🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <0f09W_S00Vpd4DQUlC@andrew.cmu.edu> "John R. Beer" <jbct+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>In <1992Nov9.202812.11520@midway.uchicago.edu> Jacob Galley
>	writes:
>
>>Now I think my original question was not specific enough. What bothers
>>me about the theories of meaning that I have seen is that they do not
>>adequately account for how meaningful symbols are linked to WHAT >THEY
>>MEAN. Ie, while we have made a good amount of progress in syntax and
>>taxonomic classifications, which describe how meaningful signs
>>interact with and relate to each other, I have not encountered any
>>theories of how the signifier is linked to the signified.
>
>You should look at:
>Donald Davidson's writing on truth theory and radical interpretation,
>collected in Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation(1983)
>
>Michael Dummett--start with Truth  and Other Enigmas, which will
>prepare you for his classic paper "What is a Theory of Meaning?", in
>Truth and Meaning ,  (McDowell and Evans,eds.)
>
>The Varieties of Reference by Gareth Evans, which sets out an account
>of what abilities one needs in order to make reference to objects in the world.
>
>This stuff is hard going, but immensely rewarding.  Although all three
>authors are firmly in the analytic tradition (and you might want to look
>at Frege and Quine before plunging in), they aren't proposing new
>formalisms, but possible ways for grounding these formalisms.
>
>							--John Beer

You should also look at the semantic paradoxes to see why such
accounts will inevitably be partial, not complete.



-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu