Lifting the church-ban on quotational analysis: The translation argument and the use-mention distinction
Journal for General Philosophy of Science 32 (2):257-270 (2001)
|Abstract||According to quotational theory, indirect ascriptions of propositional attitudes should be analyzed as direct ascriptions of attitudes towards natural-language sentences specified by quotations. A famous objection to this theory is Church's translation argument. In the literature several objections to the translation argument have been raised, which in this paper are shown to be unsuccessful. This paper offers a new objection. We argue against Church's presupposition that quoted expressions, since they are mentioned, cannot be translated. In many contexts quoted expressions are used and mentioned simultaneously, and the quotational analysis of propositional-attitude ascriptions is such a context. Hence the translation argument is unsound.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Wolfgang Heydrich (1993). A Reconception of Meaning. Synthese 95 (1):77 - 94.
George Bealer (1993). Universals. Journal of Philosophy 60 (1):5-32.
Arnold Cusmariu (1982). Translation and Belief. Analysis 42 (1):12-16.
Roger Wertheimer (2008). The Paradox of Translation. In B. . Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & M. Thelen (eds.), Translation and Meaning. Hogeschool Zuyd.
Arnold Cusmariu (1983). Translation and Belief Again. Analysis 43 (1):23-25.
Ori Simchen (1999). Quotational Mixing of Use and Mention. Philosophical Quarterly 50 (196):325-336.
M. Dusche (1995). Interpreted Logical Forms as Objects of the Attitudes. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 4 (4):301-315.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads19 ( #64,310 of 549,014 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,272 of 549,014 )
How can I increase my downloads?