Una evaluación del argumento de la convención
Este artículo se centra en lo que se conoce en la literatura sobre la semántica y la pragmática de las descripciones definidas como “el argumento de la convención”. Este argumento pretende demostrar que los usos referenciales de las descripciones definidas son un fenómeno semántico. Una premisa clave del argumento es que ninguna de las alternativas pragmáticas (variedades de las aproximaciones griceanas a los usos referenciales) es exitosa. Sin embargo, no se ofrecen buenas razones para apoyar esta afirmación. Concluyo que el argumento de la convención no consigue ser convincente.
Guardado en:
0124-6127
2462-9596
17
2015-01-01
15
34
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
Discusiones Filosóficas - 2016
| id |
6db4f3afe2591dd1144be9e929d03948 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
ojs |
| spelling |
Una evaluación del argumento de la convención Michael Devitt Núm. 28 , Año 2016 : Enero - Junio 28 17 Universidad de Caldas Discusiones Filosóficas referencia descripciones definidas convención Ambigüedad Moldovan, Andrei Este artículo se centra en lo que se conoce en la literatura sobre la semántica y la pragmática de las descripciones definidas como “el argumento de la convención”. Este argumento pretende demostrar que los usos referenciales de las descripciones definidas son un fenómeno semántico. Una premisa clave del argumento es que ninguna de las alternativas pragmáticas (variedades de las aproximaciones griceanas a los usos referenciales) es exitosa. Sin embargo, no se ofrecen buenas razones para apoyar esta afirmación. Concluyo que el argumento de la convención no consigue ser convincente. Artículo de revista Marti, Genoveva. “Direct Reference and Definite Descriptions”. dialectica. 62(1), 2008: 43-57. Print. ___. “This, That, and the Other”. Descriptions and Beyond. M. Reimer and A. Bezuidenhout (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print. Neale, Stephen. Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990. Print. Moldovan, Andrei. “Incomplete Descriptions and the Underdetermination Problem”. Research in Language. Vol 13. No 4. 2015: 352–367. Print. Peacocke, Christopher. “Proper Names, Reference and Rigid Designation”. Meaning, Reference and Necessity. S. Blackburn (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Print. ___. “Further Notes on Logic and Conversation”. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1989. 41-57. Print. Kripke, Saul. “Speaker’s Reference and Semantic Reference”. Midwest Studies in Philosophy. 2, 1977: 255–276. Print. Heim, Irene. “Definiteness and Indefiniteness”. Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger and P. Portner (eds.). De Gruyter Mouton. 2011. Print. Recanati, François. “Contextual Dependence and Definite Descriptions”. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 87. 1987: 57-73. Print. ___. “Logic and Conversation”. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1989. 22-40. Print. Grice, Paul H. “Vacuous Names”. Words and Objections. D. Davidson, J. Hintikka (eds.) Dordrecht: Reidel, 1969. 118-145. Print. Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. “Psycholinguistic Experiments and LinguisticPragmatics”. Experimental Pragmatics. Ira A. Noveck and Dan Sperber (eds.). Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. 50-71. Print. Elbourne, Paul. Definite Descriptions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Print. Donnellan, Keith. S. “Reference and definite descriptions”. Philosophical Review, 75 (3) 1966: 281-304. Print. Phillips, Ben. “Modified Occam’s Razor”. Australasian Journal of Philosophy. 90 (2). 2012: 371-382. Print. Ruhl, Charles. On Monosemy: A Study in Linguistic Semantics. Albany: SUNY Press, 1989. Print. ___. Direct Reference: from Language to Thought. Oxford: Blakwell, 1993. Print. ___. Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Print. Reimer, Marga. “Demonstrating with descriptions”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 52 (4). 1992: 877-893. Print. ___. “Donnellan’s Distinction/Kripke’s Test”. Analysis. 58(2). 1998: 89- 100. Print. ___. “What Makes a Property ”Semantic”?” Perspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy. A. Capone, F. Lo Piparo, and M. Carapezza, (eds.). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2013. Print. Sainsbury, Mark. Reference without Referents. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005. Print. Schoubye, Anders J. “Against the argument from convention”. Linguistics and Philosophy. 35(6). 2012: 515-532. Print. Strawson, Peter. F. “On Referring”. Mind. 59. 1950: 320–344. Print. info:eu-repo/semantics/article http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 Text ___. “Good and Bad Bach”. Croatian Journal of Philosophy. 13 (2) 2013: 169-200. Print. ___. “Referentially Used Descriptions: A Reply to Devitt”. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy. Vol. 3, No. 2. 2007. ___. “Referential Descriptions and Conversational Implicatures”. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy. Vol. 3, No. 2. 2007. Print. