Formality and Interpretation
Mark Liberman,
Language Log,
Feb 11, 2009
Interesting and heady romp through the realm of reference and meaning, using Stanley Fish as a point of departure and rambling through Russell and Frege. What's at issue? The supposition, shared by many, that words and sentences have meaning, that meaning is not something that results from interpretation and point of view. "A formalist believes that words have clear meanings, and in order to believe that (or because he believes that) he must also believe (1) that minds see those clear meanings clearly... [etc.]" The typical defense of formalism takes a consequentialist turn: "Once you start down the anti-formalist road, there is no place to stop; remove the connection between observable features and the specification of meaning." You remove the direct, inferential connection, maybe - but there is still a great deal of room, in my view, for empiricism and non-formalism. Why does all this matter? If formalism is right, then learning can be a matter of just remembering the words (because that will also provide the meaning). But if formalism is wrong, then there's more to learning than merely remembering - this is the position I take.
Today: 3 Total: 103 [Direct link] [Share]
