Is Compositionality a Trivial Principle?
Frontiers of Philosophy in China (forthcoming)
|Abstract||Primarily a response to Paul Horwich's "Composition of Meanings", the paper attempts to refute his claim that compositionality—roughly, the idea that the meaning of a sentence is determined by the meanings of its parts and how they are there combined—imposes no substantial constraints on semantic theory or on our conception of the meanings of words or sentences. Show Abstract|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Peter Pagin (2003). Communication and Strong Compositionality. Journal of Philosophical Logic 32 (3):287-322.
Daniel Cohnitz (2005). Is Compositionality an a Priori Principle? In M. Wening, E. Machery & G. Schurz (eds.), The Compositionality of Concepts and Meanings: Foundational Issues. Ontos.
Jerry Fodor & Ernie Lepore (2001). Why Compositionality Won't Go Away: Reflections on Horwich's 'Deflationary' Theory. Ratio 14 (4):350–368.
John Collins (2003). Horwich's Schemata Meet Syntactic Structures. Mind 112 (447):399-432.
Peter Pagin (2010). Compositionality II: Arguments and Problems. Philosophy Compass 5 (3):265-282.
Philip Robbins (2005). The Myth of Reverse Compositionality. Philosophical Studies 125 (2):251 - 275.
Theo M. V. Janssen (2001). Frege, Contextuality and Compositionality. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10 (1):115-136.
Hannes Leitgeb (2008). An Impossibility Result on Semantic Resemblance. Dialectica 62 (3):293-306.
Peter Pagin (2010). Compositionality I: Definitions and Variants. Philosophy Compass 5 (3):250-264.
Francis Jeffry Pelletier (1994). The Principle of Semantic Compositionality. Topoi 13 (1):11-24.
Ernie Lepore (2004). Out of Context. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 78 (2):77 - 94.
Added to index2011-03-07
Total downloads39 ( #29,796 of 549,069 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #8,830 of 549,069 )
How can I increase my downloads?