Advertisement

The Meaning and Content of Truth Ascriptions

  • María José Frápolli
Chapter
  • 935 Downloads
Part of the Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science book series (LEUS, volume 29)

Abstract

The semantics of the expressions in which truth shows its usefulness is not straightforward, and its complexity partially explains the multiplicity of accounts available in the bibliography. The functioning of truth ascriptions cannot be explained and understood without having at hand a theory of meaning that makes room for different aspects of the notion, as for instance those aspects represented in the distinction between an expression’s linguistic meaning and the semantic values that the expression embodies when used in a particular context. Truth ascriptions work in language as variables of some kind. Understanding variables is understanding indexicality. The job performed by variables/indexicals requires a contrast between some relatively stable aspects of meaning, on the one hand, and aspects more exposed to the influence of context, on the other. The philosophy of language of the past century has incorporated this distinction under different guises, but any of them suffices for accepting the proposal on the semantics of truth ascriptions explained in this chapter.

Keywords

Singular Term Definite Description Propositional Variable Grammatical Category Truth Predicate 
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.

References

  1. Austin, J. 1950. Truth. In Philosophical papers (1961), 126 y ss. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Austin, J. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barwise, J., and R. Cooper. 1981. Genaralized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistic and Philosophy 4: 159–219. Reprinted in Davis and Gillon, 2004, 482–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barwise, J., and J. Perry. 1987. The liar: An essay in truth and circularity. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Blakemore, D. 1987. Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Brandom, R. 1994. Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cappelen, H., and J. Hawthorne. 2009. Relativism and monadic truth. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cappelen, H., and E. Lepore. 2005. Insensitive semantics: A defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frápolli, M.J. 2005a. Ramsey’s Theory of truth and the origins of the pro-sentential account. In F. P. Ramsey. Critical reassessments, ed. M.J. Frápolli, 113–138. London: Thoemmes Continuum.Google Scholar
  11. Frege, G. 1879. Begriffsschrift, a formula language, modelled upon that of arithmetic, for pure thought. In From frege to Gödel. A source book on mathematical logic 1879–1931, ed. J. Van Heijenoort, 1–82. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1967.Google Scholar
  12. Frege, G. 1884. The foundations of arithmetic. Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1950, 1953, 1980 (original edn, 1884).Google Scholar
  13. Frege, G. 1891. Function and concept. In The translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege, ed. Geach Peter and Black Max, 21–41. Totowa: Barnes and Noble Books. 1953.Google Scholar
  14. Frege, G. 1892. On sense and meaning. In The translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege, ed. Geach Peter and Black Max, 56–78. Totowa: Barnes and Noble Books. 1953.Google Scholar
  15. Geach, P.T. 1962. Reference and generality. An examination of some medieval and modern theories. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Groenendijk, J., and M. Stokhof. 1991. Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(1): 39–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grover, D.L., J.L. Camp, and N. Belnap. 1975. A prosentential theory of truth. Philosophical Studies 27: 73–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hintikka, J., and G. Sandu. 1997. Game-theoretical semantics. In Handbook of logic and language, ed. J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen, 361–410. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Horwich, P. 1990. Truth. Oxford: Basil Blackwell (2nd edn, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1998).Google Scholar
  20. Ifantidou-Trouki, E. 1993. Sentential adverbs and relevance. Lingua 90: 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kamp, H., and U. Reyle. 1993. From discourse to logic. Introduction to model-theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Part I. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  22. Kaplan, D. 1977. Demonstratives. An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In Themes from Kaplan, 481–563. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kaplan, D. 1989. Afterthoughts. In Themes from Kaplan, 565–614. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kovacci, O. 1999. El adverbio. In Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española. Dirigida por Ignacio Bosque y Violeta Demonte, 705–785. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
  25. Kripke, S. 2008. Naming and necessity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Künne, W. 2003. Conceptions of truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. MacFarlane, J. 2005. The assessment sensitivity of knowledge attributions. Oxford Studies in Epistemology 1: 197–233.Google Scholar
  28. MacFarlane, J. 2007. Relativism and disagreement. Philosophical Studies 132: 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Prior, A. 1971. In Objects of thought, ed. P.T. Geach and A.J.P. Kenny. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  30. Putnam, H. 1970. Is semantic possible? In Mind, language, and reality, Philosophical papers, vol. 2, 139–152. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Putnam, H. 1973. The meaning of meaning. In Mind, language, and reality, Philosophical papers, vol. 2, 215–271. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Quine, W.V.O. 1960. Word and object. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Ramsey, F.P. 1927a. Facts and propositions. In Fundations. Essays in philosophy, logic, mathematics and economics, ed. D.H. Mellor, 40–57. London: Routledge/Kegan Paul. 1978, Also in Philosophical Papers. F.P.Ramsey. Ed. D.H.Mellor. Cambridge University Press, 34–51.Google Scholar
  34. Ramsey, F.P. 1927b/1991. The nature of truth. In On truth. Original manuscript materials (1927–1929) from the Ramsey collection at the University of Pittsburgh, ed. N. Rescher and U. Majer, 6–16. Dordrech: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  35. Ramsey, F.P. 1929a. General propositions and causality. In Philosophical papers. F.P.Ramsey, ed. D.H. Mellor, 145–163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Recanati, F. 1993. Direct reference. From language to thought. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. Recanati, F. 2000. Oratio obliqua, oratio recta. An essay on metarepresentation. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Recanati, F. 2004. Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Recanati, F. 2007. Perspectival thought. A plea for (moderate) relativism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Recanati, F. 2010. Truth-conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Russell, B. 1905. On denoting. Mind, new series, 14, 479–493.Google Scholar
  42. Saarinen, E. 2005. Game-theoretical semantics: Essays on semantics by Hintikka, Carlson, Peacocke, Rantala and Saarinen, Studies in linguistics and philosophy. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Sperber, D., and D. Wilson. 1986. Relevance. Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  44. Vänänen, J. 1997. Generalized quantifiers. Bulletin of the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science 62: 115–136.Google Scholar
  45. Westerståhl, D. 1989. Quantifiers in formal and natural languages. In Handbook of philosophical logic, ed. D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, 1–131. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Williams, C.J.F. 1992. Being, identity and truth. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  47. Wilson, D. 1975. Presuppositions and non-truth-conditional semantics. New York: Academic.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • María José Frápolli
    • 1
  1. 1.PhilosophyUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations