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. An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science, 24(1), 29–47. https://doi.org/10.1387/theoria.382
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Keywords
inferential Role Semantics, compositionality, rationality, semantic rule, reverse compositionality
Issue
Section
ARTICLES
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons License.