Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T10:24:07.038Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inferentialism and Singular Reference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Mark McCullagh
Mark McCullagh*
Affiliation:
University of Guelph, Guelph, ONN1G 2W1, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In Making It Explicit (1994) Robert Brandom claims that we may distinguish those linguistic expressions with object-representational purport — the singular terms — from others merely by the structure of their inferential relations. A good part of his inferentialist program rests on this claim. At first blush it can seem implausible: linguistic expressions stand in inferential relations to each other, so how could we appeal to those relations to decide on the obtaining of what seems to be relation between linguistic expressions and objects in general (viz., x purports to represent y)? It is perhaps not surprising then that Brandom's proposal fails. But it definitely is surprising how it fails. The problem is that in order to specify the sort of generality there is to an expression's inferential role, one must appeal to some version of the traditional distinction between extensional and nonextensional occurrences of expressions, and there appears to be no way to draw anything like that distinction in inferentialist terms. For the inferential proprieties governing the different occurrences an expression can have are so varied that they do not determine a binary partition of those occurrences.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , June 2005 , pp. 183 - 220
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ned, Block. 1986. ‘Advertisement f or a Semantics of Psychology.’ Midwest Studies 10.Google Scholar
Robert, Brandom. 1987. ‘Singular Terms and Sentential Sign Designs.’ Philosophical Topics 15.Google Scholar
Robert, Brandom. 1994. Making it Explicit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Robert, Brandom. 2000. Articulating Reasons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hartry, Field. 1977. ‘Logic, Meaning, and Conceptual Role.’ Journal of Philosophy 74.Google Scholar
Jerry, Fodor and Ernie Lepore, . 1992. Holism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jerry, Fodor and Ernie Lepore, . 2001. ‘Brandom's Burdens: Compositionality and Inferentialism.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63.Google Scholar
Peter, Graham. 1999. ‘Brandom on Singular Terms.’ Philosophical Studies 93.Google Scholar
Benson, Mates. 1950. ‘Synonymity.’ University of California Publications in Philosophy 25. Reprinted in Semantics and the Philosophy of Language, Leonard Linsky, ed., 111–36. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Colin, McGinn. 1982. ‘The Structure of Content.’ In Thought and object, Woodfield, Andrew ed., 207–58. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Barbara, Partee. 1973. ‘The Semantics of Belief-Sentences.’ In Approaches to Natural Language, Hintikka, Jaakko et al., eds., 309–36. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V.O. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Strawson, P.F. 1970. ‘The Asymmetry of Subjects and Predicates.’ In Language, Belief and Metaphysics, Kiefer, Howard E. and Munitz, Milton K. eds., 69-86. Albany: State University of New York Press. Reprinted in Logico-Linguistic Papers, 96–115. London: Methuen.Google Scholar