Be
t
we
e
nQui
ne
’
sDi
s
quot
at
i
onal
i
s
m and
Hor
wi
c
h’
sMi
ni
mal
i
s
m
Richard Wei Tzu Hou
A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirement
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Philosophy
The University of Sydney
May 2006
Abstract
Many criticisms of the prevalent deflationary theories of truth stem from some
mi
s
unde
r
s
t
a
ndi
ng
.Cl
a
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
onc
a
nbef
oundf
r
om c
ons
i
de
r
i
ngQui
ne
’
sr
e
a
s
oni
ngon
t
hedi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
lf
e
a
t
ur
eoft
het
r
u
t
hpr
e
di
c
a
t
e
.Qui
ne
’
sdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
ma
nd
Hor
wi
c
h’
smi
nimalism are similar theses with respect to the concept of truth, though
the difference between the choices of the primary truth bearers and the divergence in
their accounts of meaning and reference are striking.
Chapter Two is devoted to making plain Quine
’
sr
e
a
s
oni
ngr
e
ga
r
di
ngt
he
disquotational concept of truth, and to constructing a disquotational theory of truth.
Also in this chapter, the topic of how to enhance the deductive power of this theory is
discussed. The following chapter aims to square Quine
’
st
he
s
e
sofi
ns
c
r
ut
a
bi
l
i
t
yof
reference and ontological relativity, with an account of the disquotational schema of
reference. Whether or not a disquotational schema of reference and all its instances
can be seen as providing a genuine reference scheme, as claimed by Horwich and
most deflationists, is also discussed. In Chapter Four, after an introduction of
Hor
wi
c
h’
smi
ni
ma
l
i
s
tc
onc
e
pt
i
ono
ft
r
ut
h,t
he
r
ea
r
eanumbe
rofi
s
s
ue
sc
ons
i
de
r
e
d,i
n
pa
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
rHor
wi
c
h’
sus
e
-theoretic account of meaning and compositionality, along
wi
t
ht
hedi
ve
r
g
e
nc
ebe
t
we
e
nhi
sa
c
c
ountofme
a
ni
nga
ndQui
ne
’
s
.
Thef
i
na
lc
ha
pt
e
r
,
Chapter Five, provides a thorough analysis of three important factors regarding the
disquotational theory and the minimal theory of truth. Among them, the first factor
discussed is what sort of equivalence relation occurs within each instance of the
disquotational schema or each axiom of the equivalence schema. Following this, there
is an analysis of in what way the disquotationalist and the minimalist can explain all
general facts involving truth. The last factor involves considering the proper
ascription of the disquotational or the minimal truth predicate. Along with the analysis
of these three factors, the issue regarding which theory of truth is preferable is
elaborated.
1
Table of Contents
Acknowledgement…………………………………………………………………2
Chapter I: Introduction………………………………………………………….
.
.
3
Chapter II:Qui
ne
’
sDi
s
quot
at
i
onalThe
or
yofTr
ut
handSe
mant
i
cAs
c
e
nt
1. Ta
r
s
ki
’
sPa
r
a
di
g
monTr
ut
h……………………………………………………10
2. For
mul
a
t
i
ngQui
ne
’
sDi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
lThe
or
y
………………………………….
25
3. Cons
e
r
va
t
i
ve
ne
s
sa
ndSubs
t
a
nt
i
ve
ne
s
s
……………………………………….
.
49
Chapter III: Inscrutability of Reference, Ontological Relativity, and a
Disquotational Schema of Reference
1. Qui
ne
’
sMa
noe
uvr
e
……………………………………………………………63
2. Fi
e
l
d’
sAr
g
ume
nta
g
a
i
ns
tOn
t
o
l
og
i
c
a
lRe
l
a
t
i
vi
t
y
…………………………….
.
.
65
3. OnGi
bs
on’
sCr
i
t
i
c
i
s
mofFi
e
l
d’
sa
ndDa
vi
ds
on’
sAr
g
ume
nt
s
…………….
.
.
…68
4. Disquotational Schema of Reference and Semantic Ascent of Terms……….
.
.
75
5. Di
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
lSc
he
maofRe
f
e
r
e
nc
ea
ndDi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
lThe
or
yofTr
ut
h….
.
.
84
Chapter IV:OnHor
wi
c
h’
sMi
ni
mal
i
s
tThe
or
i
e
sofTr
ut
ha
ndMe
ani
ng
1. TheFr
a
me
wor
koft
heMi
ni
ma
lThe
or
yofTr
ut
h…………………………….
.
.
95
2. Que
l
l
i
ngQui
ne
’
sQua
l
msorQue
l
l
e
dbyQui
ne
’
sQua
l
ms
?
………………….
.
106
3. OnHor
wi
c
h’
sUs
e
-The
or
e
t
i
cAc
c
ountofWor
dMe
a
ni
ng
………………….
.
.
.
125
4. I
nf
l
a
t
i
ngCompos
i
t
i
ona
l
i
t
y
………………………………………………….
.
.
.
143
Chapter V: Be
t
we
e
nQui
ne
’
sDi
s
quot
at
i
onal
i
s
m andHor
wi
c
h’
sMi
ni
mal
i
s
m
1. The Equiva
l
e
nc
eRe
l
a
t
i
ona
ndSe
ma
nt
i
cAs
c
e
nt
…………………………….
.
.
158
2. Exp
l
a
i
ni
ngGe
ne
r
a
lFa
c
t
sI
nv
ol
vi
ngTr
ut
h……………………………………185
3. ThePr
ope
rAs
c
r
i
pt
i
onoft
heTr
ut
hPr
e
di
c
a
t
e
……………………………….
.
.
203
4. I
sQui
neaDi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
t
?
……………………………………………….
.
.
.
21
1
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….
.
.
.
.
220
Bibliography…………………………………………………………………….
.
229
2
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. David Braddon-Mitchell, for his support and
encouragement, and also to thank my associate supervisor, Dr. Michael McDermott,
especially for his supervision during 2003, when Dr. Braddon-Mitchell was away.
I am grateful for the one-year research scholarship offered by Academia Sinica, Taiwan,
on the period of 2003/2004, and the facilities, the research resources, and the kindly staffs
of the Institute of European and American Studies, Academia Sinica.
Special thanks to Dr. Patrick Yong and Ms. Kristie Miller, without their proofreading and
English correction, this dissertation would have been less readable.
I would like to thank my family, and my partner Vivien. Finally, my dog, Shine, thanks to
him for keeping my life on track.
3
Chapter I
Introduction
Deflationism is probably the most noteworthy semantic theory of the past twenty odd
years. It is still influential today. Among hundreds, if not thousands, of articles, discussing,
criticising, or defending deflationism, some important issues are not as clear as they
should be. This is, I argue, because of a pervasive tendency to over-complicate the key
ideas. More complex versions of key aspects of the theory are subject to
misunderstanding and refutation. The simpler versions are not.
This thesis argues that this over-complication has caused problems in dealing with at least
eight questions that arise for deflationary theories. These include:
1. What is a proper formulation of a disquotational schema of truth?
2. What is the modal status of disquotation sentences or the axioms of the minimal
theory of propositional truth?
3. How sensible are the presuppositions involved in asking these questions about the
modal status of sentences or axioms?
4. How should we give the deflationary theory of truth the deductive power it needs
so as to adequately explain all general facts involving truth?
5. What is the deflationary conception of reference? Is it feasible to explicate the
deflationary conception of truth in terms of the disquotational concepts of
reference and satisfaction?
6. What is an appropriate account of propositions for use in a minimalist account of
4
truth?
7. What sort of equivalence relation occurs within disquotational sentences or
minimalist axioms of truth?
8. Between disquotationalism, taking sentences as the primary truth bearers, and
minimalism, taking propositions as the primary truth bears, which is the more
promising approach to a deflationary theory of truth?
These questions will be discussed only as they arise for the cases of disquotationalism and
minimalism. If I am right the sources of many of the perceived problems of these theories
will be exposed. At very least the theories will be clearer, and perhaps the reader will find
them more plausible. However, since this dissertation is so confined, other deflationary
theories of truth such as the prosentential theory will not be discussed. Hereafter, when I
us
et
het
e
r
m‘
de
f
l
a
t
i
oni
s
m’Ius
ei
tt
or
e
f
e
rt
os
omeve
r
s
i
onsofdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
mor
minimalism. There are of course many versions of deflationism—even versions of
disquotationalism or minimalism—which I do not discuss; but my task will be achieved if
I clear some of the obstacles to acceptance of the versions I do discuss, and this can be
done without a more exhaustive survey.
Apart from this agenda, this thesis makes another claim. It claims that one can read Quine
as more or less tacitly accepting a disquotationalist or minimalist theory of truth. This is
not a view which is widely held. Although the general idea of disquotationalism and some
de
f
l
a
t
i
oni
s
tt
he
or
i
e
si
si
ns
pi
r
e
dbyQui
ne
’
svi
e
wpoi
ntont
r
ut
h,f
e
ws
e
r
i
ous
l
ys
e
eQui
nea
s
adhering to a deflationist position regarding the concept of truth in particular, or the
semantic theory in general. Among other reasons, the most important one is that Quine
5
specifically expresses his support for a Davidsonian truth conditional approach to
explicating the concepts of truth and meaning. However, discussion regarding this issue
will not be addressed until the very end of this dissertation.
Except in contexts where a deflationist or an anti-deflationist introduces the idea of
considering the truth predicate as a device of semantic ascent,Qui
ne
’
sr
e
a
s
oni
ngi
sha
r
dl
y
mentioned. Put aside for the moment whether or not Quine is really a deflationist, and
disregard his viewpoints on truth that is not disquotational. Nevertheless, it is still the case
that it is Quine who sets up clear and distinct guidelines on a proper understanding of
di
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
m.I
nCha
pt
e
rTwo,Iwi
l
le
xpl
a
i
nwha
tQui
ne
’
sr
e
a
s
oni
ngi
s
,a
ndhowi
t
gives us a clear perspective of disquotationalism. Another important task in this chapter is
to analyse in what sense a disquotational theory of truth can be seen as providing enough
deductive power to explain some general facts involving truth. It will be shown that to
explicate truth in terms of the inductive axioms of reference and satisfaction is a dubious
move.
This leads us to Chapter Three. Along with the deflationary theory of truth, most
deflationists accept a disquotational theory of reference (and satisfaction). However, to
consider a disquotational theory of reference as providing a genuine reference scheme for
ag
i
ve
nl
a
ng
ua
ge
,Qui
ne
’
st
he
s
i
sofont
ol
og
i
c
a
lr
e
l
a
t
i
vi
t
ys
e
e
mst
obef
a
l
l
a
c
i
ous
.I
nt
hi
s
chapter I show that it is not in fact fallacious. After that, I will present my interpretation of
the role played by a disquotational schema of reference in Qui
ne
’
sdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
m.
Finally I will argue that a disquotational schema of reference cannot be seen as providing
us a genuine reference scheme.
6
The
nwet
ur
nt
oHor
wi
c
h’
ss
e
ma
nt
i
ct
he
or
y
.I
nCha
pt
e
rFour
,a
f
t
e
rabr
i
e
fi
nt
r
oduc
t
i
ont
o
Hor
wi
c
h’
svi
e
wson truth, along with the discussion of whether or not minimalism can be
finitely formulated, the focus is on one rationale of the minimalist theory of propositional
truth—namely, a viable account of proposition. The purpose of this chapter is to show
that Hor
wi
c
h’
sr
e
j
e
c
t
i
onofQui
n
e
’
si
nde
t
e
r
mi
na
c
yt
he
s
i
sf
a
i
l
s
,t
ha
tHor
wi
c
h’
s
use-theoretic account of meaning is unsatisfactory, and that his account of
compositionality not only fails to be deflationary, but is also based on some uncritically
accepted assumptions such as that different languages share the same synthetic features.
Based on the outcome of the preceding three chapters, I make some important
clarifications in Chapter Five; specifically I enunciate three important factors for a
successful deflationary theory of truth. The first of these factors concerns the functional
role of the truth predicate to do the semantic ascent required to help express infinite
conjunctions and disjunctions. The second of these concerns the adequacy of the
explanatory role in terms of which all facts involving truth are explained along with other
suitable explanatory resources. The last of these concerns the proper ascription of the
t
r
ut
hpr
e
di
c
a
t
e
.It
he
ns
howt
ha
t
,a
l
t
houg
hHor
wi
c
h’
ss
t
a
ndpoi
ntont
het
he
or
yofme
a
n
i
ng
i
ss
ha
r
pl
yde
ma
r
c
a
t
e
df
r
om Qui
ne
’
s
, some basic ideas of his minimalism are not very
different from those behind my formulation of Qui
ne
’
sdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
m.
Thef
i
r
s
t
section of the chapter, then, concerns the first factor above. In it I analyse what sort of
equivalence relation occurs within disquotation sentences and the axioms of the
minimalist theory of truth. The second section is devoted to the analysis of how
disquotationalism and minimalism can account for all general facts involving truth. Then
7
in the third section, the proper application of the disquotational or minimalist truth
predicate will be given. Along with the study of these three factors, I make an assessment
ofQui
ne
’
sdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
m ve
r
s
usHor
wi
c
h’
smi
ni
ma
l
i
s
m.Fi
na
l
l
y
,i
nt
hel
a
s
ts
e
ction I
consider some not very coherent attitudes of Quine, toward the matter of truth.
There are two additional matters that need to be addressed. In Chapter Three I concluded
that a disquotational schema of reference is not supposed to be seen as providing a
genuine reference scheme. It should be noted that the consequence of this observation is
not pursued in this dissertation. Furthermore, the issue of how to make sense of the
disquotational and the minimalist accounts of truth conditions is not discussed, for this
issue does not undergird any difference between disquotationalism and minimalism and is
therefore tangential to this thesis. The other matter is rather minor. It is about the relation
between a deflationary account of truth and any given theory of meaning, insofar as it is
not a truth conditional one. In both Chapter Two and Chapter Five, after I draw the
conclusion that a proper understanding of the disquotational schema of truth and its
instances should not involve any particular way of interpreting the content of the sentence
mentioned and used in each instance of the schema, I will not further pursue how to sort
out an account of meaning that is suitable for a disquotational theory of truth. For I rather
think that this dissertation will not benefit from any conclusion reached by our study of
this issue. Accordingly, these two issues are left for future study.
8
Chapter II
Qui
ne
’
sDi
s
quot
at
i
onalThe
or
yofTr
ut
h
and Semantic Ascent1
Deflationism is among the most prominent theories of truth. Two of the most important
de
f
l
a
t
i
ona
r
yt
he
or
i
e
soft
r
ut
ha
r
edi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
m,i
ns
pi
r
e
dbyQui
ne
,a
ndHor
wi
c
h’
s
mi
ni
ma
l
i
s
m.Bot
hoft
he
s
ec
a
nbes
e
e
nt
oha
vede
ve
l
ope
df
r
omTa
r
s
ki
’
sConve
nt
i
onT,
though offering quite distinct theories that diverge in significant ways.2
Qui
ne
’
sf
a
moust
he
or
ya
boutt
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
on—that translation is indeterminate—is one of the
most significant and influential theories of meaning. It is opposed to the more intuitive
account of meaning that takes intensional notions such as analyticity and synonymy as
playing central roles in theories of meaning and/or content. This approach also has an
effect on his account of truth, namely, that his disquotational theory of truth is a revision
ofTa
r
s
ki
’
si
ng
e
ni
ousT-schema. Al
t
houg
honeoft
hema
j
orc
ont
r
i
but
i
onsofTa
r
s
ki
’
s
semantic account of truth is to explicate the semantic conception of truth in terms of the
a
na
l
y
s
i
sofs
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
ona
ndr
e
f
e
r
e
nc
e
,t
hi
si
swha
tQui
ne
’
sdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
la
c
c
ountoft
r
ut
h
rejects. The importance of this disquotationalist account is not just that it offers a new
1
A draft of this chapter has been presented in a seminar held at the Institute of European and American
Studies, Academia Sinica, Taiwan in 2004.
2
The simplest version of Convention T is the set of bi-conditionals with the form (T):
(T) X is true if and only if p,
whe
r
e‘
X’i
sr
e
pl
a
c
e
dbyt
h
ena
meofa
nys
e
n
t
e
n
c
eoft
h
eobj
e
c
tl
a
n
gu
a
g
ea
n
d‘
p’byt
h
es
e
n
t
e
n
c
ei
t
s
e
l
f
or by a suitable translation within the metalanguage.
Conv
e
n
t
i
onTpl
a
y
sa
ni
mpor
t
a
n
tr
ol
ei
nTa
r
s
k
i
’
st
heory of truth, that is, in the material adequacy of any
given definition of truth. More precisely, any definition of truth (D) is materially adequate if and only if it
implies all the T-biconditionals of the object language and implies that only sentences of the object
language are true in the same language.
9
way of thinking with regard to the notion of truth, but it also fills in the final touch of
Qui
ne
’
sge
ne
r
a
lc
onc
e
pt
i
onofs
e
ma
nt
i
c
s
.
Anot
he
rc
r
uc
i
a
lpa
r
toft
hi
sa
c
c
ounti
sQui
ne
’
s
inter
pr
e
t
a
t
i
onofTa
r
s
ki
’
ss
e
ma
nt
i
ct
he
or
yoft
r
ut
h.Hi
si
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
ons
howst
ha
tt
het
r
ut
h
predicate has a special function both as grammatical device and in philosophical
contemplation as semantic ascent (and descent), by which we substitute the talk of
sentences for the talk of reality. However, Quine does not offer a precise formulation of
his disquotational theory of truth. He also fails to specify to a desirable extent how this
theory behaves if it is more desirably strong in deducing some generalisations.
This chapter thus consists of three sections. The first section devotes a brief introduction
t
oTa
r
s
ki
’
sConve
nt
i
onT.
Theot
he
ri
mpor
t
a
ntpa
r
toft
hi
ss
e
c
t
i
oni
st
oe
xpl
i
c
a
t
eQui
ne
’
s
di
s
a
g
r
e
e
me
ntwi
t
hTa
r
s
ki
’
st
he
or
y
—the disagreement that set him on a divergent road.
Thef
o
l
l
owi
ngs
e
c
t
i
ona
i
msa
tc
l
a
r
i
f
y
i
ngQui
ne
’
sa
c
c
ountoft
r
ut
h.Unde
rapr
ope
r
characterisation of deflationism, a major task of this section is to roughly provide a basic
formulation of disquotationalism. Further, how the truth predicate helps express infinite
conjunctions and disjunctions, and how strong the deductive power of the disquotational
theory of truth is, are two questions in need of answers. In order to answer these questions,
a discussion with regard to the problem of conservativeness of disquotational theories
over logic or the base theories forming them, is given in the third section. In addition, in
vi
e
wofbot
hQui
ne
’
se
a
r
l
i
e
ra
ndl
a
t
t
e
rr
e
ma
r
konhi
sa
c
c
ountoft
r
ut
h,as
pe
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
onof
whether or not his theory of truth is substantive rather than deflationary will not be
discussed until the final section of Chapter Five.
Here I must emphasise that I will not discuss disquotationalism in terms of
10
counter-factuality or related notions in this chapter. This is why many accounts of
di
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
mf
ol
l
owi
ngt
hi
sl
i
ne
,Fi
e
l
d’
squa
s
i
-disquotationalism, for instance, are
not discussed until Chapter Five. Counterfactuals and possible world semantics seem to
owe their clarity to a decent theory of truth but not the other way round. So it is probably
a good idea not to give an extensional analysis of disquotationalism in an intensional
atmosphere, at least not now.
1. Tar
s
k
i
’
sPa
r
a
d
i
g
mo
nTr
ut
h
Many philosophers have felt the urgent need to deal with semantic paradoxes, especially
the Liar Paradox. Tarski tells us that for any semantic closed language, if the usual laws of
logic hold then there will be inconsistent applications in the application of some that
3
l
a
ng
ua
g
e
’
ss
e
ma
nt
i
ct
e
r
ms
.
The formulation of a semantic account of the intuitive
c
onc
e
ptoft
r
ut
ht
ha
te
l
i
mi
na
t
e
ss
uc
hs
e
ma
nt
i
cpa
r
a
doxe
si
st
hepr
i
ma
r
yt
a
s
kofTa
r
s
ki
’
s
theory.4 Another way to see it is, according to Field (1972), to reduce the concept of truth
to other semantic concepts and then to reduce these concepts to, or to explicate them in
terms of, physical or non-semantical terms. Since the purpose of my discussion is to
a
c
c
ountf
orQui
ne
’
si
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
o
nofTa
r
s
ki
’
spa
r
a
di
g
m,onl
yt
heg
e
ne
r
a
li
de
aofTa
r
s
ki
’
s
theory is in need of explication. Following that, my ve
r
s
i
onofQui
ne
’
si
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
onc
a
n
be addressed.
As
ke
t
c
hofTar
s
ki
’
ss
e
mant
i
cc
onc
e
pt
i
onoft
r
ut
h
In order to establish a semantic theory of truth without the threat of semantic paradoxes,
3
That is, it can account for its own semantics.
A semantic account of truth explicates the intuitive concept of truth in terms of semantic terms and first
order standard logic plus set theory.
4
11
Tarski restricts the attribution of truthfulness to sentences of a language whose semantics
is to be constructed in another richer language. This is the famous distinction between
object- and meta-l
a
ng
ua
ge
s
.
Ta
r
s
ki
’
si
ns
i
g
hti
st
ha
t
,i
fal
a
ng
ua
g
ec
ont
a
i
nsi
t
sown
semantic vocabularies and the usual laws of logic hold in it, the semantic theory of this
language that is constructed within the language itself, will be inconsistent. Tarski
presupposes that the object language is a set of expressions (of the first order arithmetic,
say,) with meanings. Thus if a semantic theory of truth for that given language is to be
constructed, a list of the object language containing all primitive expressions, as well as
the rules of definition by means of which new expressions are introduced in terms of
primitive ones, has to be laid down. A set of formation rules determining which sequences
of symbols from its alphabets are sentences among all primitive expressions has to be
specified. Meanwhile, the deductive apparatus of this language has to be given by setting
down (by fiat) how to infer some sentences from other sentences.5 Further, besides the
complete devices of first-order logic and set theory, the metalanguage must include
expressions referring to those in the object language. The metalanguage is to be capable
of describing structural features and relationships of expressions of the object language,
t
ha
ti
s
,f
ol
l
owi
ngTa
r
s
ki
’
st
e
r
ms
,t
hemor
phol
ogyoft
heobj
e
c
tl
a
ng
ua
ge
.I
tha
st
oi
nc
l
ude
expressions of the object language or their translations as well. According to the above
characterisation, object languages and metalanguages are expanded languages and
metalanguages in particular are with full logical and set-theoretic machinery.
6
Si
nc
et
heobj
e
c
tl
a
ng
ua
gei
sa
boutr
e
a
l
i
t
y
,as
e
nt
e
nc
e
,s
a
y
,“
Snowi
swhi
t
e
”
of the object
5
If the object- and the meta-languages are both artificial, the deductive apparatus of the object language
has to be given by setting down (by fiat), firstly, that certain sentences of the language are to be axioms and,
secondly, the rules of inference by means of which the theorems are deduced from the axioms.
6
Throughout this thesis I use double quotation marks around sentences, and single quotation marks around
12
language is true if and only if snow is white. This relation can be captured by the
f
ol
l
owi
ngme
t
a
l
a
ng
ua
g
es
e
nt
e
nc
e
:“
Snowi
swhi
t
e
”i
st
r
uei
fa
ndonl
yi
fs
nowi
swhi
t
e
.
This is the truth paradigm—a paradigm embraced by Quine. These paradigmatic
sentences (T-se
nt
e
nc
e
s
)s
uc
ha
s“
‘
Snowi
swhi
t
e
’i
st
r
uei
fa
ndonl
yi
fs
nowi
swhi
t
e
”
i
ns
t
a
nt
i
a
t
eTa
r
s
ki
’
st
r
ut
hs
c
he
ma(
Conve
nt
i
onT)
,
(T) X is true if and only if p,
whe
r
e‘
X’i
sr
e
pl
a
c
e
dbyt
hena
meofa
nys
e
nt
e
nc
eoft
heobj
e
c
tl
a
ng
ua
gea
nd‘
p’by
the sentence itself or by its suitable translation within the metalanguage.
Further, Tarski claims that any successful definition of the concept of truth is required to
entail every instance of (T). In other words, given the successful definition of truth, we
can prove a T-sentence for every sentence of the object language. This is the requirement
of material adequacy, by which a definition of truth can be shown to get the extension of
the truth predicate right. That is, this requirement can guarantee the defined concept to be
the concept of truth rather than, say, the concept of falsity. Later Tarski states this in a
looser way:
Statements of this form [, the instances of (T),] can be regarded as partial definitions of
the concept of truth. They explain in precise way, and in conformity with common usage,
the sense of all special expressions of the type: the sentence x is true. (Tarski 1956a,
p.404)
For Tarski, what is defined in (T) is not a general concept of truth but a particular concept
of truth relative to a given language. That is, for every given object language L, there is a
unique T-schema:
(TL) X is trueL if and only if p,
byr
e
pl
a
c
i
ng‘
X’wi
t
ht
hena
meofa
nys
e
nt
e
nc
eofL a
nd‘
p’wi
t
ht
hes
e
nt
e
nc
ei
t
s
e
l
f
words and phrases.
13
or its suitable translation within the metalanguage.
Moreover, it is Tarski who precisely shows in his formulation of the proper way to define
the concept of truth, that there is no significant way to provide a satisfactory account of
the general concept of truth. However, even for a particular concept of truth relative to a
g
i
ve
nl
a
ng
ua
g
e
,t
heme
t
a
l
a
ng
ua
g
es
e
nt
e
nc
e
ss
uc
ha
s“
‘
Snowi
swhi
t
e
’i
st
r
uei
fa
ndon
l
yi
f
s
nowi
swhi
t
e
”donotj
oi
nt
l
yc
on
s
t
i
t
ut
eac
ompl
e
t
ea
na
l
y
s
i
soft
hec
onc
e
ptoft
r
ut
h.
Th
e
complication of expanded languages under consideration, such as the possibility of the
infinite number of sentences, makes the enumeration of all partial definitions or, in other
words, all T-sentences impractical.
Although the number of sentences might be infinite, the number of the constituent parts
of sentences, that is, names or predicates, is not. This prompts Tarski to further form an
analysis of the semantic structure of sentences in terms of the semantic concepts of
satisfaction and reference. By defining these two semantic concepts recursively at first, he
provides a recursive definition of the semantic concept of truth. With the full set-theoretic
machinery, the recursive definitions of satisfaction and reference can be converted into
explicit definitions7. Following this, Tarski successfully forms an explicit definition of
truth (for a given object language).
It is the general idea behind this procedure that renders it successful. The corresponding
7
Briefly, there are normally at least three ways to define something. First, if the number of the terms or the
concepts or the like in the definiendum is finite, then it can be defined enumerativly—that is, by providing a
complete list of all the objects defined or all the expressions containing the objects defined. Or, if the
number is infinite, the definiendum can be defined recursively—that is, by defining the possession of a
property by a term x in terms of its possession by all the terms preceding x in a series, together with a
definition of its possession by the first term of the series. Finally, all recursive definitions can be turned into
explicit ones in terms of set theory and other suitable explanatory resources. Please cf. some instances in the
following.
14
satisfaction schema with one free variable is as follows:
For all a, a satisfies the sentential function x if and only if p.
Thei
ns
t
a
nt
i
a
t
i
onoft
hi
ss
c
he
mawi
t
hr
e
ga
r
dt
ot
hes
e
nt
e
nt
i
a
lf
unc
t
i
on‘
xi
swhi
t
e
’c
a
nbe
put as follows:
For all a, a s
a
t
i
s
f
i
e
st
hes
e
nt
e
nt
i
a
lf
unc
t
i
on‘
xi
swhi
t
e
’i
fa
ndonl
yi
fa is white.
Utilising the set-theoretic machinery of classes and sequences, the general schema for
sentential functions (or open sentences) with more than one free variable can be
characterised in a similar fashion as follows:
For all infinite sequences of classes f, f satisfies the sentential function x, if and only if
p,
whe
r
e‘
x’i
st
ober
e
pl
a
c
e
dbyt
hena
meofa
nys
e
nt
e
nt
i
a
lf
unc
t
i
ona
nd‘
p’t
hef
unc
t
i
on
i
t
s
e
l
f(
wi
t
hi
t
sf
r
e
eva
r
i
a
bl
e
s‘
vi’
,‘
vj’…r
e
pl
a
c
e
dby‘
fi’
,‘
fj’…)
.
Fori
ns
t
a
nc
e
,t
hes
e
nt
e
nt
i
a
lf
unc
t
i
o
nc
ons
i
s
t
i
ngof‘
i
st
a
l
l
e
rt
ha
n’
,c
ollocated alphabetically
with ith and jt
hva
r
i
a
bl
e
sonbot
hs
i
de
sof‘
i
st
a
l
l
e
rt
ha
n’
,i
ss
a
t
i
s
f
i
e
dbyag
i
ve
ns
e
que
nc
e
if and only if the ith element in the sequence is taller than the jth element in the same
sequence. To the extreme extent, any sentence in which all variables are bound by
universal quantifier(s) is satisfied by any sequence with no regard to what its elements are;
otherwise it is not satisfied by any of them. It is simply all or none. An explicit definition
of truth is then given in terms of being satisfied by all sequences:
For every close sentence a, a is a true sentence if and only if a is a sentence and for
every sequence of objects f, f satisfies a.
In terms of the account characterised above, it seems that Tarski successfully reduces the
explication of the concept of truth to another semantic concept of satisfaction, specifying
15
the circumstances in which any singly given sentence can be said to be true or false—that
is, satisfied by all sequences or else not at all. Whether or not a sentence is satisfied by all
sequences is not the task of the semantic accounts of the concepts of truth or satisfaction.
I
tde
pe
ndsone
mpi
r
i
c
a
ls
c
i
e
nc
e
.Howe
ve
r
,
Ta
r
s
ki
’
st
he
or
yi
si
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
e
di
nma
nydi
f
f
e
r
e
nt
ways. In the following, I will discuss two major criticisms related to proper formulations
of disquotational theories of truth respectively.
Et
c
he
me
ndy’
sc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
m andHe
c
k’
sr
e
s
pons
e
One of the most enlightening observations comes from Etchemendy (1988). If we follow
Ta
r
s
ki
’
spr
oc
e
dur
et
ode
f
i
nethe concept of truth explicitly, then there is no way our
semantic theory has any empirical significance. As a result, the definition does not capture
t
hei
nt
u
i
t
i
vec
onc
e
ptoft
r
ut
h.
Ta
r
s
ki
’
se
xpl
i
c
i
tde
f
i
ni
t
i
onsofs
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
ona
ndr
e
f
e
r
e
nc
ea
r
e
enumerative. This does not seem to be an unreasonable strategy by itself since Tarski
holds that the number of names and predicates of the object language is finite. However,
according to Etchemendy, explicit definitions as such are stipulative. It follows that all
T-sentences turn out to be logical truths, or at least necessary truths. This means a
T-s
e
nt
e
nc
e
,s
a
y
,“
‘
Snowi
swhi
t
e
’i
st
r
uei
fa
ndonl
yi
fs
nowi
swhi
t
e
”doe
snotha
ve
empirical content.8 The definition does not give us any idea of the empirical content that
the concept of truth in question might have. But explicit definitions of semantic concepts
are indispensable for Tarski in order to guarantee the consistency of the semantic theory
constructed in the metalanguage. Therefore, doing empirical semantics and providing a
consistent semantic theory are not possible to achieve at the same time.
8
Putnam, Soames and many others also hold a similar view.
16
In order to do empirical semantics, we should rather take the concept of truth as a
primitive, and formulate an axiomatic theory of truth for a given language. Every clause
of the recursive definitions of satisfaction, reference, and truth, are turned into axioms,
providing an extra axiom that the truth predicate of the given language, say, L—that is,
trueL—holds for all and only true sentences of L.9 This axiomatic theory of truth also
satisfies the requirement of material adequacy. The difference is that T-sentences are no
longer logical or necessary truths because they are only derivable from those axioms, and
these axioms in turn are not without empirical content
.Da
vi
ds
ona
r
g
ue
di
n“
TheSt
r
uc
t
ur
e
a
ndCont
e
ntofTr
ut
h”(
1990)t
ha
tTa
r
s
ki
’
sde
f
i
ni
t
i
onsofs
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
ona
ndr
e
f
e
r
e
nc
ea
r
enot
necessarily stipulative. It depends on our interpretation of his intention. On the other hand,
Davidson does agree that we shoul
ddr
opt
hef
i
na
ls
t
e
pofTa
r
s
ki
’
spr
oc
e
dur
eoff
or
mi
ng
e
xpl
i
c
i
tde
f
i
ni
t
i
ons
,be
c
a
us
eTa
r
s
ki
’
sde
f
i
ni
t
i
onsonl
ye
ns
ur
et
ha
tt
hee
xt
e
ns
i
onoft
het
r
ut
h
predicates is right, without further explicating what these predicates have in common; that
is, his definitions do not help us specify the meaning.10 Nevertheless, the guarantee of
consistency of the target semantic theory must be abandoned if the final step of turning all
recursive definitions into explicit ones is dropped.
