Meaning Putnam Wikforss

8/13/2019 Meaning Putnam Wikforss

1/35

MeaningPutnam and Wikforss

Philosophy of Language

January 22, 2014


2/35

Questions

How do words/sentences have meaning?

How do our utterances have meaning?

Do our thoughts/intentions determine what our words

mean?

Does our environment determine what our words

mean?


3/35

Two Kinds of Theory

1. Foundational Semantic Theory: How do

words/utterances have meaning? What

determines the meaning of p?


4/35

Two Kinds of Theory

1. Foundational Semantic Theory: How do

words/utterances have meaning? What

determines the meaning of p?

2. Descriptive Semantics: About the semantic

values of terms. E.g., What does water mean?


5/35

Foundational Semantics

Were focusing, for now, on foundational semantics.

We want to figure out how it is that words, sentences

and utterances have meaning.

Later well look at different descriptive semantic

theories.


6/35

Recap

We saw that Grice argued that our utterances have

meanings given speaker intentions.

This is a Foundational Semantic Theory.

It is psychological and Internalist.

In contrast, well look at an Externalist theory of

meaning today.


7/35

Externalism

Meanings just aintin the head

Putnam


8/35

Two Traditional Assumptions

1. Knowing the meaning of a term is just being in a

psychological state.

2. The meaning of a term determines its extension.

That is to say, sameness of meaning entails

sameness of extension.


9/35

Two Traditional Assumptions






Putnam argues that we should reject 1. He arguesfor this through the Twin Earth thought experiment


10/35

Earth and Twin Earth

Earth

H2O

Twin Earth

XYZ


11/35


Oscar Twin Oscar

Theyre psychological duplicates!

Both would say water is wet and

water is colorless


12/35


On Earth water means H2O

On Twin Earth water means XYZ

Earthian Oscar is thinking about water and talking

about water.

Twin Earthian Oscar is thinking about twin water and

talking about twin water.


13/35


Water is identical to H2O.

This is a claim Kripke argued was metaphysically

necessary. It is impossible for there to be something

that is water, but that is not H2O.

Of course, something could be called water and not

be H2O. Justin Bieber might call some cocktailwater. That doesnt mean it really is water.


14/35


Oscar and Twin Oscar are supposed to be like that.

Oscar uses water mean and to pick out water.

Twin Oscar uses water to mean and to pick out twin

water.

These are different words like bank and bank are

different words. Or, fluke and fluke


15/35


Recall the two assumptions from before:







16/35


Oscar and Twin Oscar are in identical psychological

states. Thats part of the set up of the case.

So, if knowing the meaning of something is just

being in a psychological state (1), they know the

same meanings. That is, their thoughts/utterances

have the same meanings.

And, if meaning determines extension, then their

thoughts/utterances are about the same thing


17/35


But, theyre not!

Oscars are about water (i.e., H2O)

Twin Oscars are about twin water (i.e., XYZ)

So either assumption 1 or 2 has to go.

Putnam thinks 2 is better motivated. So, meaningsjust aintin the head. Instead, external things matter

(environment, social connections)


18/35

Bringing it down to Earth

Putnam cannot tell Beeches and Elms apart. He

thinks of both as deciduous trees that grow in North

America. And just doesnt have more information.

Hes in the same psychological state when thinking

Beeches are lovely or Elms are lovely

So, if meaning determines extension, and allmeaning is is ones psychological state, then for

Putnam elm and beech pick out the same thing.


19/35

Bringing it down to Earth

But, Putnam thinks thats not right.

When he says elm he means elm and refers to elms

like an arborist would.

So, meanings arent in the head.


20/35

Dividing Linguistic Labor

We can all use the words elm, beech, water,

gold and so on. We share those words.

If meaning determines extension, the meanings ofthose words will be fine-grained. They will pick out all

and only elms (or beeches or gold or..).

These meanings are present in the linguisticcommunity considered as a collective body, but not

necessarily in each of our heads.


21/35


Some experts might be relied on to differentiate

things in hard cases.

Since experts are part of the collective linguisticbody, even obscure facts might become part of the

meaning of certain expressions.


22/35


Language is more like a steamship than a hammer.

A hammer can be used by one person. A steamship

requires the cooperative activities of a number ofpeople.

Language too requires the cooperative actions of a

number of people.


23/35

The Cases

What do you think?

Are you convinced by the arguments?

Any objections?


24/35

An Objection

Oscar and Twin Oscar are not really psychological

duplicates.

In having water thoughts Oscar has a water concept.In having twin water thoughts, Oscar has a twin-

water concept.

These concepts are different. So, the psychologicalstates (beliefs, desires) are different.

This is Psychological or Mental Externalism (Burge)


25/35

An Objection

What does this mean for the two assumptions?

Could meanings be in the head if this is the right way

to think?


26/35

An Objection

What does this mean for the two assumptions?

Could meanings be in the head if this is the right way

to think?You might be able to hold onto both assumptions.

Knowing a meaning is being in a psychological state.

But, that state depends on environmental

factors/society. And, meaning still determinesextension (although extension kind of determines

meaning too..)


27/35

Questions

Putnams argument is for natural kind terms. These

are terms that pick out elements, chemical kinds,

species, and other things that seem to be clearlydelineated in the natural world.

Will the view work for other kinds of words?

table gamemoney the


28/35

Questions

On Putnams view: Could some meaning be in the

head? Could someone ever have an entire meaning

in her/his head?


29/35

Questions

On Putnams view: Could some meaning be in thehead? Could someone ever have an entire meaningin her/his head?

This is a question for descriptive semantics. Its aquestion about what meanings are like.

One might think: we all have bits of meanings in our

heads. We might know that Curium is a metal andnothing else.

Experts might have entire meanings in their heads.


30/35

Questions

On Burges View (Psychological/Mental

Externalism): Could some meaning be in the head?

Could someone ever have an entire meaning inher/his head?


31/35

Questions

On Burges View (Psychological/Mental

Externalism): Could some meaning be in the head?

Could someone ever have an entire meaning inher/his head?

Concepts, on this view, are partially externally

determined. So, meanings could be in the head

although theyre not individual in the way in thehead sounds.


32/35

Questions

What would Grice say about the Twin Earth case?

Would he think that Oscar and Twin Oscar mean

different things when they say water is thirst-quenching?


33/35

Our Original Questions

How do words/sentences have meaning?

How do our utterances have meaning?

Do our thoughts/intentions determine what our words

mean?

Does our environment determine what our words

mean?


34/35

Our Original Questions

On the Externalist view:

The environment determines what (at least some of)

our words mean.

Words have meaning through the environment were

in (the nature of entities can shape meaning) and

through shared knowledge about a kind of thing.


35/35

Internalism v. Externalism

Which view is best?

Documents

Meaning Putnam Wikforss