Advertisement

Aims and Ambitions of the DTM

  • Paweł Grabarczyk
Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 409)

Abstract

The chapter consists of two main parts. In the first part I look at the DTM from a contemporary point of view and position it amongst other theories of meaning. I explain the reasons why I call it a “semantic” theory even though it does not tell us anything about the reference of terms and the reasons behind calling it a “pragmatic” theory. In the second part I introduce 18 desiderata for theories of meaning and suggest that the best way of evaluating theories of this type is to see, how many of these desiderata does a given theory fulfill.

References

  1. Ajdukiewicz, K. (1934/1978). Language and meaning. In Ajdukiewicz, K (Ed.), The scientific world-perspective and other essays. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  2. Ajdukiewicz, K. (1964/1978). The problem of empiricism and the concept of meaning. In K. Ajdukiewicz (Ed.), The scientific world-perspective and other essays. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  3. Burge, T. (1979). Individualism and the mental. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 4, 73–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burgess, A., & Sherman, B. (2014). Introduction: A plea for the metaphysics of meaning. In A. Burgess & B. Sherman (Eds.), Metasemantics : New essays on the foundations of meaning. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davies, M. (2006). Foundational issues in the philosophy of language. In M. Devitt & R. Hanley (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of language. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Devitt, M., & Sterelny, K. (1989). Linguistics: What’s wrong with “the right view”. In Philosophical perspectives, Vol. 3, Philosophy of mind and action theory, 1989 (pp. 497–531). Atascadero: Ridgeview Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  7. Fodor, J. (1981). Introduction: Some notes on what linguistics is talking about. In Ned Block (Ed.), Readings of philosophy of psychology (Vol. 2). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Kaplan, D. (1989a). Afterthoughts. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 565–614). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kaplan, D. (1989b). Demonstratives. In J. Almong, H. Wettstein, & J. Perry (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Maciaszek, J. (2007). Holizm Znaczeniowy Kazimierza Ajdukiewicza. Łodzi: Wydawnictwo WSHE.Google Scholar
  11. Marcus, R. B. (1993). Modalities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Palmer, F. R. (1976). Semantics. A new outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Putnam, H. (1975a). The meaning of ‘meaning’. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 7, 131–193.Google Scholar
  14. Putnam, H. (1975b). Mind language and reality (Philosophical papers, 2nd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Quine, W. V. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Rorty, R. (1967). The linguistic turn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Stalnaker, R. (1997). Reference and necessity. In B. Hale & C. Wright (Eds.), A companion to philosophy of language (pp. 534–554). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Stich, S. (1972). Grammar, psychology and indeterminacy. Journal of Philosophy, 69, 799–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Yule, G. (1985). The study of language. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LodzIT University of CopenhagenLodzPoland

Personalised recommendations