Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:44:23.070Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Indeterminacy, Incompleteness, Indecision, and Other Semantic Phenomena

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Martin Montminy
Martin Montminy*
Affiliation:
University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK73019-2006, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper explores the relationships between Davidson's indeterminacy of interpretation thesis and two semantic properties of sentences that have come to be recognized recently, namely semantic incompleteness and semantic indecision. More specifically, I will examine what the indeterminacy thesis entails for sentences of the form ‘By sentence S (or word w), agent A means that m’ and ‘Agent A believes that p.’ My primary goal is to shed light on the indeterminacy thesis and its consequences. I will distinguish two kinds of indeterminacy that have very different sources and very different consequences. But this does not purport to be an exhaustive study: there may well be other forms of indeterminacy that this paper does not address.

I will first explain the phenomena of semantic incompleteness and semantic indecision, and then explore their relationships with the indeterminacy thesis.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 73 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bach, Kent. 2005. ‘Context ex Machina.’ In Semantics versus Pragmatics, Szabó, Z.G. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 15–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burge, Tyler. 1979. ‘Individualism and the Mental.’ In Midwest Studies in Philosophy, vol. &. French, A.P. Uehling, T. and Wettstein, H. eds. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 73–121.Google Scholar
Cappelen, Herman and Lepore, Ernie. 2005. Insensitive semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1980. Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1984. Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 2001. Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 2004. Problems of Rationality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 2005. Truth, Language, and History. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dummett, Michael. 1978. ‘The Significance of Quine's Indeterminacy Thesis.’ In Truth and Other Enigmas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 375–419.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit. 1975. ‘Vagueness, Truth and Logic.’ Synthese 30: 265–300.Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul. 1979. ‘A Puzzle About Belief.’ In Meaning and Use, Margalit, A. ed. Dordrecht: Reidel. 239–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1994. ‘Reduction of Mind.’ In A Companion to the Philosophy of Mind, Guttenplan, S. ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 412–431.Google Scholar
Loar, Brian. 1988. ‘Social Content and Psychological Content.’ In Contents of Thought, Grimm, R.H. and Merrill, D.D. eds. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. 99–110.Google Scholar
Montminy, Martin. 2006. ‘Semantic Content, Truth-Conditions and Context.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W.V. 1953. ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism.’ In From a Logical Point of View. New York: Harper and Row. 20–46.Google Scholar
Raffman, Diana. 1994. ‘Vagueness without Paradoxes.’ Philosophical Review 103: 41–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Stewart. 2006. Vagueness in Context. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soames, Scott. 1999. Understanding Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar