Topic: HUMAN SEMANTICS
Given the sentence {1} below:
{1} During refections a llama dawdles less than an aardvark.
A user of English should be able to understand it, at least in part, even if he does not know what a llama or an aardvark is or what to dawdle and refection mean. Or shouldn't he?
See related postLinguistic Understanding and Belief
Discussion of Dean Pettit's Why Knowledge is Unnecessary for Understanding Language, Mind 111
by Steven Gross
In a recent paper, Dean Pettit argues against the view that understanding a bit of language consists in the possession of propositional knowledge of its meaning--what he labels the epistemic view of linguistic understanding. His objection to the epistemic view is that it entails that it's necessary to understand a bit of language that one possess propositional knowledge of its meaning, but this necessity claim is false: for linguistic understanding, unlike knowledge, does not fail in Gettier cases, does not require epistemic warrant, and does not require belief; in supplying cases demonstrating this, one supplies cases of linguistic understanding without such knowledge. Pettit's arguments, if successful, thus establish the falsity of a variety of weaker claims in addition to that of the epistemic view. They would establish, for example, the falsity of necessity claims as weak as the weakest modality allowing the possibility of his cases. Further, the third argument--that linguistic understanding does not require belief that the bit of language means such-and-such--establishes, if successful, the falsity of parallel claims concerning belief. Given the case Pettit appeals to in his third argument, this would include the falsity of the claim that belief about an expression's meaning is nomologically necessary for a human speaker to possess linguistic understanding of it. Pettit's case thus poses a challenge to prominent empirical accounts of semantic competence that advert to states with such propositional content.
Download
Posted by Tony Marmo
at 01:01 BST
Updated: Tuesday, 28 September 2004 01:21 BST
