David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2006)
In the philosophy of language, conceptual role semantics (hereafter CRS) is a theory of what constitutes the meanings possessed by expressions of natural languages, or the propositions expressed by their utterance. In the philosophy of mind, it is a theory of what constitutes the contents of psychological attitudes, such as beliefs or desires. CRS comes in a variety of forms, not always clearly distinguished by commentators. Such versions are known variously as functional/causal/computational role semantics, and more broadly as use-theories of meaning. Nevertheless, all are united in seeking the meaning or content of an item, not in what it is made of, nor in what accompanies or is associated with it, but in what is done with it, the use it is put to. Roughly, according to CRS, the meaning or propositional content of an expression or attitude is determined by the role it plays in a person’s language or in her cognition. Currently, many view CRS as the main rival to theories that take notions such as truth or reference as central (for example, Davidson 2001), although the relationship between the two is not straightforward. The following outlines the main varieties of CRS, provides a cursory survey of its history, introduces the central arguments offered in its favor, and provisionally assesses how the variants fair against a number of prominent criticisms
|Keywords||semantics philosophy of language conceptual role linguistics|
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Holger Lyre (2016). Active Content Externalism. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 7 (1):17-33.
Daniel Whiting (2007). Inferentialism, Representationalism and Derogatory Words. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 15 (2):191 – 205.
Daniel Whiting (2008). Meaning Holism and de Re Ascription. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 38 (4):pp. 575-599.
Similar books and articles
Barry M. Loewer (1982). The Role of 'Conceptual Role Semantics'. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 23 (July):305-15.
Ingo Brigandt (2004). Conceptual Role Semantics, the Theory Theory, and Conceptual Change. In Proceedings First Joint Conference of the Society for Philosophy and Psychology and the European Society for Philosophy and Psychology, Barcelona, Spain.
Jerry A. Fodor & Ernest Lepore (1991). Why Meaning (Probably) Isn't Conceptual Role. Mind and Language 6 (4):328-43.
Brian Loar (1982). Conceptual Role and Truth-Conditions: Comments on Harman's Paper: "Conceptual Role Semantics". Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 23 (3):272-283.
Ned Block (1986). Advertisement for a Semantics for Psychology. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 10 (1):615-78.
Brian P. McLaughlin (1993). On Punctate Content and on Conceptual Role. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 53 (3):653-660.
Hartry Field (1977). Logic, Meaning, and Conceptual Role. Journal of Philosophy 74 (July):379-409.
Gabor Forrai (2008). Conceptual Role Semantics and Naturalizing Meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 8 (24):337-348.
William J. Rapaport (2002). Holism, Conceptual-Role Semantics, and Syntactic Semantics. Minds and Machines 12 (1):3-59.
Ralph Wedgwood (2001). Conceptual Role Semantics for Moral Terms. Philosophical Review 110 (1):1-30.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads84 ( #53,025 of 1,934,581 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #76,845 of 1,934,581 )
How can I increase my downloads?