structure for 'Language'    |     alphabetical list of themes    |     unexpand these ideas

19. Language / A. Nature of Meaning / 7. Meaning Holism / c. Meaning by Role

[meaning is a role in a large network]

12 ideas
Sentence meaning is given by the actions to which it would lead [Ramsey]
     Full Idea: The meaning of a sentence is to be defined by reference to the actions to which asserting it would lead.
     From: Frank P. Ramsey (Facts and Propositions [1927], p.51), quoted by Ian Rumfitt - The Boundary Stones of Thought
     A reaction: I find this idea quite bizarre. Most sentences have no connection to any action or behavior at all. Do we have to ingeniously contrive some possible action? That is the worst sort of behaviourism. See context - Ramsey wasn't stupid!
Meaning from use of thoughts, constructed from concepts, which have a role relating to reality [Harman]
     Full Idea: Conceptual role semantics involves meanings of expressions determined by used contents of concepts and thoughts, contents constructed from concepts, concepts determined by functional role, which involves relations to things in the world.
     From: Gilbert Harman ((Nonsolipsistic) Conceptual Role Semantics [1987], 12.1)
     A reaction: This essay is the locus classicus for conceptual-role semantics. Any attempt to say what something IS by giving an account of its function always feels wrong to me.
Some regard conceptual role semantics as an entirely internal matter [Harman]
     Full Idea: I call my conceptual role semantics 'non-solipsistic' to contrast it with that of authors (Field, Fodor, Loar) who think of conceptual role solipsistically as a completely internal matter.
     From: Gilbert Harman ((Nonsolipsistic) Conceptual Role Semantics [1987], 12.1)
     A reaction: Evidently Harman is influenced by Putnam's Twin Earth, and that meanings ain't in the head, so that the conceptual role has to be extended out into the world to get a good account. I prefer extending into the language community, rather into reality.
The content of thought is relations, between mental states, things in the world, and contexts [Harman]
     Full Idea: In (nonsolipsistic) conceptual role semantics the content of thought is not in an 'intrinsic nature', but is rather a matter of how mental states are related to each other, to things in the external world, and to things in a context understood as normal.
     From: Gilbert Harman ((Nonsolipsistic) Conceptual Role Semantics [1987], 12.3.3)
     A reaction: This is part of Harman's functional view of consciousness, which I find rather dubious. If things only have identity because of some place in a flow diagram, we must ask why that thing has that place in that diagram.
A particular functional role is what gives content to a thought [Lewis]
     Full Idea: Anything that is a thinker at all has a thought with a certain content in virtue of being in a state which occupies a certain functional role.
     From: David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 2.3)
     A reaction: So often Lewis seems to get things the wrong way round. Maybe if you invert his entire (fabulously consistent) philosophy, you get the right answer? I take the content to be what makes the role possible.
The meaning of a representation is its role in thought, perception or decisions [Block]
     Full Idea: According to conceptual role semantics, the meaning of a representation is the role of that representation in the cognitive life of the agent, for example, in perception, thought and decision-making.
     From: Ned Block (Semantics, Conceptual Role [1998])
     A reaction: I never believe theories of this kind, because I always find myself asking 'what is the nature of this representation which enables it to play this role?'.
'Inferential-role semantics' says meaning is determined by role in inference [Fodor]
     Full Idea: 'Inferential-role semantics' claims that the meaning of a word (/the content of a concept) is determined by its role in inference.
     From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.2.1.2 n14)
     A reaction: Fodor is deeply opposed to this view. At first blush it sounds wrong to me, since there seems to be plenty of thought that can go on before inference takes place. Daydreamy speculation, for example.
Very different mental states can share their contents, so content doesn't seem to be constructed from functional role [Fodor]
     Full Idea: It's an embarrassment for attempts to construct content from functional role that quite different sorts of mental states can nevertheless share their contents.
     From: Jerry A. Fodor (Psychosemantics [1987], p. 70)
     A reaction: That is, presumably, one content having two different roles. Two contents with the same role is 'multiple realisability'. Pain can tell me I'm damaged, or reveal that my damaged nerves are healing. Problem?
A term can have not only a sense and a reference, but also a 'computational role' [Brown,JR]
     Full Idea: In addition to the sense and reference of term, there is the 'computational' role. The name '2' has a sense (successor of 1) and a reference (the number 2). But the word 'two' has little computational power, Roman 'II' is better, and '2' is a marvel.
     From: James Robert Brown (Philosophy of Mathematics [1999], Ch. 6)
     A reaction: Very interesting, and the point might transfer to natural languages. Synonymous terms carry with them not just different expressive powers, but the capacity to play different roles (e.g. slang and formal terms, gob and mouth).
'Conceptual role semantics' says terms have meaning from sentences and/or inferences [Boghossian]
     Full Idea: 'Conceptual role semantics' says the logical constants mean what they do by virtue of figuring in certain inferences and/or sentences involving them and not others, ..so some inferences and sentences are constitutive of an expression's meaning.
     From: Paul Boghossian (Analyticity Reconsidered [1996], §III)
     A reaction: If the meaning of the terms derives from the sentences in which they figure, that seems to be meaning-as-use. The view that it depends on the inferences seems very different, and is a more interesting but more risky claim.
If meaning depends on conceptual role, what properties are needed to do the job? [Boghossian]
     Full Idea: Conceptual Role Semantics must explain what properties an inference or sentence involving a logical constant must have, if that inference or sentence is to be constitutive of its meaning.
     From: Paul Boghossian (Analyticity Reconsidered [1996], §III)
     A reaction: This is my perennial request that if something is to be defined by its function (or role), we must try to explain what properties it has that make its function possible, and those properties will be the more basic explanation.
Inferential role semantics is an alternative to semantics that connects to the world [Hofweber]
     Full Idea: An inferential role semantics is generally seen as a large-scale alternative to a semantics based on reference and other language-world relations.
     From: Thomas Hofweber (Ontology and the Ambitions of Metaphysics [2016], 03.4.5)
     A reaction: Presumably the other obvious language-world relation is truth. Being a robust realist, I take it I have to be strongly committed to semantics which connects to the world - or do I? Reality is robust, but our talk about it is evasive?