Graduate studies at Western
Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (2):259 - 271 (1977)
|Abstract||Nelson Goodman claims to have given us a criterion for likeness of meaning that is more stringent than simple coextensiveness and yet that avoids the familiar extentionalist objections. The notion of a nominal compound plays a key role in his account. I show that Goodman's comments concerning this notion are inadequate, that his comments concerning expressions like unicorn-picture are subject to two serious objections: (1) they don't support his claims about likeness of meaning (i.e., the claims that his criterion is more stringent than simple coextensiveness) and (2) they make English an unlearnable language.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Günter Abel (1991). Logic, Art, and Understanding in the Philosophy of Nelson Goodman. Inquiry 34 (3 & 4):311 – 321.
Nikoloas Gkogkas (2008). Nelson Goodman and the Case for a Kalological Aesthetics. Palgrave Macmillan.
Catherine Z. Elgin (ed.) (1997). Nominalism, Constructivism, and Relativism in the Work of Nelson Goodman. Garland Pub..
Robert Elliot (1983). Ii. The Value of Wild Nature. Inquiry 26 (3):359 – 361.
Nelson Goodman (1949). On Likeness of Meaning. Analysis 10 (1):1 - 7.
Robert Kowalenko (2012). Reply to Israel on the New Riddle of Induction. Philosophia 40 (3):549-552.
Wolfgang Heydrich (1993). A Reconception of Meaning. Synthese 95 (1):77 - 94.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads7 ( #142,523 of 739,155 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,778 of 739,155 )
How can I increase my downloads?