Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    A claim about the basis for ascribing a meaning to a word... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A claim about the basis for ascribing a meaning to a word or phrase may belong to metasemantics.

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.A claim about the basis for ascribing a meaning is a fact about semantics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Metasemantics concerns facts about semantics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Metasemantics concerns the extra-semantic facts that determine semantic facts, not claims about semantic facts themselves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A claim about the basis for ascribing meaning is itself a semantic or meta-linguistic claim, not a fact that grounds semantic content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Stalnaker's distinction reserves metasemantics for causal-historical or social facts, not propositional claims about ascription.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On Chomskyan internalist semantics, meaning ascription is grounded in I-language states, making such claims part of psychology, not metasemantics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the basis for ascribing meaning is cognitive or computational, the claim belongs to the theory of mind rather than to metasemantics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Philosophy of Language

    Related

    A claim about the basis for ascribing a meaning is a fact about semantics.A claim about the basis for ascribing meaning is itself a semantic or meta-lingu...If the basis for ascribing meaning is cognitive or computational, the claim belo...Metasemantics concerns facts about semantics.
    +3 moreShow less
    Metasemantics concerns the extra-semantic facts that determine semantic facts, n...On Chomskyan internalist semantics, meaning ascription is grounded in I-language...Stalnaker's distinction reserves metasemantics for causal-historical or social f...

    Similar

    A claim about the basis for ascribing a meaning is a fact about semant...83%A claim about the basis for ascribing a meaning relates to how languag...83%A claim about the basis for ascribing a meaning to a word or phrase ma...82%The proposition expressed by a sentence can be identified with a meta-...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: pragmatics
    View source passageHide passage
    Kaplan 1989. The fact that a word or phrase has a certain meaning clearly belongs to semantics. On the other hand, a claim about the basis for ascribing a certain meaning to a word or phrase does not belong to semantics… Perhaps, because it relates to how the language is used, it should be categorized as part of (…) pragmatics (…), or perhaps, because it is a fact about semantics, as part of (…) Metasemantics.
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit