File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1007/s13164-017-0340-9
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85032370274
- WOS: WOS:000414287900003
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Why Philosophers Shouldn’t Do Semantics
| Title | Why Philosophers Shouldn’t Do Semantics |
|---|---|
| Authors | |
| Issue Date | 2017 |
| Citation | Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2017, v. 8, n. 4, p. 743-762 How to Cite? |
| Abstract | © 2017, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. The linguistic turn provided philosophers with a range of reasons for engaging in careful investigation into the nature and structure of language. However, the linguistic turn is dead. The arguments for it have been abandoned (for good reasons). This raises the question: why should philosophers take an interest in the minutiae of natural language semantics? I’ll argue that there isn’t much of a reason - philosophy of language has lost its way. Then I provide a suggestion for how it can find its way again. |
| Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/286948 |
| ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 1.8 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.922 |
| ISI Accession Number ID |
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Cappelen, Herman | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2020-09-07T11:46:05Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2020-09-07T11:46:05Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2017 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2017, v. 8, n. 4, p. 743-762 | - |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1878-5158 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/286948 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | © 2017, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. The linguistic turn provided philosophers with a range of reasons for engaging in careful investigation into the nature and structure of language. However, the linguistic turn is dead. The arguments for it have been abandoned (for good reasons). This raises the question: why should philosophers take an interest in the minutiae of natural language semantics? I’ll argue that there isn’t much of a reason - philosophy of language has lost its way. Then I provide a suggestion for how it can find its way again. | - |
| dc.language | eng | - |
| dc.relation.ispartof | Review of Philosophy and Psychology | - |
| dc.title | Why Philosophers Shouldn’t Do Semantics | - |
| dc.type | Article | - |
| dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1007/s13164-017-0340-9 | - |
| dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85032370274 | - |
| dc.identifier.volume | 8 | - |
| dc.identifier.issue | 4 | - |
| dc.identifier.spage | 743 | - |
| dc.identifier.epage | 762 | - |
| dc.identifier.eissn | 1878-5166 | - |
| dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000414287900003 | - |
| dc.identifier.issnl | 1878-5158 | - |