

Constructivism is a term that takes up more space in social sciences since the second half of the 20th century, although the term itself was coines earlier, specifically in the 1920s when it signified an artistic and architectural movement in the Soviet Union. One assumption of this paper is that the activity is a central function and it is implanted in the concept of constructivism since its creation. This paper offers a brief overview of the development of term constructivism and later explains the basic epistemological assumptions on which constructivist theories are based. What is common to all constructivist theories is proactive cognition, that is, the already mentioned activity, in this case, in the process of making a meaning. Theories of adult education zhat rely on constructivist epistemology are also presented. Finally, the paper explanis the understanding of activity in teaching and the application of the constructivist principle in teaching.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory Bochner

How do words stand for things? Taking ideas from philosophical semantics and pragmatics, this book offers a unique, detailed, and critical survey of central debates concerning linguistic reference in the twentieth century. It then uses the survey to identify and argue for a novel version of current 'two-dimensional' theories of meaning, which generalise the context-dependency of indexical expressions. The survey highlights the history of tensions between semantic and epistemic constraints on plausible theories of word meaning, from analytic philosophy and modern truth-conditional semantics, to the Referentialist and Externalist revolutions in theories of meaning, to the more recent reconciliatory ambition of two-dimensionalists. It clearly introduces technical semantical notions, theses, and arguments, with easy-to-follow, step-by-step guides. Wide-ranging in its scope, yet offering an accessible route into literature that can seem complex and technical, this will be essential reading for advanced students, and academic researchers in semantics, pragmatics, and philosophy of language.


2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 593-625 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chi-Hé Elder ◽  
Michael Haugh

Abstract Dominant accounts of “speaker meaning” in post-Gricean contextualist pragmatics tend to focus on single utterances, making the theoretical assumption that the object of pragmatic analysis is restricted to cases where speakers and hearers agree on utterance meanings, leaving instances of misunderstandings out of their scope. However, we know that divergences in understandings between interlocutors do often arise, and that when they do, speakers can engage in a local process of meaning negotiation. In this paper, we take insights from interactional pragmatics to offer an empirically informed view on speaker meaning that incorporates both speakers’ and hearers’ perspectives, alongside a formalization of how to model speaker meanings in such a way that we can account for both understandings – the canonical cases – and misunderstandings, but critically, also the process of interactionally negotiating meanings between interlocutors. We highlight that utterance-level theories of meaning provide only a partial representation of speaker meaning as it is understood in interaction, and show that inferences about a given utterance at any given time are formally connected to prior and future inferences of participants. Our proposed model thus provides a more fine-grained account of how speakers converge on speaker meanings in real time, showing how such meanings are often subject to a joint endeavor of complex inferential work.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document