Philosophical Studies

, Volume 150, Issue 3, pp 449–459 | Cite as

Having an interpretation

  • Leon HorstenEmail author


I investigate what it means to have an interpretation of our language, how we manage to bestow a determinate interpretation to our utterances, and to which extent our interpretation of the world is determinate. All this is done in dialogue with van Fraassen’s insightful discussion of Putnam’s model-theoretic argument and of scientific structuralism.


Scientific Theory Causal Theory Ontological Structuralism Linguistic Community Liar Sentence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Thanks to Igor Douven and to my colleagues in Bristol for helpful discussions. The research for this project was supported by an AHRC project on Foundations of Structuralism (AH/H001670/1).


  1. Douven, I. (1999). Putnam’s model-theoretic argument reconstructed. Journal of Philosophy, 96, 479–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Halbach, V., & Horsten, L. (2005). Computational structuralism. Philosophia Mathematica, 13, 174–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Horsten, L. (2001). On our ability to fix intended structures. In T. Derksen (Ed.), Moving ahead: Philosophy of mind and realism (pp. 121–134). Nijmegen: Dutch University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and necessity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Ladyman, J. (1998). What is structural realism? Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 29, 409–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ladyman, J. (2007). On the identity and diversity of objects in a structure. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 81, 23–43.Google Scholar
  7. Lewis, D. (1984). Putnam’s paradox. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 62, 221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of ‘meaning’. In Mind, language and reality. Philosophical papers (Vol. 2, pp. 215–271). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Putnam, H. (1978). Realism and reason. In Meaning and the moral sciences (pp. 123–140). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. van Fraassen, B. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. van Fraassen, B. (1997a). Putnam’s paradox: Metaphysical realism revamped and evaded. Noûs, 31, 17–42.Google Scholar
  12. van Fraassen, B. (1997b). Elgin on Lewis’s Putnam’s paradox. Journal of Philosophy, 94, 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. van Fraassen, B. (2006). Structure: Its shadow and substance. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 57, 275–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. van Fraassen, B. (2007). Structuralism(s) about science: Some common problems. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 81, 45–61.Google Scholar
  15. van Fraassen, B. (2008). Scientific representation: Paradoxes of perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations