Vol. 37 No. 2 (2017)
Critical Notes

Are Contextualism and Relativism a Challenge or an Improvement of Fregean Semantics? About Eleonora Orlando's Significados en contexto y verdad relativa

PDF (Español (España))
  • Eduardo García-Ramírez
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36446/af.2017.68

Published 2017-11-01

Keywords

  • Composicionalidad,
  • Contenido,
  • Condiciones de verdad
  • Compositionality,
  • Content,
  • Truth-Conditions
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Abstract

In her recent book (Orlando 2015), Eleonora Orlando presents us with a provocative proposal intended to question the success of the Fregean tradition in philosophy of language by following contextualist and relativist arguments. This book is a valuable contribution to contemporary philosophy of language. It is a must read for anyone who is interested in understanding the state of the art in this discipline. Furthermore, the great variety of texts and philosophical views it presents constitute, in and of themselves, valuable, and sometimes controversial, contributions to the actual debate. Thus explaining why this book is also an extraordinary invitation to continue that century old tradition about the Fregean view of language, and particularly the possibility that contextualism (and relativism) constitute a convenient improvement. In this paper I want to offer a critical study of this book, more specifically, I want to focus on its challenge to Fregean semantics. To do so I will discuss its anti-fregean arguments in detail in order to cast doubt over the claim that the views defended are truly incompatible with Frege’s spirit or if, as I suspect, they are fully compatible with it.

PDF (Español (España))

References

Corazza, E. y Dokic, J. (2012), “Situated Minimalism vs Free Enrichment”, Synthese, 184, pp. 179-198.
Hoff, E. y Shatz, M. (2007), The Blackwell Handbook of Language Development, Maiden, Blackwell.
Kölbel, M. (2008), “Truth in Semantics”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 32 (1), pp. 242-257.
Millikan, R. (1995), “Pushmi-Pullyu Representations”, en Tomberlin, J. E. (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives Vol. 9: AI, Connectionism and Philosophical Psychology, Atascadero, Ridgeview.
Millikan, R. (2001), “The Myth of Mental Indexicals”, en Brook, A. y Devidi, R. (eds.), Self-Reference and Self-Awareness, Ámsterdam, John Benjamins.
Orlando, E. (comp.) (2015), Significados en contexto y verdad relativa: Ensayos sobre semántica y pragmática, Buenos Aires, Título.
Perry, J. (2000), The Problem of the Essential Indexical and Other Essays, Stanford, CSLI Publications, edición ampliada.
Recanati, F. (2007), Perspectival Thought: A Plea for (Moderate) Relativism, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Stalnaker, R. (1978), “Assertion”, en Stalnaker, R. (1999), Context and Content, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Stanley, J. (2007), Language in Context, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Stanley, J. y Szabó, Z. (2000), “On Quantifier Domain Restriction”, Mind & Language, 15 (2 y 3), pp. 219-261.
Szabó, Z. (2012), “Compositionality”, en Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (edición otoño 2013). Recuperado de https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/compositionality/ (16-09-2017)