David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
This paper1 explores, quite tentatively, possible consequences for the concept of semantics of two phenomena concerning meaning and interpretation, viz., radical interpretation and normativity of meaning. Both, it will be argued, challenge the way in which meaning is conceived of in semantics and thereby the status of the discipline itself. For several reasons it seems opportune to explore these issues. If one reviews the developments in semantics over the past two decades, one observes that quite a bit has changed, and one may well wonder how to assess these changes. This relates directly to the status of semantics. If semantics is an empirical discipline, one might expect that most changes are informed by empirical considerations. However, one may also note that the core notion of semantics, meaning, today is conceived of quite diﬀerently than in, say, the seventies. How can that be? How can that what semantics is about, be diﬀerent now from what is was back then? Or is this perhaps an indication that semantics is not as empirical as it is often thought to be? Moreover, it seems that in some deep sense meaning as explicated in semantics and interpretation as studied in various philosophical approaches are strangely at odds. Meaning is what interpretation is concerned with: meaning is, at least so it seems, what in the process of interpretation language users try to recover (or analogously, what they try to convey in production). Yet, the way meaning is conceived of in semantics seems not to square all that neatly with how the process of interpretation is supposed to proceed. In particular it seems to lack some of the intrinsic features that various approaches to interpretation assume it to have. Given these discrepancies, one wonders how the two can be incorporated within a single theory. And that such a theory is desirable goes, it may be presumed, without saying These are the reasons that ﬁgure in this paper. At the background there are some others..
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.) (2011). Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. De Gruyter Mouton.
Gennaro Chierchia (1995). Dynamics of Meaning: Anaphora, Presupposition, and the Theory of Grammar. University of Chicago Press.
Scott Soames (2009). Philosophical Essays: Natural Language: What It Means and How We Use It. Princeton University Press.
D. Prawitz (ed.) (2002). Meaning and Interpretation. Konferenser.
P. Rubio Fernandez (2007). Suppression in Metaphor Interpretation: Differences Between Meaning Selection and Meaning Construction. Journal of Semantics 24 (4):345-371.
Adrienne Lehrer (1970). Theory of Meaning. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,Prentice-Hall.
Dag Prawitz (ed.) (2002). Meaning and Interpretation: Conference Held in Stockholm, September 24-26, 1998. Kungl. Vitterhets, Historie Och Antikvitets Akademien.
Douglas W. Maynard (2011). On “Interactional Semantics” and Problems of Meaning. Human Studies 34 (2):199-207.
J. A. G. Groenendijk, T. M. V. Janssen & M. J. B. Stokhof (eds.) (1984). Truth, Interpretation, and Information: Selected Papers From the Third Amsterdam Colloquium. Foris Publications.
Urszula Wybraniec-Skardowska (2007). Meaning and Interpretation. II. Studia Logica 85 (2):261 - 274.
Jeroen Groenendijk & Martin Stokhof (2000). Meaning in Motion. In Klaus von Heusinger & Urs Egli (eds.), Reference and Anaphoric Relations. Kluwer. 47--78.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads14 ( #93,680 of 1,011,176 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,700 of 1,011,176 )
How can I increase my downloads?