Three Versions of Semantic Minimalism

2017 ◽  
pp. 288-301
Author(s):  
Yang Hu
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Minimalism

The Fallacy of Semantic Minimalism

2007 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mikhail Kissine
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Minimalism

Semantic Minimalism

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agustin Vicente ◽  
Fernando Martínez Manrique ◽  
Agustin Vicente ◽  
Fernando Martínez Manrique
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Minimalism

Philosophy of Language, Translation Theory and a Third Way in Semantics

2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-28
Author(s):  
Shyam Ranganathan ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Language ◽  
Language Translation ◽  
Translation Studies ◽  
Translation Theory ◽  
Contemporary Philosophy ◽  
Third Way ◽  
Common Assumption ◽  
Text Type ◽  
Semantic Minimalism ◽  
The Way

In this paper I address anew the problem of determinacy in translation by examining the Western philosophical and translation theoretic traditions of the last century. Translation theory and the philosophy of language have largely gone their separate ways (the former opting to rebrand itself as “translation studies” to emphasize its empirical and anti-theoretical underpinnings). Yet translation theory and the philosophy of language predominantly share a common assumption that stands in the way of determinate translation. It is that languages, not texts, are the objects of translation and the subjects of semantics. The way to overcome the theoretical problems surrounding the possibility and determinacy of translation is to marry the philosopher of language’s concern for determinacy and semantic accuracy in translation with the notion of a “text-type” from the translation theory literature. The resulting theory capable of explaining determinacy in translation is what I call the text-type conception of semantics (TTS). It is a novel alternative to the salient positions of Contextualism and Semantic Minimalism in the contemporary philosophy of language.

scholarly journals Inferentialism, Context-Shifting and Background Assumptions

Erkenntnis ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bartosz Kaluziński
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Meaning ◽  
Effective Manner ◽  
Semantic Minimalism

AbstractIn this paper I present how the normative inferentialist can make the distinction between sentence meaning and content of the utterance. The inferentialist can understand sentence meaning as a role conferred to that sentence by the rules governing inferential transitions and content of the utterance as just a part of sentence meaning. I attempt to show how such a framework can account for prominent scenarios presented by contextualists as a challenge to semantic minimalism/literalism. I argue that inferentialism can address contextualist challenges in a simple and effective manner by understanding sentence meaning as broad, but invariant.

On Three Theories of Implicature: Default Theory, Relevance Theory and Minimalism

2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Borg
Keyword(s):  
Current Literature ◽  
Recent Literature ◽  
Relevance Theory ◽  
Theoretic Approach ◽  
Alternative Account ◽  
Default Theory ◽  
What Is Said ◽  
Semantic Minimalism

AbstractGrice's distinction between what is said by a sentence and what is implicated by an utterance of it is both extremely familiar and almost universally accepted. However, in recent literature, the precise account he offered of implicature recovery has been questioned and alternative accounts have emerged. In this paper, I examine three such alternative accounts. My main aim is to show that the two most popular accounts in the current literature (the default inference view and the relevance theoretic approach) still face signifi cant problems. I will then conclude by suggesting that an alternative account, emerging from semantic minimalism, is best placed to accommodate Grice's distinction.

Shared assumptions: Semantic minimalism and Relevance Theory

2007 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 647-681 ◽  
Author(s):  
DANIEL WEDGWOOD
Keyword(s):  
Speech Act ◽  
Relevance Theory ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Semantic Theory ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Linguistic Communication ◽  
Content Sharing ◽  
Shared Content ◽  
Semantic Minimalism

Cappelen & Lepore (2005, 2006a, 2007) note that linguistic communication requires ‘shared content’ and claim that Relevance Theory makes content sharing impossible. This criticism rests upon two important errors. The first is a flawed understanding of Relevance Theory, shown in the application of an omniscient third party perspective to parts of Relevance Theory that depend only upon subjective judgements made by the addressee of an utterance. The second is confusion about different definitions of content. Cappelen & Lepore's evidence actually involves the communication of what they term Speech Act content, which need not be perfectly ‘shared’ according to their own position. Looking beyond this flawed criticism, a general comparison of Relevance Theory with Cappelen & Lepore's semantic minimalism reveals significant parallels, pointing to a notable convergence of two distinct approaches – one cognitive-pragmatic, the other philosophical-semantic – on the rejection of currently dominant assumptions in linguistic semantics. The key remaining difference is Cappelen & Lepore's claim that shared content is propositional. This contradicts other claims made for such content and in any case plays no active role in the explanation of communication. Cappelen & Lepore's position thus poses no threat to Relevance Theory; rather, Relevance Theory can benefit from their philosophical analysis of the state of semantic theory.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document