David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 173 (3):317 - 333 (2010)
I examine the radical contextualists’ two main arguments for the semantic underdeterminacy thesis, according to which all, or almost all, English sentences lack context-independent truth conditions. I show that both arguments are fallacious. The first argument, which I call the fallacy of the many understandings , mistakenly infers that a sentence S is semantically incomplete from the fact that S can be used to mean different things in different contexts. The second argument, which I call the open texture fallacy , wrongly concludes that a sentence S lacks context-independent truth conditions from the fact that there are circumstances in which the truth value of S would be indeterminate. I do however defend the claim that a certain class of sentences not containing any indexicals do lack context-independent truth conditions, and put forward an argument to that effect. But this argument, as I show, does not generalize to all sentences, and thus fails to support the semantic underdeterminacy thesis.
|Keywords||Contextualism Semantic underdeterminacy Semantic incompleteness Indeterminacy Truth conditions Open texture Context sensitivity|
|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
John R. Searle (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press.
R. Carston (2002). Thoughts and Utterances. Blackwell.
Kent Bach (1994). Conversational Impliciture. Mind and Language 9 (2):124-162.
Scott Soames (1999). Understanding Truth. Oxford University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Martin Montminy (2007). Epistemic Contextualism and the Semantics-Pragmatics Distinction. Synthese 155 (1):99 - 125.
Christopher Gauker (2006). Against Stepping Back: A Critique of Contextualist Approaches to the Semantic Paradoxes. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (4):393 - 422.
Dilip Ninan (2012). Propositions, Semantic Values, and Rigidity. Philosophical Studies 158 (3):401-413.
Alexandre Billon (2011). My Own Truth ---Pathologies of Self-Reference and Relative Truth. In Rahman Shahid, Primiero Giuseppe & Marion Mathieu (eds.), Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science, Vol. 23. Springer
David Botting (2012). What is a Sophistical Refutation? Argumentation 26 (2):213-232.
James O. Young (2002). The Slingshot Argument and the Correspondence Theory of Truth. Acta Analytica 17 (2):121-132.
Claudia Bianchi & Nicla Vassallo (2007). Meaning, Contexts and Justification. In B. Kokinov (ed.), Modeling and Using Context. 6th International and Interdisciplinary Conference, CONTEXT '07, LNAI 4635. Springer 69--81.
Martin Montminy (2008). Contextualist Resolutions of Philosophical Debates. Metaphilosophy 39 (4-5):571-590.
Stefano Predelli (2005). Painted Leaves, Context, and Semantic Analysis. Linguistics and Philosophy 28 (3):351 - 374.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads72 ( #59,434 of 1,906,956 )
Recent downloads (6 months)11 ( #60,219 of 1,906,956 )
How can I increase my downloads?