Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hodges’ Theorem Does not Account for Determinacy of Translation. A Reply to Werning

  • Published:
Erkenntnis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Werning applies a theorem by Hodges in order to put forward an argument against Quine’s thesis of the indeterminacy of translation (understood as a thesis on meaning, not on reference) and in favour of what Werning calls ‘semantic realism’. We show that the argument rests on two critical premises both of which are false. The reasons for these failures are explained and the actual place of this application of Hodges’ theorem within Quine’s philosophy of language is outlined.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • R. Carnap (1956) Meaning and Necessity The University of Chicago Press Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • L.E. Hahn P.A. Schilpp (Eds) (1986) The Philosophy of W. V. Quine Open Court La Salle, Illinois

    Google Scholar 

  • W. Hodges (2001) ArticleTitle‘Formal Features of Compositionality’ Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 10 7–28

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Putnam (1986) ‘Meaning Holism’ E. Halm P.A. Schilpp (Eds) The Philosophy of W. V. Quine Open Court La Salle, Illinois 405–426

    Google Scholar 

  • W.V.O. Quine (1960) Word&Object The M.I.T. Press Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine W.V. (1970). ‘On the Reasons for Indeterminacy of Translation’. The Journal of Philosophy LXVII, 178–183

  • W.V. Quine (1992) Pursuit of Truth Harvard University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine W.V. (1993). ‘In Praise of Observation Sentences’. The Journal of Philosophy XC, 107–116

  • W.V. Quine (1995) From Stimulus to Science Harvard University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine W.V. (1996). ‘Progress on Two Fronts’. The Journal of Philosophy XCIII, 159–163

  • M. Werning (2004) ArticleTitle‘Compositionality, Context, Categories and the Indeterminacy of Translation’ Erkenntnis 60 145–178 Occurrence Handle10.1023/B:ERKE.0000012876.85940.b3

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Salzburg, Franziskanergasse 1, A-5020, Salzburg, Austria

    Hannes Leitgeb

  2. Department of Philosophy & CSLI, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA

    Hannes Leitgeb

Authors
  1. Hannes Leitgeb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hannes Leitgeb.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Leitgeb, H. Hodges’ Theorem Does not Account for Determinacy of Translation. A Reply to Werning. Erkenntnis 62, 411–425 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-004-1992-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-004-1992-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation