On one of the reasons for the indeterminacy of translation

Quine's claim for the unavoidable indeterminacy of translation is partially supported by an argument based on the premise that the analytical hypotheses of the translator are underdetermined by the behavioural evidence on the strength of which they are asserted. I make three points about this argument. First, I show that quine's treatment of analytical hypotheses is inconsistent with his treatment of the hypotheses of physical science. Secondly, I argue that, Since no reason for this difference in treatment is given, Quine's argument fails to show why translation should be regarded as indeterminate but not, For example, Physical science. Thirdly, I claim that quine's argument should be rejected in any case since it depends on a sharp distinction between theory and observation which cannot be substantiated. I conclude that the argument from underdetermination provides no support for translational indeterminacy
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 9,360
External links
  •   Try with proxy.
  • Through your library Configure
    References found in this work BETA

    No references found.

    Citations of this work BETA

    No citations found.

    Similar books and articles

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index


    Total downloads

    22 ( #65,949 of 1,088,905 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    2 ( #42,743 of 1,088,905 )

    How can I increase my downloads?

    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature

    Start a new thread
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.