Semantic Dispositionalism and Non-Inferential Knowledge

The paper discusses Saul Kripke's Normativity Argument against semantic dispositionalism: it criticizes the orthodox interpretation of the argument, defends an alternative reading and argues that, contrary to what Kripke himself seems to have been thinking, the real point of the Normativity Argument is not that meaning is normative. According to the orthodox interpretation, the argument can be summarized as follows: (1) it is constitutive of the concept of meaning that its instances imply an ought, but (2) it is not constitutive of the concept of a disposition that dispositions imply an ought, hence (3) no dispositional analysis of meaning can work. According to my alternative reading, the point of the argument is another one, namely that while (1) dispositionalism is committed to the thesis that speakers have non-inferential knowledge of their unmanifested linguistic dispositions, (2) speakers, as a matter of fact, do not have such a knowledge. A point that is in principle independent from the issue of the normativity of meaning.     

Semantic Knowledge,Semantic Guidance,and Kripke's Wittgenstein

Saul Kripke's influential ‘sceptical paradox’ of semantic rule‐following alleges that speakers cannot have any justification for using a word one way rather than another. If it is correct, there can be no such thing as meaning anything by a word. I argue that the paradox fails to undermine meaning. Kripke never adequately motivates its excessively strict standard for the justified use of words. The paradox lacks the resources to show that its standard is truly mandatory or that speakers do not frequently satisfy the well‐motivated competitor I offer. So the paradox fails.     

意义的非事实论与规范性——规则遵循问题的语义分析

规则遵循悖论(the rule-following paradox)及其相关问题源于维特根斯坦的《哲学研究》,它是后期维特根斯坦论述语言的运用及其意义方面的一个重要议题。克里普克在《维特根斯坦论规则和私人语言》中对该问题进行了系统阐释并提出了怀疑论解决方案。在这一解决方案中,他暂且接受意义归因中语义事实的缺失和怀疑论论证的结论,同时拒绝扩展这种论证而导致彻底的意义怀疑论。     

IV—Knowledge of Meaning

The paper is sympathetic to the idea that speakers have implicit knowledge of the semantics of sub-sentential elements of language, loosely, of words. Implicit knowledge is knowledge which the subject need not be capable of articulating yet which is a genuine propositional attitude and it is to be contrasted with tacit knowledge which refers to an information-bearing state which, however, is not a genuine propositional attitude. ¹ I begin by defending the implicit knowledge conception of speakers' knowledge of the meanings of words from a challenge articulated by Evans and then go on the offensive against positions which attempt to replace the notion of implicit knowledge in semantic theory by that of tacit knowledge.     

Meaning,Understanding, and A Priori Knowledge

Philosophia - According to the most popular account of the a priori, which we might call Analytic Account of the A Priori, we can explain the a priori in terms of the notion of analyticity....     

知道一个意义理论?

哲学家和语言学家普遍认为,语言能力的获得要求说话者具有语言知识。按乔姆斯基及其追随者的观点,此类知识是一套有先天内容的句法规则系统;而达米特等哲学家则认为,说话者知道戴维森式的意义理论,更准确地说,说话者对戴维森式的意义理论公理具有隐知识。此论文首先简要阐述达米特的基本思路;然后我会论证,心理化戴维森进路的核心论点存在几个方面的困难。     

On the Meaning of Words and Dinosaur Bones: Lexical Knowledge Without a Lexicon

Although for many years a sharp distinction has been made in language research between rules and words—with primary interest on rules—this distinction is now blurred in many theories. If anything, the focus of attention has shifted in recent years in favor of words. Results from many different areas of language research suggest that the lexicon is representationally rich, that it is the source of much productive behavior, and that lexically specific information plays a critical and early role in the interpretation of grammatical structure. But how much information can or should be placed in the lexicon? This is the question I address here. I review a set of studies whose results indicate that event knowledge plays a significant role in early stages of sentence processing and structural analysis. This poses a conundrum for traditional views of the lexicon. Either the lexicon must be expanded to include factors that do not plausibly seem to belong there; or else virtually all information about word meaning is removed, leaving the lexicon impoverished. I suggest a third alternative, which provides a way to account for lexical knowledge without a mental lexicon.     

Networks of Meaning: Intergroup Relations, Cultural Worldviews, and Knowledge Activation Principles

In this article, we bring advances in the fields of social cognition, personality, and culture to bear on the topic of intergroup relations. Specifically, principles of knowledge activation ( Higgins, 1996 ), and of the architecture of knowledge networks ( Cervone, 2005; Mischel & Shoda, 1995 ) are applied to understanding how cultural groups develop divergent worldviews. We discuss these principles within a recently proposed model of culture and person dynamics, the Cultural Cognitive-Affective Processing System ( Mendoza-Denton & Mischel, 2007 ). It is argued that the underlying psychological principles that govern knowledge acquisition and activation may be universal, but that the manifestations of these processes are culture specific. More precisely, culture impacts the availability, applicability, and accessibility of knowledge, as well as the organizational relationships among constructs. Together, these processes give rise to complex networks of meaning that, despite diverging across cultures, can nevertheless be communicated and understood by non-natives of that culture.     

当代意义理论中的认知分析

意义理论是语言哲学中的重要内容.达米特对这一理论的理解式说明,包含着较为浓厚的认知色彩,标志着意义理论的当代转向.因此,分析达米特以及相关理论家的思想将对了解当代语言学的发展动向具有重要意义.     

Need for Meaning,Meaning Confusion,Meaning Anxiety,and Meaning Avoidance: Additional Dimensions of Meaning in Life

Two aspects of meaning in life have drawn much attention in previous research: presence of meaning and search for meaning. We proposed four additional aspects concerning individuals’ thoughts and feelings about meaning in life: need for meaning, meaning confusion, meaning avoidance, and meaning anxiety. We developed items to measure these dimensions. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the data fit the factors well. Convergent and discriminant validities of the four dimensions were demonstrated though their distinct patterns of correlations with other variables, such as personality traits, need satisfaction, personal aspirations, life satisfaction, anxiety and depression. Moreover, cluster analysis revealed that individuals could be divided into meaningful groups according to these dimensions, with each group demonstrating unique psychological features. Implications for future studies on meaning in life are discussed.     

Basic Questions of Philosophy: Selected Problems of Logic: Martin Heidegger and Basic Concepts: Martin Heidegger

Continental Philosophy Review -