Graduate studies at Western
Acta Analytica 21 (1):45-61 (2006)
|Abstract||We sketch the view we call contextual semantics. It asserts that truth is semantically correct affirmability under contextually variable semantic standards, that truth is frequently an indirect form of correspondence between thought/language and the world, and that many Quinean commitments are not genuine ontological commitments. We argue that contextualist semantics fits very naturally with the view that the pertinent semantic standards are particularist rather than being systematizable as exceptionless general principles.|
|Keywords||contextual semantics particularism truth systematizability learnability laws holism reasons|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
H. G. Callaway (1988). Semantic Competence and Truth-Conditional Semantics. Erkenntnis 28 (1):3 - 27.
Asa Maria Wikforss (2001). Semantic Normativity. Philosophical Studies 102 (2):203-26.
Terence E. Horgan & Mark Timmons (1993). Metaphysical Naturalism, Semantic Normativity, and Meta-Semantic Irrealism. In Enrique Villanueva (ed.), Philosophical Issues. Atascadero: Ridgeview.
Anandi Hattiangadi (2006). Is Meaning Normative? Mind and Language 21 (2):220-240.
Emil Badici & Kirk Ludwig (2007). The Concept of Truth and the Semantics of the Truth Predicate. Inquiry 50 (6):622 – 638.
Maria E. Reicher (2002). Ontological Commitment and Contextual Semantics. Grazer Philosophische Studien 63 (1):141-155.
Daniel Whiting (2010). Particularly General and Generally Particular: Language, Rules and Meaning. Logique Et Analyse 53:77-90.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads13 ( #95,599 of 739,345 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,538 of 739,345 )
How can I increase my downloads?