David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 161 (1):109-117 (2012)
Lehrer Semantics, as it was devised by Adrienne and Keith Lehrer, is imbedded in a comprehensive web of thought and observations of language use and development, communication, and social interaction, all these as empirical phenomena. Rather than for a theory, I take it for a ‘‘model’’ of the kind which gives us guidance in how to organize linguistic and language-related phenomena. My comments on it are restricted to three aspects: In 2 I deal with the question of how Lehrerian sense can be empirically distinguished from Lehrerian reference as a precondition for the claim that sense relationships are in general more stable than reference relations. It seems that this very claim must already be presupposed for doing the respective empirical investigation. But in 3, I argue for the option to interpret the Lehrers’ concept of sense resp. sense vectors as intension concepts, by which move one may gain a generalized concept, so-to-say ‘‘graded analyticity’’, containing Carnapian strict analyticity for language systems as the extreme case of sense vectors with maximum value. Such graded sense may also be empirically investigated in the case of normal languages. In 4, I plead for my view that what the Lehrers take for communal languages are really collections of family-resembling idiolects of individual speakers and hypotheses of individual speakers about the idiolects of their fellow speakers. This move should free us from the fiction of, and sterile discussions about, the ‘‘true’’ meanings of words, but nevertheless keep normal language communication possible. As a concluding remark I propose in 5 to have both: normal languages from an empirical point of view, and codified languages from a logical reconstructionist one.
|Keywords||Analyticity Communication Explication Intension Meaning Semantics|
|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
Rudolf Carnap (1963). My Basic Conceptions of Probability and Induction, PA Schilpp Ed. In Paul Arthur Schilpp (ed.), The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. La Salle, Ill.,Open Court
Rudolf Carnap (1955). Meaning and Synonymy in Natural Languages. Philosophical Studies 6 (3):33 - 47.
Adrienne Lehrer (1974). Semantic Fields and Lexical Structure. American Elsevier.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Adrienne Lehrer (1970). Theory of Meaning. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,Prentice-Hall.
Jerrold J. Katz (1997). Analyticity, Necessity, and the Epistemology of Semantics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57 (1):1-28.
H. G. Callaway (1981). Semantic Theory and Language: A Perspective (Reprinted in Callaway 2008, Meaning Without Analyticity). Proceedings of the Southwestern Philosophical Association; Philosophical Topics 1981 (summer):93-103.
Eli Hirsch (2000). Objectivity Without Objects. The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 5:189-197.
Peter Pagin (2012). Communication And The Complexity of Semantics. In Markus Werning, Wolfram Hinzen & Edouard Machery (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality. OUP Oxford
H. G. Callaway (1985). Meaning Without Analyticity (Reprinted in Callaway, 2008 Meaning Without Analyticity). Logique Et Analyse 109 (March):41-60.
Wlodek Rabinowicz (2010). Analyticity and Possible-World Semantics. Erkenntnis 72 (3):295 - 314.
Howard K. Wettstein (1991). Has Semantics Rested on a Mistake?: And Other Essays. Stanford University Press.
Martin Stokhof (2002). Meaning, Interpretation. In D. Beaver & P. Scotto di Luzio (eds.), Words, Proofs, and Diagrams. CSLI Publications 217-240.
Jonathan Cohen (2000). Analyticity and Katz's New Intensionalism: Or, If You Sever Sense From Reference, Analyticity is Cheap but Useless. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61 (1):115-135.
Jerry A. Fodor & Ernest Lepore (1991). Why Meaning (Probably) Isn't Conceptual Role. Mind and Language 6 (4):328-43.
Gilbert Harman (1975). Language, Thought, and Communication. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 7:270-298.
Added to index2012-04-20
Total downloads17 ( #268,372 of 1,940,950 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #457,798 of 1,940,950 )
How can I increase my downloads?