Fisher, Sarah 2019. Reassessing truth-evaluability in the Minimalism-Contextualism debate. Synthese 198 , pp. 2765-2782. 10.1007/s11229-019-02245-2 |
Abstract
The debate between Semantic Minimalism and Radical Contextualism is standardly characterized as concerning truth-evaluability—specifically, whether or not sentences require rich contextualization in order to express complete, truth-evaluable contents. In this paper, I examine the notion of truth-evaluability, considering which kinds of mappings it might require from worldly states of affairs to truth-values. At one end of the spectrum, an exhaustive notion would require truth-evaluable contents to map all possible states of affairs to truth-values. At the other end, a liberal notion would require only that truth-evaluable contents map at least one possible state of affairs to at least one truth-value. I show that both Minimalists and Radical Contextualists rely on some intermediate, moderately strict notion of truth-evaluability, falling between these two poles. I consider four ways in which such a notion could be defined. However, I argue that each of these is ultimately implausible, giving us no reason to favour a moderately strict notion of truth-evaluability over the liberal alternative. This suggests that the debate must shift to more moderate ground; rather than concerning the in principle possibility of truth-evaluable contents, it fundamentally hinges on their explanatory value. More generally, paying close attention to the notion of truth-evaluability allows us to tease apart distinct strands in the Minimalism-Contextualism debate, and gain a better appreciation of what is at stake.
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
Date Type: | Publication |
Status: | Published |
Schools: | Schools > English, Communication and Philosophy |
Publisher: | Springer |
ISSN: | 1573-0964 |
Last Modified: | 18 Sep 2024 13:30 |
URI: | https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/172191 |
Actions (repository staff only)
![]() |
Edit Item |