Three Versions of Semantic Minimalism
نویسنده
چکیده
All of the semantic minimalists come together in seeking to reduce contextual inputs in semantics to a minimum, but they disagree over what this quantity may be, and more specifically, the extent to which something can still be classed as “minimal”. With this issue increasingly addressed, three versions of semantic minimalism can be identified: weak, strong, and radical. They are still gathered under the tag “Semantic Minimalism”, yet what they share is in fact less than their divergences as regards the minimal role of context. By revealing their divergent answers to the Range Problem and the Intention Problem, we will clearly see within semantic minimalism the schism, which is preliminary to assessing it.
منابع مشابه
Contexts, Non-specificity, and Minimalism
Atlas (2007) argues that semantic minimalism (as defended by Cappelen & Lepore 2005) fails because it cannot deal with semantic non-specificity. I argue that there is a plausible version of minimalism—viz., situated minimalism—which doesn’t succumb to the non-specificity charge insofar as non-specificity can be dealt with at a postsemantic level. Thus, pragmatics plays no role when it comes to ...
متن کاملBorg ’ s Minimalism and the Problem of Paradox
According to Emma Borg, minimalism is (roughly) the view that natural language sentences have truth conditions, and that these truth conditions are fully determined by syntactic structure and lexical content. A principal motivation for her brand of minimalism is that it coheres well with the popular view that semantic competence is underpinned by the cognition of a minimal semantic theory. In t...
متن کاملFrom the strange to the bizarre : Another reply to Cappelen and Lepore
If you think that semantic minimalism is the only alternative to contextualism but you’d rather do without Cappelen and Lepore’s mysteriously minimal “propositions,” you can. You just have to recognize that being semantically incomplete does not make a sentence context-sensitive. You don’t have to go through the ritual of repeatedly incanting things like this: “John is ready” expresses the prop...
متن کاملMinimalism, Deflationism, and Paradoxes∗
This paper argues against a broad category of deflationist theories of truth. It does so by asking two seemingly unrelated questions. The first is about the well-known logical and semantic paradoxes: Why is there no strengthened version of Russell’s paradox, as there is a strengthened version of the Liar paradox? Oddly, this question is rarely asked. It does have a fairly standard answer, which...
متن کاملSense and Insensibility Or Where Minimalism Meets Contextualism
As we understand it, semantic minimalism is the view that: (i) an utterance u of a (declarative) sentence S expresses a proposition p whose constituents must all be represented by elements of S; (ii) the structure of p reflects the logical form of S,1 and (iii) if S does not contain indexical expressions, u expresses p in a FN:1 context-independent way. This last claim can be illustrated in con...
متن کامل