Frege on the psychological significance of definitions

Conclusion In contemporary work, the distinction between the proposition expressed by a sentence and its psychological significance is usually motivated by a familiar kind of counterfactual argument; and the discussion of these issues usually centers around the role of external factors in determining the meaning of our words. My primary goal in this paper has been to show that a similar, though not identical, distinction between two aspects of meaning can be developed entirely on the basis of considerations internal to language users — their cognitive limitations. To make this point, I have focused on symbols introduced through stipulative definitions. In a language containing such symbols, certain expressions and their definitional reductions will seem to differ in psychological significance for creatures with limited intellects, and so in any aspect of meaning that is supposed to correlate with psychological significance; but it seems also that there is some important aspect of meaning that they share.I have argued that a distinction in meaning like this — between sense and psychological significance — should be drawn even in the kind of languages of most concern to Frege, and that his failure to do so led to tensions in his thought. Of course, this observation only touches on the many issues involved in interpreting Frege's theory of definition more generally. I have not tried to describe here, for example, the ways in which the weak interpretation of fruitfulness might interact with the more robust interpretation mentioned earlier; I have only mentioned Frege's view on explicative definitions and the paradox of analysis, and failed even to mention either his treatment of contextual definition, or his peculiar objections to conditional definitions. I do want to emphasize, however, that the distinction drawn here is not simply a matter of Frege scholarship, but that it has some contemporary relevance as well. As we have seen, Frege's semantic goals often coincide with our own; and a number of contemporary writers are explicitly concerned, like Frege, to construct a semantic theory that is able to account for differences in meaning among logically equivalent expressions. Any such theorist should recognize a distinction like that drawn here between sense and psychological significance, and should avoid subjecting an account of one notion to constraints appropriate only for the other.