Premium
Underdetermination, domain restriction, and theory choice
Author(s) -
Bowker Mark
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
mind and language
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.905
H-Index - 68
eISSN - 1468-0017
pISSN - 0268-1064
DOI - 10.1111/mila.12207
Subject(s) - principle of compositionality , utterance , quantifier (linguistics) , underdetermination , linguistics , meaning (existential) , epistemology , proposition , computer science , domain (mathematical analysis) , cognitive science , psychology , philosophy , mathematics , philosophy of science , mathematical analysis
It is often possible to know what a speaker intends to communicate without knowing what they intend to express. In such cases, speakers need not intend to express anything at all. Stanley and Szabó's influential survey of possible analysis of quantifier domain restriction is, therefore, incomplete and the arguments made by Clapp and Buchanan against Truth Conditional Compositionality and propositional speaker‐meaning are flawed. Two theories should not always be viewed as incompatible when they associate the same utterance with different propositions, as there may be many ways to interpret speakers that are compatible with their intentions.