4 found
Order:
  1. Objects, Concepts, Unity.Ulrich Reichard - 2014 - In Piotr Stalmaszczyk (ed.), Philosophy of Language and Linguistics: The Legacy of Frege, Russell, and Wittgenstein. De Gruyter. pp. 213-224.
    The paradox of the concept horse has often been taken to be devastating for Frege’s ontological distinction between objects and concepts. I argue that if we consider how the concept-object distinction is supposed to account for the unity of linguistic meaning, it transpires that the paradox is in fact not paradoxical.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  2. Inference and Grammar: Intersectivity, Subsectivity, and Phases.Ulrich Reichard - 2013 - In Catrin S. Rhys, Pavel Iosad & Alison Henry (eds.), Microvariation, Minority Languages, Minimalism and Meaning: Proceedings of the Irish Network in Formal Linguistics. Cambridge Scholars Press. pp. 222-244.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  3. Making Events Redundant: Adnominal Modification and Phases.Ulrich Reichard - 2012 - In Piotr Stalmaszczyk (ed.), Philosophical and Formal Approaches to Linguistic Analysis. Ontos. pp. 429.
    In the last two decades, Davidson’s event-argument hypothesis has become very popular in natural language semantics. This article questions that event-based analyses actually add something to our understanding of the respective phenomena: I argue that they already find their explanation in independently motivated grammatical assumptions and principles which apply to all kinds of modification. Apart from a short discussion of Davidson’s original arguments in favour of his hypothesis, I address Larson’s event-based account of the distinctions between stage-level vs. individual-level modification (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  4. Brandom’s Pragmatist Inferentialism and the Problem of Objectivity.Ulrich Reichard - 2010 - Philosophical Writings:69-78.
    Brandom’s philosophical programme can be seen as a reversion of the traditional order of explanation in semantics. Whereas traditional semantic theories start with a grip on a notion like truth or reference, Brandom argues that it is also possible to begin with an analysis of the speech acts of what one is doing by making a claim in order to explain representational notions like truth and objectivity. Evaluating the explanatory values of Brandom’s theory, it therefore is necessary to ask to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark