Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:19:34.272Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Semantic Indeterminacy and Scientific Underdetermination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Philip L. Peterson
Philip L. Peterson*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Syracuse University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Some critics believe Quine's semantic indeterminacy (indeterminacy of radical translation at home as well as abroad) thesis is true, but innocent, since it is just scientific underdetermination in linguistics. The Quinean reply is that in scientific underdetermination cases there are facts of the matter making claims true or false (whether knowable or not), whereas in semantic indeterminacy cases there simply are not. The critics' rejoinder that there are such facts, studied in linguistics, is met by the final reply that linguistics either on the whole or in part is riddled with appeals to “meanings” and is, thereby, as suspect as analyticity and radical translation. I recommend “saving”(?) linguistics by holding that it is permanently entangled in epistemology. Finally, the argument the critics should have made concerns paralleling semantic indeterminacy to indeterminacies in current quantum mechanics.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , September 1984 , pp. 464 - 487
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1984

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.)

Footnotes

†

I thank William Alston for a discussion which prompted this paper. Also, I am very grateful for helpful comments, corrections, and criticisms from the following people: Jonathan Bennett and William Ritchie (on an early draft), Robert Butts (on a distant ancestor), and Noam Chomsky and W. V. Quine (on the penultimate version).

References

Alston, W. (forthcoming), “Quine on Meaning”, in The Philosophy of W. V. Quine. Hahn, L., (ed.). La Salle ILL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. (1976), Linguistic Behavior. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957), Syntactic Structures.'s-Gravenhage: Mouton.10.1515/9783112316009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1969), “Quine's Empirical Assumptions”, in Words and Objections. Harman, G. and Davidson, D., (eds.). Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 53–68.10.1007/978-94-010-1709-1_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1975), The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1980), Rules and Representations. New York: Columbia University Press.10.1017/S0140525X00001515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1982), Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Geach, P. (1957), Mental Acts. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Hanson, N. R. (1967), “Philosophical Implications of Quantum Mechanics”, in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edwards, P., (ed.). Vol. 7. London and New York: Macmillan, pp. 41–49.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. (1951), Methods in Structural Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hockney, D. (1975), “The Bifurcation of Scientific Theories and Indeterminacy of Translation”, Philosophy of Science 42: 411–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1976), “Towards an Explanatory Semantic Representation”, Linguistic Inquiry 7: 89–150.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. (1972), Semantic Theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. (1975), Logic and Language: An Examination of Recent Criticism of Intensionalism. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 7. Minneapolis: University Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. (1981), Language and Other Abstract Objects. Totowa NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. and Katz, F. (1977), “Is Necessity the Mother of Intension?” Philosophical Review 86: 70–96.10.2307/2184163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, P. L. (1973), Concepts and Language. 's-Gravenhage: Mouton.10.1515/9783111350271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, P. L. (1981), “Philosophy of Language”, Social Research 47: 749–74.Google Scholar
Peterson, P. L. (1982a), “Critical Study of Linguistic Representation by J. Rosenberg”, Philosophia 12: 159–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, P. L. (1982b), “Anaphoric Reference to Facts, Propositions, and Events”, Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 235–76.10.1007/BF00351053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, P. L. (1983), “Universals and Meanings”, American Philosophical Association, Chicago, 1983.Google Scholar
Peterson, P. L. (forthcoming), “Revealing Designators and Acquaintance with Universale”, Nous.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1953), From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1960), Word and Object. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1969a), “Replies: To Chomsky”, in Words and Objections. Harman, G. and Davidson, D., (eds.). Dordrecht: D. Reidel. pp. 274–83.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1969b), Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press.10.7312/quin92204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1981), Theories and Things. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1970), “On the Reasons for Indeterminacy of Translation”, Journal of Philosophy 67: 178–83.10.2307/2023887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, J. (1974), Linguistic Representation. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.10.1007/978-94-010-2301-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar