David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Philosophical Logic 38 (5):549 - 586 (2009)
The Substitution Anomaly is the failure of intuitively coreferential expressions of the corresponding forms “that S” and “the proposition that S” to be intersubstitutable salva veritate under certain ‘selective’ attitudinal verbs that grammatically accept both sorts of terms as complements. The Substitution Anomaly poses a direct threat to the basic assumptions of Millianism, which predict the interchangeability of “that S” and “the proposition that S”. Jeffrey King has argued persuasively that the most plausible Millian solution is to treat the selective attitudinal verbs as lexically ambiguous , having distinct meanings associated with the different sorts of complement terms. In opposition this approach, I argue that there are independent reasons for maintaining the univocality of these verbs and that this can be done while accommodating the Substitution Anomaly and without sacrificing the transparency of the relevant attitude ascriptions. In particular, I show how, by employing an extended version of Edward Zalta’s system of intensional logic for abstract objects, one can construct for a regimented fragment ℜ of English containing the relevant vocabulary a semantical theory ℑ which (a) treats ℜ’s selective attitudinal verbs as univocal, (b) regards genuine terms as occurring transparently under such verbs in sentences of ℜ, and yet (c) predicts the occurrence of the Substitution Anomaly in ℜ.
|Keywords||Abstract objects Designating propositions Millianism Propositional attitudes Transparency Substitution anomaly|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Kent Bach (1997). Do Belief Reports Report Beliefs? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 78 (3):215-241.
Jeffrey C. King (2002). Designating Propositions. Philosophical Review 111 (3):341-371.
Michael McKinsey (1999). The Semantics of Belief Ascriptions. Noûs 33 (4):519-557.
Richard Larson, Marcel den Dikken & Peter Ludlow, Intensional ``Transitive'' Verbs and Abstract Clausal Complementation.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Kjell Johan Sæbø (2009). Judgment Ascriptions. Linguistics and Philosophy 32 (4):327-352.
Herman Cappelen & Josh Dever (2001). Believing in Words. Synthese 127 (3):279 - 301.
Roman Frigg (2003). On the Property Structure of Realist Collapse Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics and the so-Called "Counting Anomaly". International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17 (1):43 – 57.
Heimir Geirsson (2002). Justification and Ways of Believing. Disputatio 12:1 - 11.
Roman Frigg, On the Property Structure of Realist Collapse of Quantum Mechanics and the so-Called "Counting Anomaly".
Michael Nelson (2002). Puzzling Pairs. Philosophical Studies 108 (1-2):109 - 119.
Graeme Forbes (2010). Intensional Verbs in Event Semantics. Synthese 176 (2):227 - 242.
Added to index2009-06-10
Total downloads43 ( #77,301 of 1,724,928 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #268,623 of 1,724,928 )
How can I increase my downloads?