Is semantic correctness descriptive
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 20143595 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Aleksi Honkasalo (0000-0002-7721-1960, History, Philosophy and Literature Tampere University Tampere Finland, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2022 |
| Volume | 88 |
| Issue | 5 |
| Pages | 899-907 |
| Publication date | 2022-10-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Theoria (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0040-5825 • E-ISSN: 1755-2567 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/theo.12411 |
| OpenAlex | W4281776738 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 6 |
According to the normativists, dispositionalist theories of meaning fail because meaning is normative, not descriptive. One way to understand this notion of normativity is in terms of semantic correctness conditions. Anti‐normativists typically accept that meaning implies semantic correctness but deny that this in turn implies that meaning is normative. Jeffrey Kaplan has recently argued that while semantic correctness may not imply full‐blown normativity, semantic correctness is not descriptive either. I contend that Kaplan's argument has two main problems. First, his focus on dispositionalism leaves it open for other descriptive facts to provide the basis of semantic correctness conditions. Second, he fails to show that the problems of dispositionalism are connected to semantic correctness in a way that demonstrates problems with descriptive theories of meaning
Algorithm · Argument (complex analysis) · Correctness · Epistemology · Meaning (existential) · Normative · Computer Science · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics · Philosophical Ethics and Theory · Philosophy · Philosophy and Theoretical Science
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,33 |
| Citation span | 2023 - 2023 (1) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |