Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T02:24:02.946Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Critical Notice: Peter Ludlow’s Living Words: Meaning Underdetermination and he Dynamic Lexicon, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Adam Sennet  and
Tyrus Fisher Open the ORCID record for Tyrus Fisher [Opens in a new window]
Adam Sennet
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, USA
Tyrus Fisher*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, USA
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A provocative view has it that word meanings are underdetermined and dynamic, frustrating traditional approaches to theorizing about meaning. Peter Ludlow’s Living Words provides some of the philosophical reasons and motivations for accepting one such view, develops some of its details, and explores some of its ramifications. We critically examine some of the arguments in Living Words, paying particular attention to some of Ludlow’s views about the meanings of predicates, preservation of bivalence and the T-schema, and methods of modulating meaning.

Keywords

Semanticsbivalencemeaningmeaning underdeterminationmeaning modulationdynamic meaning
Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , 2018 , pp. 106 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barker, C. 2002. “The Dynamics of Vagueness.” Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackstone, W. [1765] 1859. Commentaries on the Laws of England.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. 1992. Arenas of Language Use. Chicago: University of Chicago Pres.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. 1986. “A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs.” Philosophical Grounds of Rationality: Intentions, Categories, Ends 4: 157–174.Google Scholar
deGrasse Tyson, N. 2009. The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America’s Favorite Planet. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Dummett, M. 1978. Truth and other enigmas, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
IAU.org. 2015. Pluto and the Developing Landscape of Our Solar System. Accessed August 26, 2015. https://www.iau.org/public/themes/pluto/Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1983. “New Work for a Theory of Universals.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 61(4): 343–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludlow, P. 2014. Living Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. 1975. “The Meaning of ’Meaning’.” In Language, Mind and Knowledge (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume III), edited by Gunderson, K., 131–193. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Schiappa, E. 2003. Defining Reality: Definitions and the Politics of Meaning. Carbondale: SIU Press.Google Scholar
Weintraub, D. 2007. Is Pluto a Planet? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, T. 2002. Vagueness, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar