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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    On Chomskyan internalist semantics, meaning ascription is... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

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

    On Chomskyan internalist semantics, meaning ascription is grounded in I-language states, making such claims part of psychology, not metasemantics.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Meaning must be located somewhere concrete; I-language states are the only internal locus available to grounding semantic facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Psychology studies internal mental states; if meanings are I-language states, then meaning ascription is a psychological inquiry.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Metasemantics asks what makes semantic claims true; it presupposes meaning exists, but doesn't locate its physical basis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.I-language states underdetermine truth conditions; identical internal states can differ in reference given different external contexts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Meaning ascriptions make normative claims about correctness; psychology describes only what is, not what semantically should be.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Excluding social and historical context from semantics ignores how linguistic communities establish and sustain meaning conventions.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    A claim about the basis for ascribing a meaning to a word or phrase may belong t...Excluding social and historical context from semantics ignores how linguistic co...I-language states underdetermine truth conditions; identical internal states can...Meaning ascriptions make normative claims about correctness; psychology describe...
    +3 moreShow less
    Meaning must be located somewhere concrete; I-language states are the only inter...Metasemantics asks what makes semantic claims true; it presupposes meaning exist...Psychology studies internal mental states; if meanings are I-language states, th...

    Details

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