Chomskyan arguments against truth-conditional semantics based on variability and co-predication

Erkenntnis:1-22 (forthcoming)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
In this paper I try to show that semantics can explain word-to-world relations and that sentences can have meanings that determine truth-conditions. Critics like Chomsky typically maintain that only speakers denote, i.e., only speakers, by using words in one way or another, represent entities or events in the world. However, according to their view, individual acts of denotations are not explained just by virtue of speakers' semantic knowledge (since, according to them, semantic knowledge is very scarce: see Pietroski, 2018). Against this view, I will hold that, in the typical cases considered, semantic knowledge can account for the denotational uses of words of individual speakers.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2019-05-29
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
The Big Concepts Paper: A Defence of Hybridism.Vicente, Agustín & Martínez Manrique, Fernando
The Plurality of Concepts.Weiskopf, Daniel Aaron
Polysemy: Current Perspectives and Approaches.Falkum, Ingrid Lossius & Vicente, Agustin
The Meaning of 'Most': Semantics, Numerosity and Psychology.Pietroski, Paul; Lidz, Jeffrey; Hunter, Tim & Halberda, Justin

View all 24 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
175 ( #23,882 of 50,229 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
40 ( #15,225 of 50,229 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.