About this topic
Summary

The thesis that meaning or content are normative has a weaker and a stronger construal. On the weaker construal suggested by Kripke in his Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language (1982), to say that meaning is normative is just to say that the fact that an expression is meaningful entails that certain uses of it are correct or incorrect. However, many people have argued that the fact that meaningful expressions have correct or incorrect uses doesn’t entail anything about normativity in the sense of involving permissibility, requirements etc. For example, it might be incorrect to use ‘Snow is green’ because it results in a factual mistake, but it doesn’t follow from this alone that one isn’t permitted to do so. On a stronger construal, to say that meaning is normative is to say that the fact that an expression is meaningful entails that certain uses of it are permissible or required while others are not. Almost everybody grants that meaning is normative in the weaker sense, what’s at stake is whether it is also normative in the stronger sense. Anti-Normativists deny this, arguing that correctness of uses can be understood wholly in non-normative terms. Normativists affirm it, arguing that it can’t. One way they do this is by arguing that there is a sense of correct use which is compatible with making a factual mistake and does entail something about permissibility, requirements etc. For example, it might be incorrect to use ‘Snow is white’ when one doesn’t believe that snow is white or doesn’t want one’s audience to come to believe this, even though using it wouldn’t involve making a factual mistake. 

Key works Wittgenstein famously suggested that meaningfulness is to be thought of in terms of rules in his Philosophical Remarks, and Philosophical Investigations. Similar suggestions are made in Stenius 1967 which ties rules with semantic mood and in Searle 1969 and Alston 1999 which tie them with speech acts. These are examples of views which entail normativity of meaning in the stronger sense. Anti-normativist replies to the effect that meaning and/or content are not normative have been provided by Wikforss 2001Boghossian 2003Hattiangadi 2006, and Glüer & Wikforss 2009. Normativist defenses include Whiting 2007, Whiting 2009, Wedgwood 2007, and Wedgwood 2009. Most of the above assume or defend the common construal of correctness in terms of avoidance of factual mistakes. Alternative construals in terms of use in accordance with meaning have been defended by McGinn 1984 and Millar 2002.
Introductions Greenberg 2005, Glüer & Wikforss 2010
  Show all references
Related categories
Siblings:See also:
145 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
1 — 50 / 145
  1. William Alston (1999). Illocutionary Acts and Sentence Meaning. Cornell University Press.
    William P. Alston. difference in the scope of the rule reflects the fact that I-rules exist for the sake of making communication possible. Whereas their cousins are enacted and enforced for other reasons. We could distinguish I-rules just by this ...
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Aude Bandini (2011). Meaning and the Emergence of Normativity. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 18 (3):415-431.
    Linguistic meaning has an essential normative dimension that prima facie cannot be reduced to descriptive, non-normative, terms. Taking this point for granted, this paper however aims at proposing a naturalist view of semantics - inspired by Wilfrid Sellars' original works - focused on the way the constitutive normative aspects of meaning might be properly explained and accounted for, rather than eliminated.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Christian Barth & Holger Sturm (eds.) (2012). Brandoms Expressive Vernunft. Historische und Systematische Untersuchungen. Mentis.
  4. Dave Beisecker, Normative Functionalism and its Pragmatist Roots. Normative Funcitonalism and the Pittsburgh School.
    I shall characterize normative functionalism and contrast it with its causal counterpart. After tracing both stripes of functionalism to the work of the classical American pragmatists, I then argue that they are not exclusive alternatives. Instead, both might be required for an appropriately illuminating account of human rational activity.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. David Beisecker (1999). The Importance of Being Erroneous: Prospects for Animal Intentionality. Philosophical Topics 27 (1):281-308.
    The question of animal belief (or animal intentionality) often degenerates into a frustrating and unproductive exchange. Foes of animal intentionality point out that non-linguistic animals couldn’t possibly possess the kinds of mental states we linguistic beings enjoy. They claim that linguistic ability enables us to become sensitive to intensional contexts or to the states of mind of others in a way that is unavailable to the non-linguistic, and that would be necessary for proper attributions of intentionality. To attribute mental states (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Matteo Bianchin (2012). Bildung, Meaning, and Reasons. Verifiche: Rivista Trimestrale di Scienze Umane 41 (1-3):73-102.
    By endorsing that Bildung is a condition for thought, McDowell explicitly sets out to revive a theme in classical german philosophy. As long as the concept of Bildung is intended to play a role in McDowell’s theory of meaning and reasons, however, it is best understood in the light of its distinctive combination of neo-Fregeanism about content and Wittgensteinianism about rule-following. The Fregean part is there to warrant that reasons are objective, the Wittgensteinian move is to account for our grasping (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Akeel Bilgrami (1993). Norms and Meaning. In Ralf Stoecker (ed.), Reflecting Davidson. De Gruyter.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Paul Boghossian, Is Meaning Normative?
    in Christian Nimtz and Ansgar Beckermann (eds.): Philosophy - Science - Scientific Philosophy. Main Lectures and Colloquia of GAP.5, Fifth International Congress of the Society for Analytical Philosophy, Bielefeld, 2003, Mentis, 2005.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Paul A. Boghossian (2003). The Normativity of Content. Philosophical Issues 13 (1):31-45.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Robert Brandom (2000). Articulating Reasons: An Introduction to Inferentialism. Harvard University Press.
    This new work provides an approachable introduction to the complex system that Making It Explicit mapped out.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Robert B. Brandom (2001). Modality, Normativity, and Intentionality. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63 (3):611-23.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (12 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Robert B. Brandom (1994). Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Harvard University Press.
    What would something unlike us--a chimpanzee, say, or a computer--have to be able to do to qualify as a possible knower, like us? To answer this question at the very heart of our sense of ourselves, philosophers have long focused on intentionality and have looked to language as a key to this condition. Making It Explicit is an investigation into the nature of language--the social practices that distinguish us as rational, logical creatures--that revises the very terms of this inquiry. Where (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Robert Briscoe (2006). Individualism, Externalism and Idiolectical Meaning. Synthese 152 (1):95-128.
    Semantic externalism in contemporary philosophy of language typically – and often tacitly – combines two supervenience claims about idiolectical meaning (i.e., meaning in the language system of an individual speaker). The first claim is that the meaning of a word in a speaker’s idiolect may vary without any variation in her intrinsic, physical properties. The second is that the meaning of a word in a speaker’s idiolect may vary without any variation in her understanding of its use. I here show (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Andrei Buleandra (2008). Normativity and Correctness: A Reply to Hattiangadi. [REVIEW] Acta Analytica 23 (2):177-186.
    In this paper I will present and evaluate Anandi Hattiangadi’s arguments for the conclusion that meaning is not intrinsically normative or prescriptive. I will argue that she misconstrues the way the thesis that meaning is normative is presented in the literature and that there is an important class of semantic rules that she fails to consider and rule out. According to Hattiangadi, defenders of meaning prescriptivity argue that speaking truthfully is a necessary condition for speaking meaningfully. I will maintain that (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Tyler Burge (2009). Primitive Agency and Natural Norms. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 79 (2):251-278.
  16. Tyler Burge (1986). Intellectual Norms and Foundations of Mind. Journal of Philosophy 83 (December):697-720.
  17. Krister Bykvist & Anandi Hattiangadi (2007). Does Thought Imply Ought? Analysis 67 (296):277–285.
    N.B. Dr Bykvist is now based at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford. The full-text of this article is not currently available in ORA, but you may be able to access the article via the publisher copy link on this record page.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Alex Byrne (2002). Semantic Values? [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 65 (1):201-7.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Clotilde Calabi & Alberto Voltolini (2005). Should Pride of Place Be Given to the Norms? Intentionality and Normativity. Facta Philosophica 7 (1):85-98.
    Reasons motivate our intentions and thus our actions, justify our beliefs, ground our hopes and connect our feelings of shame and pride to our thoughts. Given that intentions, beliefs and emotions are intentional states, intentionality is strongly connected with normativity. Yet what is more precisely their relationship? Some philosophers, notably Brandom and McDowell, contend at places that intentionality is intrinsically normative. In this paper, we discuss Brandom and McDowell’s thesis and the arguments they provide for its defence. In contrast to (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Mason Cash (2008). The Normativity Problem: Evolution and Naturalized Semantics. Journal of Mind and Behavior 29 (1-2):99-137.
    Representation is a pivotal concept in cognitive science, yet there is a serious obstacle to a naturalistic account of representations’ semantic content and intentionality. A representation having a determinate semantic content distinguishes correct from incorrect representation. But such correctness is a normative matter. Explaining how such norms can be part of a naturalistic cognitive science is what I call the normativity problem. Teleosemantics attempts to naturalize such norms by showing that evolution by natural selection establishes neural mechanisms’ functions, and such (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Manuel de Pinedo (2004). Truth Matters: Normativity in Thought and Knowledge. Theoria: Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia 19 (2):137-154.
    If language and thought are to be taken as objective, they must respond to how the world is. I propose to explain this responsiveness in terms of conditions of correction, more precisely, by taking thoughts and linguistic utterances to be assessible as true or false. Furthermore, the paper is committed to a form of quietism according to which the very same thing that can be thought or expressed is the case: ‘soft facts’ as opposed to hard, free-standing facts, independent of (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Ezequiel A. Di Paolo (2005). Autopoiesis, Adaptivity, Teleology, Agency. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 4 (4):429-452.
    A proposal for the biological grounding of intrinsic teleology and sense-making through the theory of autopoiesis is critically evaluated. Autopoiesis provides a systemic language for speaking about intrinsic teleology but its original formulation needs to be elaborated further in order to explain sense-making. This is done by introducing adaptivity, a many-layered property that allows organisms to regulate themselves with respect to their conditions of viability. Adaptivity leads to more articulated concepts of behaviour, agency, sense-construction, health, and temporality than those given (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Reinaldo Elugardo (2008). Review of Anandi Hattiangadi, Oughts and Thoughts: Scepticism and the Normativity of Meaning. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2008 (4).
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Pascal Engel (2002). The Norms of Thought: Are They Social? Mind and Society 2 (3):129-148.
    A commonplace in contemporary philosophy is that mental content has normative properties. A number of writers associate this view to the idea that the normativity of content is essentially connected to its social character. I agree with the first thesis, but disagree with the second. The paper examines three kinds of views according to which the norms of thought and content are social: Wittgenstein’s rule following considerations, Davidson’s triangulation argument, and Brandom’s inferential pragmatics, and criticises each. It is argued that (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Pascal Engel (2002). Intentionality, Normativity, and Community. Facta Philosophica 4 (1):25-49.
    Against the view that the normativity of mental content is social content, I argue that it is not, examining the views of Wittgenstein, Davidson, Brandom and Pettit.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Pascal Engel (2000). Wherein Lies the Normative Dimension in Meaning and Mental Content? Philosophical Studies 100 (3):305-321.
    This paper argues that the normative dimension in mental and semantic content is not a categorical feature of content, but an hypothetical one, relative to the features of the interpretation of thoughts and meaning. The views of Robert Brandom are discussed. The thesis defended in this paper is not interpretationist about thought. It implies that the normative dimension of content arises from the real capacity of thinkers and speakers to self ascribe thoughts to themselves and to reach self knowledge of (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (15 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Michael Esfeld, Inferentialism and the Normativity Trilemma.
    It is common to base an inferential semantics on a social, normative pragmatics, thus conceiving meaning as consisting in certain normative relations (Wittgenstein, Sellars, Brandom). This position faces a trilemma, which is of wider application, concerning all normative statements: (1) Normative statements are true or false. Regarding a certain normative statement as true does not imply that it is true, not even if a whole community takes the statement in question to be true (cognitivism). (2) There are no normative entities (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. John Fennell (2000). Davidson on Meaning Normativity: Public or Social. European Journal of Philosophy 8 (2):139–154.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. John Garde Fennell (2000). Naturalism and Normativity. Dissertation, Northwestern University
    A condition of adequacy on a theory meaning is to account for the normative dimension of language use---that given what a word means one ought to use it in some ways and not in others. I distinguish five issues pertaining to meaning normativity: its reality, source, sense, scope and funding. Since accounting for normativity is a criterion for an acceptable account of meaning, I argue that the normative dimension is indeed real and thereby reject eliminative naturalistic accounts such as Quine's. (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Jerry A. Fodor & Ernest Lepore (1993). Is Intentional Ascription Intrinsically Normative? In B. Dahlbom (ed.), Dennett and His Critics. Blackwell.
    In a short article called “Mid-Term Examination: Compare and Contrast” that epitomizes and concludes his book The Intentional Stance, D. C. Dennett (1987) provides a sketch of what he views as an emerging Interpretivist consensus in the philosophy of mind. The gist is that Brentano’s thesis is true (the intentional is irreducible to the physical) and that it follows from the truth of Brentano’s thesis that: strictly speaking, ontologically speaking, there are no such things as beliefs, desires, or other intentional (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Graeme Forbes (1989). Biosemantics and the Normative Properties of Thought. Philosophical Perspectives 3:533-547.
  32. Ragnar Francén Olinder (2012). Rescuing Doxastic Normativism. Theoria 78 (4):293–308.
    According to doxastic normativism, part of what makes an attitude a belief rather than another type of attitude is that it is governed by a truth-norm. It has been objected that this view fails since there are true propositions such that if you believed them they would not be true, and thus the obligation to believe true propositions cannot hold for these. I argue that the solution for doxastic normativists is to find a norm that draws the right distinction between (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Eric H. Gampel (1997). The Normativity of Meaning. Philosophical Studies 86 (3):221-42.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Christopher Gauker (2007). The Circle of Deference Proves the Normativity of Semantics. Rivista di Estetica 34 (34):181-198.
    The question whether semantics is a normative discipline can be formulated as a question about the meaning of the word “means”. If I assert, “The word ‘gatto’ in Italian means cat,” what have I done? The naturalist about meaning claims that I have asserted that a certain natural relation obtains between Italian speakers’ tokens of “gatto” and cats. Or at least, I have asserted something about the way Italian speakers use the word “gatto”, which way presumably has something to do (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Christopher Gauker (1995). A New Skeptical Solution. Acta Analytica 113 (14):113-129.
    Kripke's puzzle about rule-following is a form of the traditional problem of the nature of linguistic meaning. A skeptical solution explains not what meaning is but the role that talk of meaning plays in the linguistic community. Contrary to what some have claimed, the skeptical approach is not self-refuting. However, Kripke's own skeptical solution is inadequate. He has not adequately explained the conditions under which we are justified in attributing meanings or the utility of the practice of attributing meanings. An (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Allan Gibbard (1994). Meaning and Normativity. Philosophical Issues 5:95-115.
    The concepts of meaning and mental content resist naturalistic analysis. This is because they are normative: they depend on ideas of how things ought to be.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Allan F. Gibbard (2003). Thoughts and Norms. Philosophical Issues 13 (1):83-98.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Allan F. Gibbard (1996). Thoughts, Norms, and Discursive Practices: Commentary on Brandom. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 56 (3):699-717.
  39. Hannah Ginsborg (2012). Meaning, Understanding and Normativity. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 86 (1):127-146.
    I defend the normativity of meaning against recent objections by arguing for a new interpretation of the ‘ought’ relevant to meaning. Both critics and defenders of the normativity thesis have understood statements about how an expression ought to be used as either prescriptive (indicating that speakers have reason to use the expression in a certain way) or semantic (designating certain uses as correct in a sense explicable in terms of truth). I propose an alternative view of the ‘ought’ as conveying (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Hannah Ginsborg (2011). Primitive Normativity and Skepticism About Rules. Journal of Philosophy 108 (5):227-254.
  41. Hannah Ginsborg (2011). Inside and Outside Language: Stroud's Nonreductionism About Meaning. In Jason Bridges, Niko Kolodny & Wai-Hung Wong (eds.), The Possibility of Philosophical Understanding: Essays for Barry Stroud. Oxford University Press.
    I argue that Stroud's nonreductionism about meaning is insufficiently motivated. First, given that he rejects the assumption that grasp of an expression's meaning guides or instructs us in its use, he has no reason to accept Kripke's arguments against dispositionalism or related reductive views. Second, his argument that reductive views are impossible because they attempt to explain language “from outside” rests on an equivocation between two senses in which an explanation of language can be from outside language. I offer a (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Hannah Ginsborg (2011). Review of Oughts and Thoughts: Rule-Following and the Normativity of Content, by Anandi Hattiangadi. [REVIEW] Mind 119 (476):1175-1186.
    Anandi Hattiangadi packs a lot of argument into this lucid, well-informed and lively examination of the meaning scepticism which Kripke ascribes to Wittgenstein. Her verdict on the success of the sceptical considerations is mixed. She concludes that they are sufficient to rule out all accounts of meaning and mental content proposed so far. But she believes that they fail to constitute, as Kripke supposed they did, a fully general argument against the possibility of meaning or content. Even though we are (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Kathrin Gluer (1999). Sense and Prescriptivity. Acta Analytica 14 (23):111-128.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Kathrin Glüer & Asa Wikforss, The Normativity of Meaning and Content. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    There is a long tradition of thinking of language as conventional in its nature, dating back at least to Aristotle De Interpretatione ). By appealing to the role of conventions, it is thought, we can distinguish linguistic signs, the meaningful use of words, from mere natural ‘signs’. During the last century the thesis that language is essentially conventional has played a central role within philosophy of language, and has even been called a platitude (Lewis 1969). More recently, the focus has (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Kathrin Glüer & Åsa Wikforss (2009). Against Content Normativity. Mind 118 (469):31-70.
    As meaning's claim to normativity has grown increasingly suspect the normativity thesis has shifted to mental content. In this paper, we distinguish two versions of content normativism: 'CE normativism', according to which it is essential to content that certain 'oughts' can be derived from it, and 'CD normativism', according to which content is determined by norms in the first place. We argue that neither type of normativism withstands scrutiny. CE normativism appeals to the fact that there is an essential connection (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Michael Gorman (2003). Subjectivism About Normativity and the Normativity of Intentional States. International Philosophical Quarterly 43 (1):5-14.
    Subjectivism about normativity (SN) is the view that norms are never intrinsic to things but are instead always imposed from without. After clarifying what SN is, I argue against it on the basis of its implications concerning intentionality. Intentional states with the mind-to-world direction of fit are essentially norm-subservient, i.e., essentially subject to norms such as truth, coherence, and the like. SN implies that nothing is intrinsically an intentional state of the mind-to-world sort: its being such a state is only (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Michael Gorman (2002). Intentionality, Normativity, and a Problem for Searle. Dialogue 42 (4):703-714.
    At the heart of the philosophy of John Serale there is found a comprehensive biology of the spirit. But there is a tension in his position. On the one hand, modern biology, such as he understands it, requires a certain conception of normativity. On the other hand, the fashion in which Searle himself understands intentionality requires a very different conception of normativity. To resolve the difficulty, Searle must at the same time modify his understanding of biology and nuance his idea (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Mark Greenberg (2005). A New Map of Theories of Mental Content: Constitutive Accounts and Normative Theories. Philosophical Issues 15 (1):299-320.
    In this paper, I propose a new way of understanding the space of possibilities in the field of mental content. The resulting map assigns separate locations to theories of content that have generally been lumped together on the more traditional map. Conversely, it clusters together some theories of content that have typically been regarded as occupying opposite poles. I make my points concrete by developing a taxonomy of theories of mental content, but the main points of the paper concern not (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (15 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Andrea Guardo (2014). Semantic Dispositionalism and Non-Inferential Knowledge. Philosophia 42 (3):749-759.
    The paper discusses Saul Kripke's Normativity Argument against semantic dispositionalism: it criticizes the orthodox interpretation of the argument, defends an alternative reading and argues that, contrary to what Kripke himself seems to have been thinking, the real point of the Normativity Argument is not that meaning is normative. According to the orthodox interpretation, the argument can be summarized as follows: (1) it is constitutive of the concept of meaning that its instances imply an ought, but (2) it is not constitutive (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Anandi Hattiangadi (2009). Some More Thoughts on Semantic Oughts: A Reply to Daniel Whiting. Analysis 69 (1):54-63.
    1. IntroductionA considerable number of philosophers maintain that meaning is intrinsically normative. In this journal, Daniel Whiting has defended the normativity of meaning against some of my recent objections . 1 This paper responds to Whiting's arguments.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 145