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
    Other alternatives to classical semantics reject core fea... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Dynamic semantics is better characterized as an extension or generalization of classical semantics rather than a rejection of it

    Other alternatives to classical semantics reject core features such as the assignment of entities as meanings or the centrality of word-world relations

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    Philosophy of Language

    Related

    Dynamic semantics can employ modified versions of much of the same theoretical m...Dynamic semantics is better characterized as an extension or generalization of c...

    Similar

    Dynamic semantics is better characterized as an extension or generaliz...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    81%
    Dynamic semantics can employ modified versions of much of the same the...79%
    Dynamic semantics reverses the explanatory priorities of classical sta...75%
    Possible world semantics can be regarded as an ontologically inert for...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: meaning
    View source passageHide passage
    The relationship between dynamic semantics and classical semantics is different than the relationship between the latter and the other alternatives to classical semantics that I’ve discussed. The other alternatives to classical semantics reject some core feature of classical semantics—for example, the assignments of entities as meanings, or the idea that meaning centrally involves word-world relations. By contrast, dynamic semantics can be thought of as a kind of extension or generalization of c

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective