Advertisement

Erkenntnis

, Volume 83, Issue 2, pp 331–348 | Cite as

Verbal Disputes and the Varieties of Verbalness

  • Inga VermeulenEmail author
Original Research

Abstract

Many philosophical disputes, most prominently disputes in ontology, have been suspected of being merely verbal and hence pointless. My goal in this paper is to offer an account of merely verbal disputes and to address the question of what is problematic with such disputes. I begin by arguing that extant accounts that focus on the semantics of the disputed statement S (Chalmers, Hirsch, Sider) do not capture the full range of cases as they might arise in philosophy. Moreover, these accounts bring in heavy theoretical machinery. I attempt to show that we can capture the full range of cases with an approach that is theoretically lightweight. This approach explains verbal disputes as a pragmatic phenomenon where parties use the same utterance type S with different speaker’s meaning. Moreover, it provides an answer to the crucial question Jackson’s (Erkenntnis 79:31–54, 2014) pragmatic account leaves, at best, highly implicit. Based on my account, we can distinguish between different ways in which disputes can be verbal and different extents to which they are defective. Distinguishing between these varieties of verbalness furthermore allows us to specify what kind of substantive issues remain to be discussed once the linguistic confusion is resolved.

References

  1. Belnap, Nuel D. (1982). Questions and answers in montague grammar. In Stanley Peters & Esa Saarinen (Eds.), Processes, beliefs, and questions (pp. 165–198). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blackburn, Simon. (1984). Spreading the word. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  3. Blackburn, Simon. (1998). Ruling passions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Burge, Tyler. (1979). Individualism and the mental. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 4, 73–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carnap, Rudolf. (1950). Empiricism, semantics, and ontology. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 4, 20–40.Google Scholar
  6. Carnap, Rudolf 1948. Meaning and necessity, 2nd imp. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chalmers, David J. (2011). Verbal disputes. Philosophical Review, 120, 515–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davidson, Donald. 1968–69. On saying that. Synthese 19, 130–146.Google Scholar
  9. Evans, Gareth. (1981). Reply: Semantic theory and tacit knowledge. In Steven Holtzman & Christopher Leich (Eds.), Wittgenstein: To follow a rule (pp. 118–140). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. The Philosophical Review, 66, 377–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grice, H. P. (1968). Utterer’s meaning, sentence-meaning, and word-meaning. Foundations of Language, 4, 225–242.Google Scholar
  12. Grice, H. P. (1969). Utterer’s meaning and intention. The Philosophical Review, 78, 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hawthorne, John, & Cappelen, Herman. (2009). Relativism and monadic truth. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Higginbotham, James, & May, Robert. (1981). Questions, quantifiers, and crossing. The Linguistic Review, 1, 41–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hirsch, Eli. (2005). Physical-object ontology, verbal disputes, and common sense. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 70, 67–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hirsch, Eli. (2009). Ontology and Alternative Languages. In David J. Chalmers, David Manley, & Ryan Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics: New essays on the foundations of ontology (pp. 231–259). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Huvenes, T. T. (2012). Varieties of disagreement and predicates of taste. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 90, 167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jackson, Brendan Balcerak. (2013). Metaphysics, verbal disputes and the limits of charity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 86, 412–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jackson, Brendan Balcerak. (2014). Verbal disputes and substantiveness. Erkenntnis, 79, 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jenkins, C. S. I. (2014). Merely verbal disputes. Erkenntnis, 79, 11–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. MacFarlane, John. (2014). Assessment sensitivity. Relative truth and its applications. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Manley, David. 2009. Introduction: A Guided Tour of Metametaphysics. In Metametaphysics. New essays on the foundations of ontology, ed. David J. Chalmers, David Manley and Ryan Wasserman, 1–37. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Pettit, Dean. (2002). Why knowledge is unnecessary for understanding language. Mind, 111, 519–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Plunkett, David, & Sundell, Tim. (2013). Disagreement and the semantics of normative and evaluative terms. Philosopher’s Imprint, 13, 1–37.Google Scholar
  25. Schiffer, Stephen R. (2006). Two perspectives on knowledge of language. Philosophical Issues, 16, 275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sidelle, Alan. (2007). The method of verbal dispute. Philosophical Topics, 35, 83–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sider, Theodore. (2011). Writing the book of the world. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Emmy Noether Research Group “Ontology After Quine”, Department of PhilosophyUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations