File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Actual vs. Counterfactual Dispositional Metasemantics: A Reply to Andow

TitleActual vs. Counterfactual Dispositional Metasemantics: A Reply to Andow
Authors
KeywordsMetasemantics
Philosophy of language
Dispositions
Issue Date2017
Citation
Philosophia (United States), 2017, v. 45, n. 2, p. 717-734 How to Cite?
Abstract© 2017, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. In previous work (Johnson & Nado 2014) we proposed a sketch of a disposition-based metasemantictheory, which has recently been criticized by James Andow (2016). Andow claims, first, that our dispositionalmetasemantics threatens to render the meanings of our words indeterminate, and second, that our viewrisks a 'semantic apocalypse' according to which most of our terms fail to refer. We respond to Andow'scriticism by modifying and expanding our orignial, underspecified view. In particular, we propose that a viewthat appeals to actual dispositions rather than counterfactual dispositions avoids many difficulties that might confront a disposition-based metasemantics - issues even beyond those that Andow raises.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/244242
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 0.5
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.321
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorJohnson, Michael-
dc.contributor.authorNado, Jennifer-
dc.date.accessioned2017-08-31T08:56:26Z-
dc.date.available2017-08-31T08:56:26Z-
dc.date.issued2017-
dc.identifier.citationPhilosophia (United States), 2017, v. 45, n. 2, p. 717-734-
dc.identifier.issn0048-3893-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/244242-
dc.description.abstract© 2017, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. In previous work (Johnson & Nado 2014) we proposed a sketch of a disposition-based metasemantictheory, which has recently been criticized by James Andow (2016). Andow claims, first, that our dispositionalmetasemantics threatens to render the meanings of our words indeterminate, and second, that our viewrisks a 'semantic apocalypse' according to which most of our terms fail to refer. We respond to Andow'scriticism by modifying and expanding our orignial, underspecified view. In particular, we propose that a viewthat appeals to actual dispositions rather than counterfactual dispositions avoids many difficulties that might confront a disposition-based metasemantics - issues even beyond those that Andow raises.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofPhilosophia (United States)-
dc.subjectMetasemantics-
dc.subjectPhilosophy of language-
dc.subjectDispositions-
dc.titleActual vs. Counterfactual Dispositional Metasemantics: A Reply to Andow-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s11406-017-9840-1-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85018289119-
dc.identifier.hkuros305866-
dc.identifier.volume45-
dc.identifier.issue2-
dc.identifier.spage717-
dc.identifier.epage734-
dc.identifier.eissn1574-9274-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000404241400023-
dc.identifier.issnl0048-3893-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats