The context principle and the idea of explaining meaning as from the outside (original) (raw)
Related papers
On the Very Idea of a Theory of Meaning for a Natural Language
Synthese, 1997
A certain orthodoxy has it that understanding is essentially computational: that information about what a sentence means is something that may be generated by means of a derivational process from information about the significance of the sentence’s constituent parts and of the ways in which they are put together. And that it is therefore fruitful to study formal theories acceptable as compositional theories of meaning for natural languages: theories that deliver for each sentence of their object-language a theorem acceptable as statement of its meaning and derivable from axioms characterizing subsentential expressions and operations forming that sentence. This paper is to show that there is something deeply wrong with these ideas, namely that they are based on a certain confusion about ascriptions of semantic knowledge. The paper is to make this point by considering a semantic theorist who has explicit knowledge of a theory of truth for L. And by showing that all the theorist needs ...
The Development of Theories of Meaning
forthcoming in A Handbook of the History of Analytic Philosophy, ed. Michael Beaney
The phrase "Theory of meaning" can mean a number of things in the history of analytic philosophy of language. It may denote an attempt to "analyze, elucidate, or determine the empirical content of, the concept of meaning in general" (Sainsbury 1979: 127). This we can call an informal theory of meaning. Alternatively, it may denote a particular kind of formal theory concerning a specific language. If the language is L, a theory of meaning in this second sense is a theory capable of generating, for each well-formed sentence s of L, a theorem that in some way gives the meaning of s. 2 This we can call a formal theory of meaning. Many of the main figures in analytic philosophy of language have attempted to construct both informal and formal theories of meaning, and in some cases have seen the construction of formal theories of meaning for natural languages as the only -or at least best -way to achieve the elucidatory aims of an informal theory of meaning. This viewpoint is captured well by John Foster:
Academia Letters, 2021
This short article is a historical reading of some of the persistent traits of philosophical semantics. We observe its development through the paths outlined by the contribution of Frege, Carnap, Tarski and Davidson (occasionally inviting Quine and Etchemendy to the discussion). We're trying to identify a symptom. The form that a semantic theorization tends to take in the course of analytical philosophy by following these authors obeys the following pattern: the theory of language that formal semantics intend to simplify is a general form of the compulsion of this language itself to its interpretative stability. The semantic theories that were elaborated to account for the patterns of interpretation and communication have a recurring limitation: whenever we relativize the notion of meaning and truth (to a model, to a possible world, to a linguistic definition, to a empirical science) some complexity is added. This addition robs our theory from its ability to offer a unitary understanding of the linguistic phenomenon that the very language helps to accomplish. We will keep for the conclusion a general commentary on the circular forms that the definition of meaning in a language has taken, whenever semantic theories have tried to account for intensional and modal phenomena; and, finally, we will draw some philosophical interpretations of this phenomenon.
Abstract Meaning has been the center of debates in the study of language for centuries. From classical Greek to Cognitive Linguistics. From been partially ignored by modern linguists like Bloomfield, Chomsky, and many others, to been “empirically” studied by Cognitive Linguists. The study of meaning still remain open ended in its conclusions. The open-endedness of the study of meaning has left many questions in its wake than it sets out to answer. That is one of the reasons why Bloomfield called it “weak” and Chomsky ignored it in his “Generative Grammar”. It is as a result of this weak background that Cognitive Linguistics emerged. From its traditional approach (Semantics) to its modern approach (Cognitive Linguistics), the study of meaning is yet to be boldly called an empirical study of language. This article aims at highlighting the weakness of Semantics and Cognitive Linguistics as an introduction to both fields (Semantics and Cognitive Linguistics). This is because both fields are obsessed with meaning in language. Furthermore, because Cognitive Linguistics is an advanced study of Semantics, this article will focus on its weaknesses to highlight the weakness of the study of meaning in general. From there, solutions to some of the problems will be recommended.
This paper examines meaning in language. It is therefore a study in semantics. Semantics is the study of meaning in terms of the linguistics. Semantics begins from the stopping point of syntax and ends from where pragmatics begins. A separate discipline in the study of language, semantics has existed for decades. The term semantics was first used by Breal in 1987 and it does not suggest that there had never been speculations about the nature of meaning (Ogbulogo (2005). Words, phrases and sentences are used to convey messages in natural languages. Semantics is the study of meaning systems in language. If meaning is a system, then language is systematic in nature. In this paper, we investigate the nature of meaning to locate the significance of semantics in contemporary linguistics. Frege, cited in Sandt (1988:1) rightly notes that “... [If ] anything is asserted there is always an obvious presupposition that the simple or compound proper names used have reference.” Hinging on different submissions in the literature, we conclude that meaning is: socio-cultural, dynamic, grammar-driven, conventional, representative (referential), individualistic (non-conventional) and is not exhaustive.
Meaning has been the center of debates in the study language for centuries
Meaning has been the center of debates in the study of language for centuries. From classical Greek to Cognitive Linguistics. From been partially ignored by modern linguists like Bloomfield, Chomsky, and many others, to been "empirically" studied by Cognitive Linguists. The study of meaning still remain open ended in its conclusions. The open-endedness of the study of meaning has left many questions in its wake than it sets out to answer. That is one of the reasons why Bloomfield called it "weak" and Chomsky ignored it in his "Generative Grammar". It is as a result of this weak background that Cognitive Linguistics emerged. From its traditional approach (Semantics) to its modern approach (Cognitive Linguistics), the study of meaning is yet to be boldly called an empirical study of language. This article aims at highlighting the weakness of Semantics and Cognitive Linguistics as an introduction to both fields (Semantics and Cognitive Linguistics). This is because both fields are obsessed with meaning in language. Furthermore, because Cognitive Linguistics is an advanced study of Semantics, this article will focus on its weaknesses to highlight the weakness of the study of meaning in general. From there, solutions to some of the problems will be recommended.
How To Assess Theories of Meaning? Some Notes on the Methodology of Semantics
The paper presents the two-level approach to the assessment of theories of meaning. The distinctions between a language and the model of language are developed. Similarly, the category of meaning is separated from the model of meaning. It is argued that the first level of assessment of a theory is concerned with the relation of a model of meaning to intra-theoretical aims and assumptions of respective theory with specific model of language. The second level of assessment of a theory is concerned with the ontological, epistemological, logical and related assumptions underlying the respective model of language. Finally, several questions are set forth as the methodological directives for an elucidation of hidden assumptions behind the theories of meaning. Key words: language, model of language, meaning, model of meaning, methodology 1