Foundations, problems and perspectives of the modern conceptions of semantic correctness

IF 0.1 0 PHILOSOPHY Filosofskii Zhurnal Pub Date : 2022-08-29 DOI:10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-3-140-156
Mikhail A. Smirnov
{"title":"Foundations, problems and perspectives of the modern conceptions of semantic correctness","authors":"Mikhail A. Smirnov","doi":"10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-3-140-156","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The notion of semantic correctness (meaningfulness, or sensefulness) of propositions is widespread in logico-philosophical and linguistic works, as well as in experimental cog­nitive science. Nevertheless, its content is not clear. Many discussions connected to its use serve as evidence for its obscurity. In this investigation, I articulate and solve some interrelated problems which should be analyzed to make this notion more intelligible. Firstly, I pose a question whether semantic correctness is a normative or a descriptive characteristic. In other words: does it refer to a certain ideal of language usage ascribed to the abstract rational agent but not necessarily observed or even recognized by real agents (the normative option), or to some attitude of real language users towards linguistic ex­pressions (the descriptive option)? I show that the notion of semantic correctness emerged in theoretical contexts as normative due to its role within certain conceptions of scientific rationality. However, one can say that it also contains a descriptive aspect, but it is needed to state distinctively what this aspect is. Particularly, there is a question: can the compatibility of ontological categories in the worldview of a language user (call it onto­logical correctness) be taken as a criterion of semantic correctness for natural languages? I show that this is inadmissible: ontological categorial mistakes should not be seen as se­mantic deviations because in this case it would be impossible to delimit senseless sen­tences from contradictive and simply false sentences in natural languages. Finally, I pro­pose a novel view of the content of the meaningful/senseless dichotomy. It occupies a special place among semantic distinctions being related to structural laws of knowledge incrementation and discourse deployment. From this perspective, I outline an integral ap­proach to the conditions of meaningfulness/senselessness of propositions considering a number of factors. In particular, I analyze the conditions of senselessness for contradic­tions and tautologies.","PeriodicalId":41795,"journal":{"name":"Filosofskii Zhurnal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Filosofskii Zhurnal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-3-140-156","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The notion of semantic correctness (meaningfulness, or sensefulness) of propositions is widespread in logico-philosophical and linguistic works, as well as in experimental cog­nitive science. Nevertheless, its content is not clear. Many discussions connected to its use serve as evidence for its obscurity. In this investigation, I articulate and solve some interrelated problems which should be analyzed to make this notion more intelligible. Firstly, I pose a question whether semantic correctness is a normative or a descriptive characteristic. In other words: does it refer to a certain ideal of language usage ascribed to the abstract rational agent but not necessarily observed or even recognized by real agents (the normative option), or to some attitude of real language users towards linguistic ex­pressions (the descriptive option)? I show that the notion of semantic correctness emerged in theoretical contexts as normative due to its role within certain conceptions of scientific rationality. However, one can say that it also contains a descriptive aspect, but it is needed to state distinctively what this aspect is. Particularly, there is a question: can the compatibility of ontological categories in the worldview of a language user (call it onto­logical correctness) be taken as a criterion of semantic correctness for natural languages? I show that this is inadmissible: ontological categorial mistakes should not be seen as se­mantic deviations because in this case it would be impossible to delimit senseless sen­tences from contradictive and simply false sentences in natural languages. Finally, I pro­pose a novel view of the content of the meaningful/senseless dichotomy. It occupies a special place among semantic distinctions being related to structural laws of knowledge incrementation and discourse deployment. From this perspective, I outline an integral ap­proach to the conditions of meaningfulness/senselessness of propositions considering a number of factors. In particular, I analyze the conditions of senselessness for contradic­tions and tautologies.
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
现代语义正确概念的基础、问题与展望
命题的语义正确性(意义或感觉)的概念在逻辑哲学和语言学著作以及实验认知科学中广泛存在。然而,其内容尚不清楚。许多与它的使用有关的讨论都证明了它的晦涩难懂。在这次调查中,我阐明并解决了一些相互关联的问题,这些问题应该进行分析,以使这个概念更容易理解。首先,我提出了一个问题,即语义正确性是一种规范性特征还是一种描述性特征。换言之:它是指某种语言使用理想,归属于抽象理性主体,但不一定被真实主体观察到甚至认可(规范选项),还是指真实语言使用者对语言表达的某种态度(描述性选项)?我表明,语义正确的概念在理论语境中作为规范性概念出现,因为它在科学理性的某些概念中发挥着作用。然而,可以说它也包含了一个描述性的方面,但需要明确地说明这个方面是什么。特别是,有一个问题:语言使用者世界观中本体论范畴的兼容性(称之为逻辑正确性)是否可以作为自然语言语义正确性的标准?我证明了这是不可接受的:本体论分类错误不应被视为语义偏差,因为在这种情况下,不可能将自然语言中毫无意义的断言与矛盾和简单的错误句子区分开来。最后,我提出了一个新颖的观点来看待有意义/无意义的二分法的内容。它在语义区分中占有特殊的地位,与知识增长和话语部署的结构规律有关。从这个角度来看,我概述了一个完整的方法,以解决考虑许多因素的命题的有意义/无意义的条件。特别是,我分析了反命题和重言式的无感条件。
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
Filosofskii Zhurnal
Filosofskii Zhurnal PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
50.00%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
The problem of autocracy in the late Renaissance (La Boétie and Charron) The justification of morality and the justification of utilitarianism in Jeremy Bentham’s ethics Stratified reality in Francis Bradley’s idealism, its critics and a personalistic alternative Attention as a condition for moral responsibility A time to be silent and a time to speak: S. Kierkegaard’s “The Point of View for My Work as an Author”
×
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