Inferential Role and the Ideal of Deductive Logic

There is a substantial question in the philosophy of language whether understanding a language involves knowledge of some metalinguistic facts about words. Does understanding a language in part consist in knowing what the words in that language mean? Most of the debate about this topic is carried out in the philosophy of language proper, where it seems to belong.1 But recently a subculture of philosophers has emerged who have argued that one of the lessons we must draw from issues in the philosophy of logic and theory of truth is that this picture of language understanding is mistaken. These philosophers aim to make sense of the idea that the paradoxes show that our language itself is inconsistent. One way this idea is spelled out is that the semantic facts that are constitutive of the meaning of certain words are inconsistent with each other. Language understanding thus can not be based on knowledge of semantic facts, and not even on true belief about semantic facts. The semantic ‘facts’ we take to obtain about our language don’t obtain, and so they can’t be known or truly believed. Another attempt to make sense of an inconsistency theory is to hold that language understanding involves believe in a false semantic theory. The main proponent of this line of thought is Douglas Patterson who has argued that we can’t know the truth conditional semantic theory for our language that we employ in understanding utterances of English since that truth theory can’t itself be true. The paradoxes show, he argues, that the compositional semantic theories on which language understanding is based itself aren’t true. And since these theories are not true they can not be known, nor can they be the content of a true belief. Language understanding is instead based on sharing a false belief about what semantic facts govern our language. But since this false theory is shared among speakers of the language, communication is still possible. We come to know what speakers are trying to say, even though we do not know what the truth conditions of the sentences they utter are.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.4148/biyclc.v5i0.283
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 29,511
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
On Using Inconsistent Expressions.Arvid Båve - 2012 - Erkenntnis 77 (1):133-148.
Inconsistency in Natural Languages.Jody Azzouni - 2013 - Synthese 190 (15):3175-3184.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Theories of Meaning and Truth Conditions.Kathrin Glüer - 2012 - In Manuel García-Carpintero & Max Kölbel (eds.), The Continuum Companion to the Philosophy of Language. Continuum International.
Inconsistency Theories of Semantic Paradox.Douglas Patterson - 2009 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 79 (2):387 - 422.
Understanding the Liar.Douglas Patterson - 2007 - In J. C. Beall (ed.), Revenge of the Liar: New Essays on the Paradox. Oxford University Press. pp. 197.
Semantic Normativity and Coordination Games.Daniel Lassiter - 2010 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 10 (3):209-228.
The Concept of Truth and the Semantics of the Truth Predicate.Kirk Ludwig & Emil Badici - 2007 - Inquiry : An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 50 (6):622-638.
Truth and the Imperfection of Language.Hans Sluga - 2007 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 75 (1):1-26.
Russell, Negative Facts, and Ontology.L. Nathan Oaklander & Silvano Miracchi - 1980 - Philosophy of Science 47 (3):434-455.
A Revenge-Immune Solution to the Semantic Paradoxes.Hartry Field - 2003 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 32 (2):139-177.
Added to PP index

Total downloads
53 ( #100,641 of 2,180,740 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #300,627 of 2,180,740 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature

There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums