Dialectica 63 (2):157-174 (2009)
|Abstract||Paul Horwich has claimed that we can derive a certain form of the principle of compositionality from a deflationary account of what it is to understand a complex expression. If this were the case, we would realize a surprising theoretical economy, and if the derivation involved basic ideas from a use theory of meaning, we would have a novel argument for use theories of meaning. Horwich does not offer a detailed derivation. In this paper I reconstruct a possible derivation and show that it begs the question. I then extend my discussion to explain why it is unlikely that alternative arguments can fare better.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Hannes Leitgeb (2008). An Impossibility Result on Semantic Resemblance. Dialectica 62 (3):293-306.
Jerry Fodor & Ernie Lepore (2001). Why Compositionality Won't Go Away: Reflections on Horwich's 'Deflationary' Theory. Ratio 14 (4):350–368.
John Collins (2002). Horwich's Sting. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 2 (2):213-228.
Daniel Cohnitz (2005). Is Compositionality an a Priori Principle? In M. Wening, E. Machery & G. Schurz (eds.), The Compositionality of Concepts and Meanings: Foundational Issues. Ontos.
John Collins (2003). Horwich's Schemata Meet Syntactic Structures. Mind 112 (447):399-432.
Peter Pagin (2003). Communication and Strong Compositionality. Journal of Philosophical Logic 32 (3):287-322.
Philip Robbins (2005). The Myth of Reverse Compositionality. Philosophical Studies 125 (2):251 - 275.
Added to index2009-06-16
Total downloads19 ( #64,338 of 549,041 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,041 )
How can I increase my downloads?