Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T05:08:30.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Presuppositional Languages and the Failure of Cross-Language Understanding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2010

Xinli Wang
Xinli Wang
Affiliation:
Juniata College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , Winter 2003 , pp. 53 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2003

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

Biagioli, M. 1990 “The Anthropology of Incommensurability.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 21: 183–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavell, S. 1979 The Claim of Reason: Wittgenstein, Skepticism, Morality, and Tragedy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. 1984 Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Devitt, M. 1984 Realism and Truth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Dummett, M. 1993 The Sea of Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. 1981 “Reply to Criticism.” In Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method. Philosophical Paper 1. Edited by Feyerabend, P.. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 104–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, P. 1978 Against Method. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Gaifman, H. 1975 “Ontology and Conceptual Frameworks (I).” Erkenntnis, 9: 329–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaifman, H. 1976 “Ontology and Conceptual Framework (II).” Erkenntnis, 10:21–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, I. 1982 “Language, Truth and Reason.” In Hollis and Lukes 1982, pp. 48–66.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. 1983 Representing and Intervening. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, I. 1993 “Working in a New World: The Taxonomic Solution.” In P. Horwich 1993, pp. 275–309.Google Scholar
Harman, G. 1984 “Conceptual Role Semantics.” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 23: 242–56.Google Scholar
Hollis, M., and Lukes, S., eds. 1982 Rationality and Relativism. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Horwich, P., ed. 1993 World Change: Thomas Kuhn and the Nature of Science. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, P. 1993 Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions. Translated by Levine, A. T.. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. 1983 “Commensurability, Comparability, Communicability.” In PSA 1982 (Proceedings of the 1982 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association). Vol. 2. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 669–88.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. 1987 “What Are Scientific Revolutions?” In The Probabilistic Revolution. Vol. 1: Ideas in History. Edited by Krüger, L., Daston, L. J., and Heidelberger, M.. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 7–22.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. 1988 “Possible Worlds in History of Science.” In Possible Worlds in Humanities, Arts and Sciences. Edited by Allen, S.. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 9–32.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. 1991 “The Road since Structure.” In PSA 1990 (Proceedings of the 1990 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association). Vol. 2. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 3–13.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. 1993 “Afterword.” In Horwich 1993, pp. 311ê41.Google Scholar
Lan, Z. 1988 “Incommensurability and Scientific Rationality.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 2: 227–36.Google Scholar
Martin, J. 1975 “A Many-Valued Semantics for Category Mistakes.” Synthese, 3: 63–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescher, N. 1980 “Conceptual Schemes.” In Studies in Epistemology. Edited by French, P., Uehling, T. Jr., Wettstein, H., and Feleppa, R.. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 323–45.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. 1979 Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1996 “On Denoting.” In The Philosophy of Language. 3rd ed. Edited by Martinich, A. P.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 199–207. Originally published in Mind, 14 (1905): 479–93.Google Scholar
Schlick, M. 1991 “Positivism and Realism.” In The Philosophy of Science. Edited by Boyd, R., Gasper, P., and Trout, J. D.. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 37–55. Originally published in Erkenntnis, 3 (1932/33).Google Scholar
Strawson, P. 1996 “On Referring.” In The Philosophy of Language. 3rd ed. Edited by Martinich, A. P.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 215–30. Originally published in Mind, 59 (1950): 320–44.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. 1982 “Rationality.” In Hollis and Lukes 1982, pp. 87–105.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. 1970 “On the Extension of Beth's Semantics of Physical Theories.” Philosophy of Science, 37: 325–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. 1989 Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, X. 1998 “A Critique of the Translational Approach to Incommensurability.” Prima Philosophia, 11, 3: 293–306.Google Scholar
Wang, X. 1999 “Is the Notion of Semantic Presupposition Empty?” Dialogos, 73: 61–91.Google Scholar
Wong, D. 1989 “Three Kinds of Incommensurability.” In Relativism. Edited by Krausz, M.. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, pp. 140–58.Google Scholar