Dialectica 68 (4):581-603 (2014)
AbstractPropositional attitude sentences, such as (1) Pierre believes that snow is white, have proved to be formidably difficult to account for in a semantic theory. It is generally agreed that the that-clause ‘that snow is white’ purports to refer to the proposition that snow is white, but no agreement has been reached on what this proposition is. Sententialism is a semantic theory which tries to undermine the very enterprise of understanding what proposition is referred to in (1): according to sententialists, in (1) reference is made to the sentence “Snow is white”. Sententialism is generally considered doomed. The two main reasons why are the famous translation argument, firstly suggested by Alonzo Church, and a problem raised by Stephen Schiffer. The purpose of this paper is to provide a unified solution to both criticisms. What I take to be the key ingredient sententialists may exploit is an observation that concerns the nature of languages and quotations: since quotation marks display the quoted material, if you are a speaker of the language the quoted material belongs to, you usually cannot but understand what is quoted. Moreover, I show that sententialists may appeal to that very observation also in order to answer another problem, pointed out by Kent Bach. I conclude that there are good reasons for resisting the temptation of introducing propositions in order to account for propositional attitude sentences.
Similar books and articles
Sententialism and Berkeley's Master Argument.Zoltán Gendler Szabó - 2005 - Philosophical Quarterly 55 (220):462–474.
Vagueness, Indirect Speech Reports, and the World.Steven Gross - 2002 - ProtoSociology 17:153-168.
Sententialism: The Thesis That Complement Clauses Refer to Themselves.James Higginbotham - 2006 - Philosophical Issues 16 (1):101–119.
Permissible Killing, the Self-Defence Justification of Homicide, by Suzanne Uniacke. [REVIEW]Jeff McMahan - 1994 - Ethics 106 (3):641-644.
Epistemic Reasons and the Basing Relation.Scott Christopher Hendricks - 2001 - Dissertation, The University of Arizona
The Role of Reasonableness in Self-Defence.Dr Hamish Stewart - 2003 - Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 16 (2):317-336.
Intimate Homicide and the Provocation Defence – Endangering Women? R V. Smith.Mandy Burton - 2001 - Feminist Legal Studies 9 (3):247-258.
The Problem of Evil: Two Neglected Defences. [REVIEW]Peter Forrest - 1981 - Sophia 20 (1):49-54.
Xenophon's Defence of Socrates: The Rhetorical Background to the Socratic Problem.V. J. Gray - 1989 - Classical Quarterly 39 (01):136-.
Plantinga’s Defence of the Free Will Defence in Chapter Nine ofThe Nature of Necessity.K. H. A. Esmail - 2002 - Sophia 41 (2):19-29.
Toward a Homuncular Theory of Believing.William G. Lycan - 1981 - Cognition and Brain Theory 4 (2):139-59.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
No citations found.
References found in this work
Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic.Rudolf Carnap - 1947 - Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.
Themes From Kaplan.Joseph Almog, John Perry & Howard Wettstein (eds.) - 1989 - Oxford University Press.