--- Thanks for the clarification.
Indeed, as Dale notes in his thesis:
"Here's a more interesting example: a C[ompositonal] S[semantic] T[heory] that entails for each Arabic-decimal numeral, a theorem that says which number is conventionally expressed by that numeral"
----
Or, in Dale's words, then, rather (and better)
CST --- compositional-semantic theory
CTT --- compositional-truth theory
CMT --- compositional-meaning theory
Indeed, then, section I of ch. iv provides an illustration of a "Compositional Semantic Theory", while section II is, as titled, on 'Compositional Meaning Theories and Compositional Truth Theories'.
Note that Tarski, Grice, Strawson, and -- why not? -- Speranza, are all enchanted that a 'compositional truth theory' is then a 'compositional semantic theory' while NOT (I agree with Dale) a 'compositional meaning theory'.
---
More later, I hope.
Actually, the algebraic example is very good. Thanks for it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Yes, that is the way I think of all this, and the way I organized my thoughts in The Theory of Meaning.
ReplyDeleteYours,
Russell
Tarski was an empiricist of sorts, though.
ReplyDelete"Louis XVI was beheaded" iff Louis was, in fact, beheaded (recalling Quine vaguely on this chestnut). So the object language is in " " and the metalanguage, the extra-linguistic perception, like...an event, without the " ". Then the..so what? He doesn't at all show how the object-phrase relates to the meta/perception, does he. semantics-- like philosophy sans metaphysics. It may work for code, but it's not really a proof of any sort, IMHE
Glad I have interpreted Dale along the correct lines.
ReplyDeleteJ raises an interesting point about quote and disquote. And I was thinking of writing a bit on this in a blog post alla, "How to disquote Grice". Or something.