Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Montague's program requires sentences to denote truth conditions via possible-worlds semantics, not merely syntactic tree representations.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Possible-worlds semantics assumes abstract entities whose existence and nature remain philosophically controversial.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Syntactic structure constrains meaning; Montague cannot explain why 'Colorless green ideas' is semantically anomalous.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Truth conditions depend on context and speaker intentions, not merely formal models detached from use.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Syntax alone cannot distinguish 'All bachelors are unmarried' from 'All unicorns are blue'—only semantics can.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Possible-worlds semantics captures how sentences express necessity and contingency, which pure syntax ignores.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Truth conditions determine when speakers succeed in communication; syntax is merely the vehicle for expressing them.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.