|
Books > Humanities > Philosophy > Topics in philosophy > Philosophy of mind
|
Buy Now
Minimal Semantics (Paperback, New edition)
Loot Price: R1,269
Discovery Miles 12 690
|
|
|
Minimal Semantics (Paperback, New edition)
Expected to ship within 10 - 15 working days
|
Minimal Semantics asks what a theory of literal linguistic meaning
is for - if you were to be given a working theory of meaning for a
language right now, what would you be able to do with it? Emma Borg
sets out to defend a formal approach to semantic theorizing from a
powerful contemporary opponent - advocates of what she call 'dual
pragmatics'. According to dual pragmatists, rich pragmatic
processes play two distinct roles in linguistic comprehension: as
well as operating in a post-semantic capacity to determine the
implicatures of an utterance, they also operate prior to the
determination of truth-conditional content for a sentence. That is
to say, they have an integral role to play within what is usually
thought of as the semantic realm. Borg believes dual pragmatic
accounts constitute the strongest challenge to standard formal
approaches to semantics since they challenge the formal theorist to
show not merely that there is some role for formal processes on
route to determination of semantic content, but that such processes
are alone sufficient for determining content. Minimal Semantics
provides a detailed examination of this dual pragmatic position,
introducing readers who are unfamiliar with the topic to key ideas
like relevance theory and contextualism, and looking in detail at
where these accounts diverge from the formal approach. Borg's
defence of formal semantics has two main parts: first, she argues
that the formal approach is most naturally compatible with an
important and well-grounded psychological theory, namely the
Fodorian modular picture of the mind. Then she argues that the main
arguments adduced by dual pragmatists against formal semantics -
concerning apparent contextual intrusions into semantic content -
can in fact be countered by a formal theory. The defence holds,
however, only if we are sensitive to the proper conditions of
success for a semantic theory. Specifically, we should reject a
range of onerous constraints on semantic theorizing (e.g., that it
resolve epistemic or metaphysical questions, or that it explain our
communicative skills). So Borg's answer to the question of what a
semantic theory is for has a particular, minimal slant.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!
|
You might also like..
|
Email address subscribed successfully.
A activation email has been sent to you.
Please click the link in that email to activate your subscription.