Why Rationalist Compositionality Won't Go Away (Either)

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Published 01-11-2009
Víctor M. Verdejo

Abstract

Vigorous Fodorian criticism may make it seem impossible for Inferential Role Semantics (IRS) to accommodate compositionality. In this paper, first, I introduce a neo-Fregean version of IRS that appeals centrally to the notion of rationality. Second, I show how such a theory can respect compositionality by means of semantic rules. Third, I argue that, even if we consider top-down compositional derivability: a) the Fodorian is not justified in claiming that it involves so-called reverse compositionality; and b) a defender of IRS can still offer a satisfactory account in terms of the inferential capacities of rational thinkers.

How to Cite

Verdejo, V. M. (2009). Why Rationalist Compositionality Won’t Go Away (Either). THEORIA, 24(1), 29–47. https://doi.org/10.1387/theoria.382
Abstract 172 | PDF Downloads 147

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords

inferential Role Semantics, compositionality, rationality, semantic rule, reverse compositionality

Section
ARTICLES