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ This paper focuses on what is known in the literature on the semantics and pragmatics of definite descriptions as “the argument from convention”. This argument purports to show that eferential uses of definite descriptions are a semantic phenomenon. A key premise of the argument is that none of the pragmatic alternatives (any one of a variety of Gricean accounts of referential uses) is successful. I argue that no good reason is offered to support this claim. I conclude that the argument from convention fails to be compelling Ambiguity convention definite descriptions Michael Devitt reference Journal article application/pdf https://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/discusionesfilosoficas/article/view/2950 ___. “The Case for Referential Descriptions”. Descriptions and Beyond. M. Reimer and A. Bezuidenhout (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print. Inglés Publication Discusiones Filosóficas - 2016 ___. “Seemingly Semantic Intuitions”. Meaning and Truth. Investigations in Philosophical Semantics. J. K. Campbell, M. O’Rourke, D. Shier (eds.). New York, NY: Seven Bridges Press, 2002. 21-33. Print. Devitt, Michael. “Meanings and psychology: A response to mark Richard”. Noûs. 31 (1) 1997: 115-131. Print. Cresswell, Julia. Oxford Dictionary of Word Origins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print. Bach, Kent. “Standardization vs. Conventionalization”. Linguistics and Philosophy. 18, 1995: 677-686. Print. Carnap, Rudolf. “Meaning and Synonymy in Natural Language”. Meaning and Necessity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947. Print. Bontly, Thomas D. “Modified Occam’s razor: Parsimony, pragmatics, and the acquisition of word meaning”. Mind and Language. 20 (3). 2005: 288–312. Print. ___. “Standardization revisited”. Pragmatics: Critical Concepts. Vol. IV: 712-722. A. Kasher (ed.). London and New York: Routledge, 1998. Print. An assessment of the argument from convention ___. “Descriptions: Points of Reference”. Descriptions and Beyond. M. Reimer and A. Bezuidenhout (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print. 2016-01-01T00:00:00Z https://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/discusionesfilosoficas/article/download/2950/2728 15 2016-01-01T00:00:00Z 2015-01-01 0124-6127 2462-9596 34 https://doi.org/10.17151/difil.2016.17.28.2 10.17151/difil.2016.17.28.2 |
| institution |
UNIVERSIDAD DE CALDAS |
| thumbnail |
https://nuevo.metarevistas.org/UNIVERSIDADDECALDAS/logo.png |
| country_str |
Colombia |
| collection |
Discusiones Filosóficas |
| title |
Una evaluación del argumento de la convención |
| spellingShingle |
Una evaluación del argumento de la convención Moldovan, Andrei Michael Devitt referencia descripciones definidas convención Ambigüedad Ambiguity convention definite descriptions Michael Devitt reference |
| title_short |
Una evaluación del argumento de la convención |
| title_full |
Una evaluación del argumento de la convención |
| title_fullStr |
Una evaluación del argumento de la convención |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Una evaluación del argumento de la convención |
| title_sort |
una evaluación del argumento de la convención |
| title_eng |
An assessment of the argument from convention |
| description |
Este artículo se centra en lo que se conoce en la literatura sobre la semántica y la pragmática de las descripciones definidas como “el argumento de la convención”. Este argumento pretende demostrar que los usos referenciales de las descripciones definidas son un fenómeno semántico. Una premisa clave del argumento es que ninguna de las alternativas pragmáticas (variedades de las aproximaciones griceanas a los usos referenciales) es exitosa. Sin embargo, no se ofrecen buenas razones para apoyar esta afirmación. Concluyo que el argumento de la convención no consigue ser convincente.
|
| description_eng |
This paper focuses on what is known in the literature on the semantics and pragmatics of definite descriptions as “the argument from convention”. This argument purports to show that eferential uses of definite descriptions are a semantic phenomenon. A key premise of the argument is that none of the pragmatic alternatives (any one of a variety of Gricean accounts of referential uses) is successful. I argue that no good reason is offered to support this claim. I conclude that the argument from convention fails to be compelling
|
| author |
Moldovan, Andrei |
| author_facet |
Moldovan, Andrei |
| topicspa_str_mv |
Michael Devitt referencia descripciones definidas convención Ambigüedad |
| topic |
Michael Devitt referencia descripciones definidas convención Ambigüedad Ambiguity convention definite descriptions Michael Devitt reference |
| topic_facet |
Michael Devitt referencia descripciones definidas convención Ambigüedad Ambiguity convention definite descriptions Michael Devitt reference |
| citationvolume |
17 |
| citationissue |
28 |
| citationedition |
Núm. 28 , Año 2016 : Enero - Junio |
| publisher |
Universidad de Caldas |
| ispartofjournal |
Discusiones Filosóficas |
| source |
https://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/discusionesfilosoficas/article/view/2950 |
| language |
Inglés |
| format |
Article |
| rights |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ Discusiones Filosóficas - 2016 |
| references_eng |
Marti, Genoveva. “Direct Reference and Definite Descriptions”. dialectica. 62(1), 2008: 43-57. Print. ___. “This, That, and the Other”. Descriptions and Beyond. M. Reimer and A. Bezuidenhout (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print. Neale, Stephen. Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990. Print. Moldovan, Andrei. “Incomplete Descriptions and the Underdetermination Problem”. Research in Language. Vol 13. No 4. 2015: 352–367. Print. Peacocke, Christopher. “Proper Names, Reference and Rigid Designation”. Meaning, Reference and Necessity. S. Blackburn (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Print. ___. “Further Notes on Logic and Conversation”. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1989. 41-57. Print. Kripke, Saul. “Speaker’s Reference and Semantic Reference”. Midwest Studies in Philosophy. 2, 1977: 255–276. Print. Heim, Irene. “Definiteness and Indefiniteness”. Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger and P. Portner (eds.). De Gruyter Mouton. 2011. Print. Recanati, François. “Contextual Dependence and Definite Descriptions”. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 87. 1987: 57-73. Print. ___. “Logic and Conversation”. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1989. 22-40. Print. Grice, Paul H. “Vacuous Names”. Words and Objections. D. Davidson, J. Hintikka (eds.) Dordrecht: Reidel, 1969. 118-145. Print. Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. “Psycholinguistic Experiments and LinguisticPragmatics”. Experimental Pragmatics. Ira A. Noveck and Dan Sperber (eds.). Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. 50-71. Print. Elbourne, Paul. Definite Descriptions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Print. Donnellan, Keith. S. “Reference and definite descriptions”. Philosophical Review, 75 (3) 1966: 281-304. Print. Phillips, Ben. “Modified Occam’s Razor”. Australasian Journal of Philosophy. 90 (2). 2012: 371-382. Print. Ruhl, Charles. On Monosemy: A Study in Linguistic Semantics. Albany: SUNY Press, 1989. Print. ___. Direct Reference: from Language to Thought. Oxford: Blakwell, 1993. Print. ___. Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Print. Reimer, Marga. “Demonstrating with descriptions”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 52 (4). 1992: 877-893. Print. ___. “Donnellan’s Distinction/Kripke’s Test”. Analysis. 58(2). 1998: 89- 100. Print. ___. “What Makes a Property ”Semantic”?” Perspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy. A. Capone, F. Lo Piparo, and M. Carapezza, (eds.). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2013. Print. Sainsbury, Mark. Reference without Referents. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005. Print. Schoubye, Anders J. “Against the argument from convention”. Linguistics and Philosophy. 35(6). 2012: 515-532. Print. Strawson, Peter. F. “On Referring”. Mind. 59. 1950: 320–344. Print. ___. “Good and Bad Bach”. Croatian Journal of Philosophy. 13 (2) 2013: 169-200. Print. ___. “Referentially Used Descriptions: A Reply to Devitt”. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy. Vol. 3, No. 2. 2007. ___. “Referential Descriptions and Conversational Implicatures”. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy. Vol. 3, No. 2. 2007. Print. ___. “The Case for Referential Descriptions”. Descriptions and Beyond. M. Reimer and A. Bezuidenhout (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print. ___. “Seemingly Semantic Intuitions”. Meaning and Truth. Investigations in Philosophical Semantics. J. K. Campbell, M. O’Rourke, D. Shier (eds.). New York, NY: Seven Bridges Press, 2002. 21-33. Print. Devitt, Michael. “Meanings and psychology: A response to mark Richard”. Noûs. 31 (1) 1997: 115-131. Print. Cresswell, Julia. Oxford Dictionary of Word Origins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print. Bach, Kent. “Standardization vs. Conventionalization”. Linguistics and Philosophy. 18, 1995: 677-686. Print. Carnap, Rudolf. “Meaning and Synonymy in Natural Language”. Meaning and Necessity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947. Print. Bontly, Thomas D. “Modified Occam’s razor: Parsimony, pragmatics, and the acquisition of word meaning”. Mind and Language. 20 (3). 2005: 288–312. Print. ___. “Standardization revisited”. Pragmatics: Critical Concepts. Vol. IV: 712-722. A. Kasher (ed.). London and New York: Routledge, 1998. Print. ___. “Descriptions: Points of Reference”. Descriptions and Beyond. M. Reimer and A. Bezuidenhout (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print. |
| type_driver |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
| type_coar |
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 |
| type_version |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
| type_coarversion |
http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85 |
| type_content |
Text |
| publishDate |
2015-01-01 |
| date_accessioned |
2016-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| date_available |
2016-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| url |
https://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/discusionesfilosoficas/article/view/2950 |
| url_doi |
https://doi.org/10.17151/difil.2016.17.28.2 |
| issn |
0124-6127 |
| eissn |
2462-9596 |
| doi |
10.17151/difil.2016.17.28.2 |
| citationstartpage |
15 |
| citationendpage |
34 |
| url2_str_mv |
https://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/discusionesfilosoficas/article/download/2950/2728 |
| _version_ |
1797158108517105664 |