Omnipresent meaning-interdependence and ubiquitous analyticity

In this paper I investigate the nature of the relation between meaning-interdependence and analyticity. The theory within which meaning-interdependence reaches its peak and becomes omnipresent is meaning holism, according to which every two expressions are meaning-interdependent. A lot of people reject holism partially due to the impression that the theory leads to the picture in which language is self-sufficient in the sense that it is nothing but a game of meanings which is detached from reality. What stands behind that impression is probably something along the lines: analyticity stems from meaning-interdependence, so if all expressions are meaning-interdependent, then everything appears analytic. I defend holism from this kind of objection. I start with showing that analyticity traditionally understood cannot pour over language within holism, because it is not applicable to the theory at all. Then, I argue that adopting some weaker notion of analyticity leads to the ubiquity of analyticity indeed, but analyticity so understood is too weak to actually endanger holism. Finally, I demonstrate that the problems with analyticity appear only when meaning-interdependence is treated in extremely superficial way. I also propose a very simple hierarchy of meaning-interdependence, based on Pagin’s total-pair holism, which immediately repeal the ‘ubiquitous analyticity’ problem.

Gongsun Longzi’s “Form”: Minimal Word Meaning

Inspired by Gongsun Longzi’s “form-naming” idea about word meaning, this paper argues that 1) the internal lexicon contains only the list of word-meaning pairs, with no additional information either as part of word meaning or as a structural level above it; 2) the meaning of word is a minimal C-Form, the identifying conceptual meaning that individuates a concept; 3) C-Form is the interface between word meaning and concept meaning; and 4) a sentence has a minimal semantic content, consisting of the minimal meanings of the words composing it, which is propositional and truth-evaluable, and contextual elements contribute nothing to the meaning of language expressions. This paper adheres to semantic minimalism, believing meanwhile that meaning holism helps in semantics inquiry, since reflection on language meaning differs from language meaning itself.

From the meaning triad to meaning holism: Unifying life’s meaning

Claims that talk of life’s meaning is misguided, unmanageable or, worse, nonsensical, are overblown. Such claims especially track the cosmically focused the meaning of life. “The meaning of life” is perfectly intelligible, and is centered on a cluster of ideas encapsulated by what I call the “meaning triad.” One component of this triad—I-MEANING—provides the hermeneutical and conceptual resources for understanding the question “What is the meaning of life?” as asking for a single thing, in contrast to amalgam and pluralist views. I will investigate the meaning triad en route to defending meaning of life holism.

Philosophical roots

This chapter explains the basic philosophical concepts and features of the interpretive turn, including: meaning holism, the hermeneutic circle, self-interpretation, the social background, and contingent causality. Sociologists, economists, political scientists, psychologists, and other social scientists can no longer afford to ignore philosophy. This is because philosophical reflection is needed in order to decide the concepts and forms of reasoning that are appropriate to a given domain of empirical study. Interpretive philosophy ought to govern the approach social scientists take to research and what kinds of study they favor. This will be contrasted with some of the fundamental philosophical assumptions found in naturalist approaches to social science.

Robert Brandoms Inferentialismus und das Problem der Kommunikation

Es ist allgemein anerkannt, dass sich für Vertreter des holistischen Inferentialismus die Frage stellt, wie sprachliche Kommunikation möglich ist. Diese These führt nämlich anscheinend unausweichlich dazu, dass Behauptungen für verschiedene Sprecher verschiedene Bedeutungen haben. In seinem Buch Expressive Vernunft (EV) vertritt Brandom einen solchen Inferentialismus und gibt auch zu, dass sich das Problem der Kommunikation für seine Theorie stellt. Im ersten Teil meines Beitrags möchte ich genauer erläutern, wie sich dieses Problem im Rahmen von Brandoms Theorie propositionalen Gehalts darstellt, bevor ich im zweiten Teil Brandoms Antwort darauf vorstelle. Bezüglich dieser Antwort hat allerdings Daniel Whiting in seinem Aufsatz Meaning Holism and De Re Ascription gezeigt, dass sie eine Lücke aufweist. Im dritten Teil dieses Aufsatzes stelle ich kurz dar, worin diese Lücke besteht, und schlage eine Ergänzung zu Brandoms Antwort vor, die man im theoretischen Rahmen von EV vornehmen könnte.

MODERATE HOLISM: ANSWERING TO CRITICISM AND EXPLAINING LINGUISTIC PHENOMENA

In this paper I present a version of meaning holism proposed by Henry Jackman (1999a, 1999b, 2005 and 2015) entitled "moderate holism". I will argue that this moderate version of holism, in addition to responding to much of the criticism attributed to traditional semantic holism (such as translation, disagreement, change of mind and communication), is also extremely useful to explain the occurrence of several, such as vagueness and polysemy. HOLISMO SEMÂNTICO MODERADO E FENÔMENOS LINGUÍSTICOS Neste artigo tenho o objetivo de apresentar uma versão do holismo semântico tradicional proposta por Henry Jackman (1999a, 1999b, 2005 e 2015) intitulada “holismo semântico moderado”. Defenderei que esta versão moderada do holismo, além de responder grande parte das críticas atribuídas ao holismo semântico tradicional (como a tradução, o desacordo, a mudança de opinião e comunicação), também se faz extremamente útil para explicar a ocorrência de diversos fenômenos linguísticos, como, por exemplo: a vagueza e a polissemia.