David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Almqvist & Wiksell (1994)
This study presents and develops in detail (a new version of) the argumental conception of meaning. The two basic principles of the argumental conception of meaning are: i) To know (implicitly) the sense of a word is to know (implicitly) all the argumentation rules concerning that word; ii) To know the sense of a sentence is to know the syntactic structure of that sentence and to know the senses of the words occurring in it. The sense of a sentence is called immediate argumental role of that sentence. According to the argumental conception of meaning a theory of meaning for a particular language yields a systematic specification of the understanding of every sentence of the language which consists in a specification of the immediate argumental role of the sentence. The immediate argumental role is a particular aspect of the use of a sentence in arguments. But it is not the whole use in arguments, nor is the whole use in arguments reducible to the immediate argumental role. That is why, by accepting the argumental conception of meaning, we can have epistemological holism without linguistic holism. The argumental conception distinguishes between the understanding and the correctness of a language. Such a distinction makes it possible to account for our understanding of paradoxical languages. Redundancy theory of truth, realistic conceptions of truth or epistemic conceptions of truth are all compatible with an argumental conception of sense. But here it is argued that an epistemic conception of truth is preferrable. Acceptance of the argumental conception of meaning and of an epistemic conception of truth leads to a rejection of the idea of analytic truth. The argumental conception is pluralistic with respect to the understandability of different logics, and neutral with respect to their correctness.
|Keywords||meaning-theory inferentialism logical pluralism choice of logic|
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Dag Prawitz (2006). Meaning Approached Via Proofs. Synthese 148 (3):507 - 524.
Cesare Cozzo (2008). On the Copernican Turn in Semantics. Theoria 74 (4):295-317.
Dag Prawitz (2012). The Epistemic Significance of Valid Inference. Synthese 187 (3):887-898.
Dag Prawitz (2006). Meaning Approached Via Proofs. Synthese 148 (3):507-524.
Similar books and articles
Gary Kemp (2002). Reply to Heck on Meaning and Truth-Conditions. Philosophical Quarterly 52 (207):233-236.
Jay David Atlas (1989). Philosophy Without Ambiguity: A Logico-Linguistic Essay. Oxford University Press.
Richard Heck (2002). Meaning and Truth-Conditions: A Reply to Kemp. Philosophical Quarterly 52 (206):82–87.
Douglas Patterson (2005). Deflationism and the Truth Conditional Theory of Meaning. Philosophical Studies 124 (3):271-294.
Peter Carruthers (1985). Ruling-Out Realism. Philosophia 15 (1-2):61-78.
Markus Schrenk (2008). Verificationist Theory of Meaning. In U. Windhorst, M. Binder & N. Hirowaka (eds.), Encyclopaedic Reference of Neuroscience. Springer
Susanne Bobzien (1996). Stoic Syllogistic. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 14:133-92.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads265 ( #8,473 of 1,796,321 )
Recent downloads (6 months)72 ( #7,149 of 1,796,321 )
How can I increase my downloads?