Depictive Structure?

Philosophical Papers 40 (1):1-25 (2011)
Abstract
This paper argues against definitions of depiction in terms of the syntactic and semantic properties of symbol systems. In particular, it is argued that John Kulvicki's definition of depictive symbol systems in terms of relative repleteness, semantic richness, syntactic sensitivity and transparency is susceptible to similar counterexamples as Nelson Goodman's in terms of syntactic density, semantic density and relative repleteness. The general moral drawn is that defining depiction requires attention not merely to descriptive questions about syntax and semantics, but also to foundational questions about what makes it the case that depictions have the syntactic and semantic properties they do.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/05568641.2011.560026
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Languages of Art.Nelson Goodman - 1968 - Bobbs-Merrill.
On Images: Their Structure and Content.John V. Kulvicki - 2006 - Oxford University Press UK.
Languages and Language.David Lewis - 1975 - In Keith Gunderson (ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. University of Minnesota Press. pp. 3-35.

View all 11 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
159 ( #32,196 of 2,210,536 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
19 ( #18,046 of 2,210,536 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature