Keyboard Shortcuts?

×
  • →Next step
  • ←Previous step
  • ↓Skip this slide
  • ↑Previous slide
  • mShow slide thumbnails
  • nShow notes
  • hShow handout latex source
  • NShow talk notes latex source

Click here and press the right key for the next slide (or swipe left)

also ...

Press the left key to go backwards (or swipe right)

Press n to toggle whether notes are shown (or add '?notes' to the url before the #)

Press m or double tap to slide thumbnails (menu)

Press ? at any time to show the keyboard shortcuts

 

Linking Meaning and Reference: Compositionality

Why?

Some of the things you utter

are true (or false)

in virtue of how things are with Ayesha.

If Ayehsa had washed herself, your utterance of ‘Ayesha smells’ would have been false. No other cat has this counterfactual power to change the truth of your utterance in this way.
Why is this? One idea: because your utterance of the word ‘Ayesha’ refers to Ayehsa. But what is reference?

Because your utterances of ‘Ayesha’ refer to Ayesha.

But what about meaning?

‘entities such as meanings ...
are not of independent interest’

\citep[p.~154]{Davidson:1974gh}

Davidson, 1974 p. 154

Why suppose that sentences have meanings?

Why suppose that sentences have meanings (whatever meanings are)?
Two facts to be explained: \begin{enumerate} \item If someone utters a sentence and you understand her, then you will likely understand others when they utter that sentence. And conversely. \item If a sentence is used to communicate something in one situation, then it can typically be used to communicate much the same thing in another situation. \end{enumerate} An attempted explanation sketch: There are some things and nearly every sentence is related to a different thing. Communicators often know which thing is related to which sentence. This knowledge (is part of what) enables them to understand utterances of those sentences. Terminology: Call these things the ‘meanings’ of the sentences.

facts to be explained

If someone utters a sentence and you understand her, then you will likely understand others when they utter that sentence. And conversely.

If a sentence is used to communicate something in one situation, then it can typically be used to communicate much the same thing in another situation.

attempted explanation
(guess)

There are some things and nearly every sentence is related to a different thing.

Communicators often know which thing is related to which sentence.

This knowledge (is part of what) enables them to understand utterances of those sentences.

termiology

Call these things ‘meanings’.

How is the idea that
sentences have meanings
related to the idea that
utterances refer to things?

How is the idea that sentences have meanings related to the idea that utterances refer to things?
Consider two further facts to be explained: \begin{enumerate} \item \emph{Systematicity} ‘there are definite and predictable patterns among the sentences [utterances of which] we understand’ \citep{Szabo:2004cu} \item \emph{Productivity} communicators can understand utterances of an indefinitely large range of sentences we have never heard before. \end{enumerate} An attempted explanation sketch: \begin{enumerate} \item Words have meanings. \item \emph{Compositionality} The meaning of a sentence (and of any complex expression) is fully determined by its structure and the meanings of its constituent words. \end{enumerate}
If that this explanation sketch is correct, what are meanings? \begin{quote} Proposal 1: the meaning of a word is its referent. \end{quote} \begin{quote} Proposal 2: the meaning of a word is its sense. \end{quote}

facts to be explained

Let’s take a look at two further facts to be explained ...

[Systematicity] ‘there are definite and predictable patterns among the sentences [utterances of which] we understand’ (Szabó, 2004).

[Productivity] communicators can understand utterances of an indefinitely large range of sentences we have never heard before.

attempted explanation

Words have meanings (which are their referents senses).

[Compositionality] The meaning of a sentence (and of any complex expression) is fully determined by its structure and the meanings of its constituent words.

How is the idea that
sentences have meanings
related to the idea that
utterances refer to things?

A theory of reference
would be part of a
theory of meaning.