|Abstract||How should we explain that we can understand new sentences? New sentences are sentences we encounter for the first time, sentences we haven’t used or heard before, and which we in particular haven’t assigned a meaning by fiat. To explain how we can understand new sentences has usually been regarded as an important and non-trivial task. Moreover, it has often been thought that in order to do that, at least in a great majority of new encounters, we need to appeal to the principle of compositionality. The principle of compositionality, in a standard formulation, says.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Peter Pagin (1997). Is Compositionality Compatible with Holism? Mind and Language 12 (1):11-33.
John Collins (2010). How Long Can a Sentence Be and Should Anyone Care? Croatian Journal of Philosophy 10 (3):199-207.
Jody Azzouni (2005). Tarski, Quine, and the Transcendence of the Vernacular “True”. Synthese 142 (3):273 - 288.
Hamid Vahid (2008). Radical Interpretation and Moore's Paradox. Theoria 74 (2):146-163.
Josh Dever (2006). Compositionality. In Ernest Lepore & Barry Smith (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. Oxford University Press.
Quentin Smith (1987). Sentences About Time. Philosophical Quarterly 37 (146):37-53.
Peter Pagin (2002). Rule-Following, Compositionality and the Normativity of Meaning. In D. Prawitz (ed.), Meaning and Interpretation. Konferenser.
Peter Pagin (forthcoming). Communication and the Complexity of Semantics. In W. Hinzen, E. Machery & Werning (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Compositionality.
Peter Pagin (2003). Communication and Strong Compositionality. Journal of Philosophical Logic 32 (3):287-322.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads19 ( #64,338 of 549,044 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,703 of 549,044 )
How can I increase my downloads?