Abstract
Abstract
The paper traces how disappointment with the notion of linguistic meaning has led to a shift towards the new, technical term of “narrow content”. In the first part of the paper I analyze the ways “narrow content” is understood in the literature. I show two important distinctions which have to be applied to the term in order to avoid confusion – the difference between context and functional theories of narrow content, and the difference between mental and linguistic narrow content. I argue that the most controversial combination of both distinctions is the idea of functional linguistic narrow content. In the second part of the paper I show that, contrary to the initial impression, this controversial, cut back notion of narrow content sheds some much needed light on several key semantic phenomena which we might otherwise be unable to explain – and because of this can be seen as a rightful descendant of the notion of meaning.
Reference31 articles.
1. Ajdukiewicz, K. (1978). Language and Meaning. In J. Giedymin (Ed.), The Scientific World-Perspective and Other Essays, 1931–1963. (pp. 35–66). Springer.
2. Bach, K. (1998). Content: Wide vs narrow. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London; New York: Routledge.
3. Baker, L. (1987). Content by Courtesy. Journal of Philosophy 1, 84, 197–213.
4. Block, N. (1986). Advertisement for a semantics for psychology. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 10(1), 615–678.
5. Brown, C. (1993). Belief States and Narrow Content. Mind and Language, 8(3), 343–67.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献