Deciding what we mean

Andrew Peet
{"title":"Deciding what we mean","authors":"Andrew Peet","doi":"10.1080/0020174x.2023.2255219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Stipulation gives us a degree of control over meaning. By stipulating how I will use a term I am able to determine the meaning it will receive on future occasions of use. My stipulation will affect the truth conditional content of my future utterances. But the mechanisms of stipulation are mysterious. As Cappelen ([2018]. Fixing Language: An Essay on Conceptual Engineering. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198814719.001.0001) argues, meaning is typically determined in an inscrutable way by a myriad of external factors beyond our control. How does stipulation override these factors? And the powers of stipulation are limited. Firstly, the power of stipulation is typically short-lived. Secondly, some stipulations simply don’t get off the ground. What explains the limits of stipulation? I consider two related approaches to stipulation and argue that they are unable to capture stipulation’s metasemantic effects. I then provide an explanation of the metasemantic effects of stipulation: Stipulation determines meaning by determining the word use it is fitting to hold the speaker to. This account is able to capture the mechanisms and limits of stipulation, whilst also explaining why we should care about stipulative success. I close by briefly drawing out some lessons for conceptual engineering.","PeriodicalId":47504,"journal":{"name":"Inquiry-An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Inquiry-An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174x.2023.2255219","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Stipulation gives us a degree of control over meaning. By stipulating how I will use a term I am able to determine the meaning it will receive on future occasions of use. My stipulation will affect the truth conditional content of my future utterances. But the mechanisms of stipulation are mysterious. As Cappelen ([2018]. Fixing Language: An Essay on Conceptual Engineering. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198814719.001.0001) argues, meaning is typically determined in an inscrutable way by a myriad of external factors beyond our control. How does stipulation override these factors? And the powers of stipulation are limited. Firstly, the power of stipulation is typically short-lived. Secondly, some stipulations simply don’t get off the ground. What explains the limits of stipulation? I consider two related approaches to stipulation and argue that they are unable to capture stipulation’s metasemantic effects. I then provide an explanation of the metasemantic effects of stipulation: Stipulation determines meaning by determining the word use it is fitting to hold the speaker to. This account is able to capture the mechanisms and limits of stipulation, whilst also explaining why we should care about stipulative success. I close by briefly drawing out some lessons for conceptual engineering.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
决定我们的意思
规定让我们对意义有一定程度的控制。通过规定我将如何使用一个术语,我能够确定它在未来使用场合的含义。我的规定会影响我未来话语的真实条件内容。但规定的机制是神秘的。如Cappelen[2018]。固定语言:一篇关于概念工程的文章。牛津:牛津大学出版社。https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198814719.001.0001)认为,意义通常是由无数我们无法控制的外部因素以一种不可思议的方式决定的。规定如何凌驾于这些因素之上?而且规定的权力是有限的。首先,规定的效力通常是短暂的。其次,有些规定根本无法实施。如何解释约定的局限性?我考虑了两种相关的约定方法,并认为它们无法捕捉约定的元语义效应。然后,我对规定的元语义效应进行了解释:规定通过决定说话者适合使用的词语来决定意义。这种解释能够捕捉到规定的机制和限制,同时也解释了为什么我们应该关心规定的成功。最后,我简要地总结了一些概念工程的经验教训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
23.10%
发文量
144
期刊最新文献
Ordinal type theory What is priority monism? Reply to Kovacs Responses to critics A new concept of replication Precis of Amie L. Thomasson, norms and necessity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1