Adding to our axiomatic theory the above-mentioned new axiom that the truth predicate
of a given language L, namely, trueL, holds for all and only true sentences of it, is not a
threat to consistency, for the axiom gives no new properties to the truth predicate.11 For
9
This extra axiom is very likely to be indispensable for every deflationary theory of truth in one way or
a
n
ot
h
e
r
.Fori
ns
t
a
n
c
e
,Hor
wi
c
hc
on
c
e
de
st
h
a
t
,du
et
oGu
pt
a
’
sobs
e
r
v
a
t
i
on
,t
h
ee
x
t
r
aa
xi
om“
(
x) (x i
st
r
u
e→
x is a proposition) is needed (Horwich 1998b, p. 23, note 7). This is implicitly acknowledged hereafter and
will not be brought up again.
10
It is also clear why Davidson prefers to see the concept of truth as explanatorily prior to the concept of
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
,be
c
a
u
s
eh
eh
a
sn
oobj
e
c
t
i
on
st
oQu
i
n
e
’
si
ns
c
r
u
t
a
bi
l
i
t
yofr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
et
h
e
s
i
s
.
Th
i
st
he
s
i
s
,ont
h
eot
h
e
r
h
a
n
d,i
son
eoft
h
ema
j
orr
e
a
s
on
sf
orQui
n
e
’
sde
pa
r
t
i
n
gf
r
omTa
r
s
k
i
’
si
na
c
c
ou
n
t
i
ngf
ort
hec
on
c
e
ptoft
r
u
t
h
.
11
However, according to Davidson
,a
ddi
n
gt
h
i
sn
e
wa
xi
omi
sa
l
s
opoi
n
t
l
e
s
s
,“
Forwec
a
nj
u
s
ta
swe
l
l
r
e
g
a
r
dTa
r
s
k
i
’
st
r
u
t
hpr
e
di
c
a
t
e‘
s is trueL’a
sh
a
v
i
n
gt
h
epr
ope
r
t
i
e
sofou
rr
e
a
l
-l
i
f
epr
e
di
c
a
t
e‘
s is true in L’
,a
s
17
Heck, on the other hand, there is something more. He further holds that there are parallel
axioms of satisfaction and reference. Heck calls these three new axioms the connecting
principles. These connecting principles reflect the requirement of material adequacy, and
the requirement that all the truth predicates of various successful definitions of the
concept of truth relative to a given language, are applicable to the same set of sentences
(Heck 1997, p. 541).
Etchemendy credits Tarski with the techniques he uses in his definition; that is,
Getting from a Tarskian definition of truth to a substantive account of the semantic
properties of the object language may involve as little as the reintroduction of a primitive
notion of truth. (Etchemendy 1988, pp.59-60)
[I]f we define a set TRUE using the standard recursive definition, then the claim that all
and only true sentences of the language are members of TRUE is logically equivalent to
[the axiomatic theory of truth]. (ibid., p. 59)
ForHe
c
k,t
hi
sonl
ys
ugge
s
t
s
,“
a
l
lt
hea
xi
omsof the axiomatic theory can be proven from
t
hee
xpl
i
c
i
tde
f
i
ni
t
i
onoft
r
ut
ha
n
dt
he
s
ene
wa
xi
oms
,t
hec
onne
c
t
i
ngpr
i
nc
i
pl
e
s
”(
He
c
k
1997, p. 541). For instance, the axiom of truth,
true(A) if and only if (A is a sentence and .sat(A, )),
can be derived from the explicit definition of truth,
ATRUE if and only if ASAT(A, )
and the connecting principles of truth,
true(A) if and only if ATRUE
and of satisfaction,
.sat(A, ) if and only if ASAT(A, ).
The consistency of the axiomatic theory is therefore not under threat. Heck points out:
l
on
ga
st
h
os
epr
ope
r
t
i
e
sdon
otc
r
e
a
t
ei
n
c
on
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
i
e
s
”(
Da
v
i
ds
on1990, p. 292).
18
Since the connecting principles are little more than restatements of the conditions of
material adequacy, it would be at best uncharitable not to credit Tarski with having
proved as much. (p. 547).
The magic touch is of course the two new axioms added by Heck. He expands the
requirement of material adequacy to include the concepts of satisfaction and reference, so
that what are defined in the explicit definitions of reference and satisfaction are indeed the
intuitive concepts of reference and satisfaction. In addition to this, the distinction between
object-and meta-languages allows Heck to guarantee the consistency of the semantic
theory brought by the explicit definitions. Meanwhile, the criticism Etchemendy made is
r
e
s
ol
ve
d.
Ta
r
s
ki
’
se
xpl
i
c
i
tde
f
i
ni
t
i
onsa
r
enots
t
i
pul
a
t
i
ve
.ForHe
c
k,
What [Tarski] has done is clearly to separate the mathematical from the empirical aspects
of semantics: the mathematical part is wholly absorbed into the definition of truth; the
empirical, into the claim of material adequacy.12 (p. 543)
Butt
hi
si
spr
obl
e
ma
t
i
c
.Fi
r
s
tofa
l
l
,c
ons
i
de
rGupt
a
’
si
ns
t
a
nc
e(
2002)
,i
fade
f
i
ni
t
i
onof
true-in-L a
ppe
a
r
st
obe“
x is true in L if and only if x is not true in L”
,t
he
ni
ts
a
t
i
s
f
i
e
st
he
material adequacy requirement trivially because it also implies all T-sentences due to its
inconsistency.13 Or we can give an inconsistent theory of truth with the following
biconditional:
true(A) if and only if [A is a sentence and (.sat(A, ) & .sat(A, ))].
This theory is also materially adequate. The connecting principle of truth thus can be false.
Since the connecting principle of truth is little more than the restatement of material
adequacy conditions, it is a material biconditional. This means it can be true when both of
its antecedent and consequent are false. Surely that an inconsistent theory plus the
12
Heck thinks what really does the trick of avoiding semantic paradoxes is the distinction between objectand meta-languages. But there is a good reason why appealing to the explicit definitions is necessary, viz.,
recursive definitions cannot prevent self-referential sentences.
13
Gu
pt
a
’
si
n
s
t
a
n
c
ei
sme
a
n
tt
or
e
v
e
a
lt
h
ef
a
c
tt
h
a
ts
omer
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
on
sh
a
v
et
obel
a
i
ddownf
orCon
v
e
n
t
i
onT.
But it seems to also be relevant to the present discussion.
19
connecting principle, or really, anything, imply another inconsistent theory does not teach
us any valuable lesson. The connecting principle of truth is too weak to de
r
i
veHe
c
k’
s
conclusion.
Further, Tarski sets up two conditions for a definition of truth to be acceptable, that is, that
it is formally correct and materially adequate. To make good sense of the motive for
setting up two conditions instead of just the material adequacy condition, implies that
there are definitions satisfying only the material adequacy condition. Otherwise, any
definition satisfying the condition of material adequacy turns out to be formally correct.
OnTa
r
s
ki
’
sde
f
i
ni
t
i
on, however, there may be formally incorrect but materially adequate
definitions of truth and they are implied by the explicit definition of truth and the
c
onne
c
t
i
ngpr
i
nc
i
pl
eoft
r
ut
ha
sde
s
c
r
i
be
dbyHe
c
k.Fori
ns
t
a
nc
e
,“
x is true if and only if x
is true or x is not true, and x”i
saf
or
ma
l
l
yi
nc
or
r
e
c
tde
f
i
ni
t
i
onbuti
ti
mpl
i
e
sa
l
l
T-s
e
nt
e
nc
e
swi
t
ht
hef
or
m“
x is true if and only if x”
,whe
r
e‘
x’r
e
pr
e
s
e
nt
st
hena
meofa
g
i
ve
ns
e
nt
e
nc
ea
nd‘
x’t
hes
e
nt
e
nc
ei
t
s
e
l
f
.
For Gupta (2002), it turns out that Convention T is not even a satisfactory standard for
evaluating the extensional adequacy of the definitions of truth, if the extensional
a
de
qu
a
c
yoft
hede
f
i
ni
t
i
onsoft
r
u
t
ha
mount
st
ot
he
i
rma
t
e
r
i
a
la
de
qua
c
y
.Gupt
a
’
sa
r
g
ume
nt
rests on a very minimal assumption that, for any truth definition D for a language L, there
is at least a true sentence p of L,
s
a
y
,“
J
ohnHowa
r
di
st
hepr
i
memi
ni
s
t
e
rofAus
t
r
a
l
i
ai
n
2004,
”t
ha
ti
snotl
og
i
c
a
l
l
yi
mpl
i
e
dbyt
hene
c
e
s
s
a
r
ya
ppa
r
a
t
us
,c
a
l
l
e
dAD, needed by D to
derive consequenc
e
s
.Mor
e
ove
r
,‘
t
r
uei
nL’doe
snotoc
c
uri
nbot
hp and AD. Suppose D,
“
Fora
l
lobj
e
c
t
sz, z is true in L if and only if (z)
”(
Whe
r
e(z) means that z is true of ),
20
is an extensionally adequate definition of truth. Then D’
,“
Fora
l
lobj
e
c
t
sz, z is true in L if
and only if (if p then (z)
)
”i
sa
l
s
oa
ne
xt
e
ns
i
ona
l
l
ya
de
qua
t
ede
f
i
ni
t
i
on.I
tf
ol
l
ows
,
however, that D’in conjunction with AD fails to imply all T-sentences of L. Suppose, for
the sake of reductio, D’and AD implied all T-sentences, we can infer that they imply the
following: not every sentence of L is true. But definition D’is particular in the way that it,
AD, and not-p logically imply that every sentence of L is true. This suggests that they are
logically inconsistent. Hence, D’and AD logically imply p. Since AD does not imply p,
there is at least one interpretation on which all members of AD are true but p is false. If
wea
s
s
i
g
nt
hes
e
tofa
l
lobj
e
c
t
st
o‘
t
r
uei
nL’
,t
he
nwee
s
t
a
bl
i
s
ha
ni
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
ononwhi
c
h
D’and all the members of AD are true but p is false. This means D’and AD do not
logically imply p. But this contradicts the previous conclusion that D’and AD logically
imply p. So the reductio completes. Material adequacy is not sufficient for an account of
truth.14
I agree with Davi
ds
on,howe
ve
r
,t
ha
tTa
r
s
ki
’
st
he
or
ydoe
snote
nl
i
g
ht
e
nusa
boutt
he
meaning of the concept of truth, so that the final step that converts the recursive
de
f
i
ni
t
i
onsi
nt
oe
xpl
i
c
i
to
ne
sha
st
obedr
oppe
d.Mor
e
ove
r
,i
ti
snott
ha
tEt
c
he
me
ndy
’
s
analysis is pref
e
r
a
bl
et
oHe
c
k’
s
,
b
utr
a
t
he
rt
ha
ta
c
c
or
di
ngt
oQui
ne
’
st
he
s
i
sof
inscrutability of reference, the concept of truth is more basic than the concepts of
reference and satisfaction. The thesis of inscrutable reference teaches us that the reference
14
The current discussion is also relevant in connection with an acceptable formulation of disquotationalism.
Disquotationalism in its simplest form takes all the T-sentences as its axioms. The undesirability of this
formulation is its lack of deductive power. Some disquotationalists such as Halbach, propose to include all
those axioms that are formed by the original clauses of the recursive definitions of satisfaction and
reference in the disquotational theory, so as to help derive some important generalisations. If Heck is right,
then this sort of axiomatic theory is, absurdly, deducible from the explicit definition of truth with the help of
the corresponding connecting principle.
21
scheme of any given language or theory is inscrutable.15 That is to say, there are no
empirical pieces of evidence that confirm any particular reference scheme over the others.
Among others, a reference scheme is equally good for a given language or a given theory
if it can preserve the distribution of the truth-values of all their expressions. If truth set
limits on the accounts of reference and satisfaction, it does not seem right to hold them
explanatorily more basic. A similar point will be made in the following discussion of
Fi
e
l
d’
si
mpor
t
a
ntc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
mofTa
r
s
ki
’
st
he
or
y
.
Moreover, in spite of all the clarity and efficiency, Quine disagrees with the approach of
explicating the concept of truth in terms of the analysis of the sentential structure of any
given sentence. The immediate reason for Tarski to define the concept of truth in
accordance with the recursive definition of the concept of satisfaction is the impossibility
off
or
mi
ngar
e
c
ur
s
i
vede
f
i
ni
t
i
onofs
e
nt
e
nt
i
a
lt
r
ut
hout
r
i
g
ht
.I
n“
Tr
ut
ha
ndDi
s
quot
a
t
i
on”
(Quine 1976), Quine demonstrates that constructing the truth definition in the light of the
notion of infinite sequence and the recursive definition of satisfaction, is incidental to the
apparatus of quantifications and variables employed by Tarski in the meta-language. In a
different kind of logic in which the work of quantifiers and variables are managed by
constants, it can be shown, Quine argues, that the complication resulting from other
semantic concepts is dispensable (p. 309).
Fi
e
l
d’
sphys
i
c
al
i
s
tc
riticism and the explanatory priority
Asaphy
s
i
c
a
l
i
s
t
,Fi
e
l
dr
e
g
a
r
dsTa
r
s
ki
’
st
he
or
ya
sapr
oj
e
c
tt
or
e
duc
es
e
ma
nt
i
c
a
lt
e
r
mst
o
non-s
e
ma
nt
i
c
a
lorphy
s
i
c
a
lone
s
.
Thef
i
r
s
tr
e
duc
t
i
ona
ppe
a
r
i
ngi
nTa
r
s
ki
’
st
he
or
yi
sf
r
o
m
15
One of the consequences of abandoning the analytic/synthetic sentences distinction is the continuum of
language and theory.
22
the semantic concept of truth to the semantic concepts of satisfaction and reference. The
second step is to reduce these semantic concepts to non-semantical or physical concepts.16
And it seems that Tarski successfully employs non-s
e
ma
nt
i
ct
e
r
mss
uc
ha
s‘
s
e
que
nc
e
’t
o
prepare the second reduction.Fi
e
l
d’
sc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
mi
st
ha
tTa
r
s
ki
’
st
he
or
yf
a
i
l
st
opr
ovi
dea
non-t
r
i
vi
a
ls
e
c
ondr
e
duc
t
i
on.Hea
r
g
ue
si
n“
Ta
r
s
ki
’
sThe
or
yofTr
ut
h”(
Fi
e
l
d1972)t
ha
t
Ta
r
s
ki
’
sa
c
c
ountoft
r
ut
hha
snos
i
g
ni
f
i
c
a
ntdi
f
f
e
r
e
nc
ei
ne
xpl
i
c
a
t
i
onf
r
om as
i
mi
l
a
r
account in which the reference scheme of the object language is in terms of primitive
denotation.
Tha
ti
s
,“
e
ve
r
yna
meprimitively denotes what it denotes; every predicate and
every function symbol primitively denotes what it applies to or is fulfilled by; and no
complex expr
e
s
s
i
onpr
i
mi
t
i
ve
l
yde
not
e
sa
ny
t
hi
ng
”(
p.6)
.Fi
e
l
d’
spoi
nti
st
ha
tt
hi
s
indifference makes the second reduction trivial.17 As a physicalist, it seems natural for
Field to criticise on the ground that a non-trivial reduction is necessary for a successful
physicalist account of truth. (Notice though, that the same criticism could be made by a
non-physicalist who disagrees with the physicalist account.) This criticism helps to make
sense of why Field concludes in part that a failure of this second reduction suggests the
abandonment of the concepts of truth and reference. For such concepts are not, on this
account, qualified according to the criteria set up by physicalism (p. 25). In the
“
Pos
t
s
c
r
i
pt
”(
2001)of“
Ta
r
s
ki
’
sThe
or
yofTr
ut
h”
,Fi
e
l
ds
t
i
l
lma
i
nt
a
i
nsa refined version
of his criticism. He does, however, concede at the end that given his interpretation of
Qui
ne
’
sa
c
c
ount
,s
houl
di
tt
ur
noutt
obec
or
r
e
c
t
,t
he
nFi
e
l
d’
sownphy
s
i
c
a
l
i
s
ta
c
c
ountof
t
r
ut
hi
smi
s
t
a
ke
n.Fori
fQui
ne
’
sa
c
c
ounti
sc
or
r
e
c
t
,t
he
nthe truth predicate is just a device
for expressing generalisations—that is, the truth predicate has its special merit as
16
Field makes it clear in his paper that it is not necessary to require a reduction in a strict sense. An
approximate reduction will do.
17
Many philosophers arrive at different conclusion. Devitt, for instance, holds that the list-like definitions
are defla
t
i
on
a
r
y
.“
Ta
r
s
ki
’
sde
f
i
n
i
t
i
ont
e
l
l
su
sal
ota
bou
t‘
t
r
u
e
-in-L’
,
”De
vi
t
ts
a
y
s
,“
I
tt
e
l
l
susn
ot
hi
nga
bou
t
truth-in-L be
c
a
u
s
ei
ti
si
mpl
i
c
i
t
l
yc
ommi
t
t
e
dt
ot
h
ev
i
e
wt
h
a
tt
h
e
r
ei
sn
ot
h
i
n
gt
ot
e
l
l
.
”(
2001)
23
abbreviating infinite conjunctions or disjunctions of sentences.18
According to Romanos (1983), however, this is not the only problem t
ha
tFi
e
l
d’
st
he
or
y
f
a
c
e
s
.
Ta
r
s
ki
’
ss
e
ma
nt
i
ca
c
c
ountoft
r
ut
hr
e
s
ul
t
sf
r
oma
t
t
r
i
but
i
ng
,orf
a
i
l
i
ngt
oa
t
t
r
i
but
e
,
truthfulness to sentences, in terms of the analysis of the sentential structure of the object
language sentences as well as the list-like defini
t
i
o
nsofr
e
f
e
r
e
nc
ea
nds
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
on.Fi
e
l
d’
s
criticism rests on the point that Tarski fails to provide a satisfactory explanation of the
second aspect of this process. Romanos correctly observes that the consequence of this
failure—that is, the abandonment of the concepts of truth and reference because of their
not being qualified according to the criteria set up by physicalism—is acceptable only if
the original assumption that the analysis of the referential relation plays a decisive role in
explicating the concept of truth, is itself without a shred of doubt (p. 170). But if one
contests that the concept of truth should not be explicated in terms of the referential
r
e
l
a
t
i
on,t
he
nFi
e
l
d’
sc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
mi
snol
ong
e
rde
c
i
s
i
ve
.
Romanos continues his criticism by citing Field in order to show that Field employs
Qui
ne
’
st
he
s
e
sofi
ns
c
r
ut
a
bi
l
i
t
yofr
e
f
e
r
e
nc
e
,unde
r
-determination of theories, and
ontological relativity, in order to support the view that gluing our conceptual scheme onto
reality from the outside is impossible (Romanos 1983, p. 168; Field 1972, p. 24). For
Quine, these theses seem to further entail the implausibility of asking for causal theories
of reference to nail language to reality (Quine 1960, p. 24). But according to Field the
causal connection between language and (extralinguistic) reality is still required in order
to avoid our conceptual scheme breaking down from the inside (Field 1972, p. 24). It
18
Please see the following section for a more detailed elaboration.
24
seems to Romanos that Field is in danger of being inconsistent. However, Field in fact
disagrees wi
t
hQui
ne
.I
ti
snotc
l
e
a
rwi
t
hwhi
c
ht
he
s
i
sofQui
ne
’
sFi
e
l
ddi
s
a
g
r
e
e
swi
t
hi
n
Field 1972. Is it the implausibility of asking for causal theories of reference or is it one of
the theses mentioned above? He does agree that our reflection of the accounts of primitive
reference and truth is not explanatorily prior to our scientific investigation.
I
n“
Qu
i
nea
ndt
heCor
r
e
s
ponde
n
c
eThe
or
y
”(
Fi
e
l
d1974)
,wr
i
t
t
e
nt
woy
e
a
r
sl
a
t
e
r
,Fi
e
l
d
de
ni
e
sQui
ne
’
st
he
s
i
sofont
ol
og
i
c
a
lr
e
l
a
t
i
vi
t
ya
ndpr
opos
e
sa
na
c
c
ountofpa
rtial
signification to remove the obstacle set up by the thesis of inscrutability of reference.19 If
t
hi
spos
i
t
i
oni
se
s
t
a
bl
i
s
he
d,Fi
e
l
d’
sa
t
t
e
mptt
of
i
ndac
a
us
a
lt
he
or
yofr
e
f
e
r
e
nc
ei
snott
ha
t
puz
z
l
i
ng
.I
nt
hene
xtc
ha
pt
e
r
,i
twi
l
lbes
hownt
ha
tFi
e
l
d’
scriticism of the thesis of
ont
ol
og
i
c
a
lr
e
l
a
t
i
vi
t
yi
sac
ons
e
q
u
e
nc
eofhi
smi
s
i
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
i
ngQui
ne
’
sont
ol
og
i
c
a
l
relativity thesis.
This discussion centres around which concept is explanatorily more basic, reference or
truth. It is clear why Quine takes the concept of truth to be more basic to the concepts of
satisfaction and reference. Davidson pushes this point slightly further. Normally our
understanding of sentences of a given language, presumably infinite in number, is
dependent on our prior understanding of the words, finite in number, that form these
sentences. Thus the semantic properties of words seem to be conceptually prior to those
of sentences because the latter owes their comprehensibility to the former. According to
Davidson, it is a mistake to draw such a conclusion about the conceptual priority of the
19
Although there is no empirical ground to choose one translation manual over another and thus relativise
the reference scheme of a given theory or language to another, for Field, it can be held that a general term x,
for instance, of a given language partially signifies the sets of objects of all competing manuals. A
simplified example can be put like this: the term gavagai partially signifies the set of rabbits (relative to a
translation manual M1) and the set of undetached rabbit parts (relative to M2) but fully signifies neither.
25
semantic properties of words over sentences, from a platitude about how we can possibly
understand all sentences. That is,
This mistake is to confuse the order of explanation of why the theory is correct. The
theory is correct because it yields correct T-sentences; its correctness is tested against our
grasp of the concept of truth as applied to sentences. Since T-sentences say nothing
whatever about reference, satisfaction, or expressions that are not sentences, the test of
the correctness of the theory is independent of intuitions concerning these concepts. Once
we have the theory, though we can explain the truth of sentences on the basis of their
structure and the semantic properties of the parts. (Davidson 1990, p. 300)
Quine and Davidson, of course, do not preclude there being a role played by a theory of
reference in the explication of the truth of sentences. Still, the difference between the
reference schemes suggests a difference between the translation manuals, and one of the
reasons for selecting one reference scheme over the other is its capacity for preserving the
distribution of true and false sentences in the interpreted language. Truth preserving sets
limits on the selection of the domains of discourse. To regard the theory of the referential
relation between the constituents of sentences and the reality as explanatorily basic is
nothing but a misconception.
Addi
t
i
ona
l
l
y
,
Ta
r
s
ki
’
ss
e
ma
nt
i
ca
na
l
y
s
i
si
se
i
t
he
ri
nc
ons
i
s
t
e
ntwi
t
h,ora
tleast, is a peculiar
c
ompa
ni
onf
orQui
ne
’
st
he
s
i
sofont
ol
og
i
c
a
lr
e
l
a
t
i
vi
t
y
.
Thet
he
s
i
si
s
,puts
i
mpl
y
:
What makes sense is to say not what the objects of a theory are, absolutely speaking, but
how one theory of objects is interpretable or reinterpretable in another. (Quine 1969, p.
50)
To construct an account of sentence truth in terms of satisfaction conditions is to base the
analysis of the truth of a sentence on a function of the referents of its component terms
(Romanos 1983, p.145). This view raises concerns about the relativity of ontology in a
sense that a primitive concept of truth does not (ibid.). If the explicit definitions of
26
satisfaction and reference are stipulative, some concerns with regard to the relativity of
ontology have to be raised. For these stipulative definitions do offer a way to talk about
what the objects are absolutely.20 Romanos puts this well:
I
ft
r
u
t
hde
f
i
n
e
dbyTa
r
s
k
i
’
spr
oc
e
du
r
ei
se
s
s
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
yaf
un
c
t
i
onoft
h
ef
e
a
t
u
r
e
sofag
i
v
e
n
t
h
e
or
y
’
sun
i
v
e
r
s
eofdi
s
c
ou
r
s
e
—the objects comprising its ontology—then how can our
u
n
de
r
s
t
a
n
di
ngof‘
t
r
u
e
’a
sa
ppl
i
e
dt
os
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
soft
h
et
h
e
or
ybea
nyl
e
s
sr
e
l
a
t
i
v
et
h
a
nou
r
de
s
c
r
i
pt
i
onoft
h
et
h
e
or
y
’
sun
i
v
e
r
s
e
.(
i
bi
d.
,p.
159)
2.
Fo
r
mul
a
t
i
ngQui
ne
’
sDi
s
quot
at
i
ona
lThe
o
r
y
Intuitively speaking, to say that a sentence is true is to say that it has a certain relation to
reality, and that it is in virtue of this relation that it is true. This is the correspondence
theory of truth in a very loose sense. What seems to be widely accepted by many
philosophers is that the correspondence theory of truth is about the correspondence
relation between the meaning of a given sentence, or the proposition expressed by it, and
some fact of the matters or state of affairs. Still, for the correspondence theory to be more
philosophically interesting it must be supported by a theory of meaning strong enough to
allow two sentences, whether belonging to the same language or not, to bear some
synonymous or equivalent relation. It is absurd to claim that the basic unit of meaning is
not sentences and at the same time to hold that the uncritically accepted synonymous
relations between sentences from different languages make sense.21 It is clear then that
the advantage of the correspondence theory of truth, under the normal understanding of it,
20
Wor
s
e
,t
h
e
r
ei
si
n
de
e
dar
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
es
c
h
e
mef
ore
v
e
r
yl
a
ng
u
a
g
ei
na
na
bs
ol
u
t
es
e
ns
ei
fwea
c
c
e
ptHe
c
k’
s
interpretation of the materially adequate conditions that includes the consideration of reference scheme in
the requirement of material adequacy.
21
Eventually the consequent will strike back to undermine this very assumption. To hold that there is a
genuine discrepancy between the synonymy relations for a language and for different languages or between
sentences of mine and sentences belonging to a language that is other than my mother tongue, is indeed to
object to the public feature of languages—that is, the promotion of the private language account. Worse,
this assumption has to offer some sort of explanation to demarcate the learning processes of my mother
tongue and the second language, which is definitely not an easy job.
27
lies in its capacity to provide a satisfactory explication of how sentences from different
languages which share the same truth value, can also share the same meaning. This
explication depends heavily on the foggy distinction between facts or the like, and how
sentences articulate them. According to this account what correspond to reality are of
course not sentences themselves but their meanings. Thus, for instance, to say that a
s
e
nt
e
nc
e“
Snowi
swhi
t
e
”i
st
r
uei
st
os
a
yt
ha
ti
t
sme
a
ni
ng that snow is white corresponds
to the fact that snow is white.
Quine thinks that it is here that we encounter the inexplicable part of the correspondence
theory. To what extent can the notion of sentential meaning, the resultant notion of a
relation of synonymy between sentences, and the notion of a fact of the matter, be
clarified? One might propose to use the notion of a proposition to explicate the notion of
s
e
nt
e
nt
i
a
lme
a
ni
ng
.
Thes
e
nt
e
nt
i
a
lme
a
ni
ngof“
Snowi
swhi
t
e
,
”f
ori
ns
t
a
nc
e
,i
st
he
propositiont
ha
ts
nowi
swhi
t
e
.Si
mi
l
a
r
l
y
,t
heme
a
ni
ngof“
De
rSc
hne
ei
s
twe
i
s
s
”i
sa
l
s
o
this very same proposition. Truthfulness should be attributed to propositions instead of
sentences. Therefore, sentences themselves become strings of physical signs of different
notations in which propositions, their meanings, are couched. The intuitive account of the
correspondence theory in the last paragraph suggests a two-step analysis of the notion of
t
r
ut
h.
Tha
ti
s
,t
os
a
yt
ha
tas
e
nt
e
nc
e“
Snowi
swhi
t
e
”i
st
r
ue
,i
st
os
a
ythat its meaning that
snow is white corresponds to the fact that snow is white. The first step is from sentences
to their meanings and the second step is from their meanings to the facts to which they
correspond. Utilising the notion of a proposition, we no longer seem to recourse to the
first step in this process. The problem with this account seems to be that it is open to
Qui
ne
’
sc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
moft
hemy
t
hoft
hemus
e
um.Fori
ts
e
e
mst
ha
tpr
opos
i
t
i
onsa
r
e
28
uncritically accepted as exhibits, and sentences from different languages are their labels.
More importantly, accepting propositions as abstract entities introduces the problem of
how to individuate such propositions.22 Thes
e
nt
e
nc
e“
Snowi
swhi
t
e
”doe
snot
individuate the proposition that snow is white because it is just one of (infinitely) many
notations of this proposition. Each notation of the proposition is nothing but a string of
physical signs. The problem of individuation leads us back to the original consideration of
equivalent or synonymous relations between sentences.23 Qui
ne
’
sma
i
nc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
m ont
hi
s
a
ppr
oa
c
hi
sa
sf
ol
l
ows
:“
[
T]
hea
p
p
r
opr
i
a
t
ee
qui
va
l
e
nc
er
e
l
a
t
i
onma
ke
snoobj
e
c
t
i
ves
e
ns
e
a
tt
hel
e
ve
lofs
e
nt
e
nc
e
s
”(
Qui
ne1
970,p.3)
.
Thi
sc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
m wi
l
lbedi
s
c
us
s
e
di
nmor
e
detail later.
As described above, an adequate account of the notions of sentential meaning and
synonymous or equivalence relations between sentences is vital to a successful
e
xpl
i
c
a
t
i
onoft
hec
or
r
e
s
ponde
nc
et
he
or
yoft
r
ut
h.Qui
ne
’
sc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
m,i
fe
s
t
a
bl
i
s
he
d,ha
sa
severe impact upon any such explication. It does not just show that the correspondence
theory fails to provide an acceptable account of equivalence or synonymous relations. It
indicates the dim chances of getting a plausible account of sentential meaning. It is not
compelling to both hold that the equivalence or synonymous relations do not make
objective sense at the sentential level, whilst also holding that the notion of meaning does
make objective sense at the level of sentences. Consequently, the correspondence theory
of truth loses ground.
22
Hor
wi
c
h’
smi
ni
ma
lt
h
e
or
yoft
r
u
t
ht
a
k
e
spr
opos
i
t
i
on
sa
st
h
epr
i
ma
r
yt
r
u
t
hbe
a
r
e
r
s
.I
nCh
a
pt
e
rFi
v
e
,
where the evaluation of this theory i
sg
i
v
e
n
,h
owe
v
e
r
,Qu
i
n
e
’
sobj
e
c
t
i
ont
ot
h
en
ot
i
onofapr
op
os
i
t
i
ondoe
s
not play any essential role.
23
This, on the other hand, seems to shed some doubt on the rationale of introducing the notion of a
proposition to play such an essential role in the explication of the notions of truth and sentential meaning.
29
It is rather puzzling why Tarski would declare that his theory is a kind of correspondence
theory of truth, despite the fact that for Tarski there is no correspondence relation between
the meaning of sentences on the one hand, and facts or states of affairs on the other.
Da
vi
ds
onma
dei
tc
l
e
a
ri
n“
TheFol
l
yofTr
y
i
ngt
oDe
f
i
neTr
ut
h”(
Da
vi
ds
on1996)
:
But facts or states of affairs have never been shown to play a useful role in semantics, and
on
eoft
h
es
t
r
on
g
e
s
ta
r
g
ume
n
t
sf
orTa
r
s
k
i
’
s definitions is that in them nothing plays the
r
ol
eoff
a
c
t
sors
t
a
t
e
sofa
f
f
a
i
r
s
…Ta
r
s
k
i
’
st
r
ut
hde
f
i
n
i
t
i
onsma
k
en
ous
eoft
h
ei
de
at
h
a
ta
s
e
n
t
e
n
c
e‘
c
or
r
e
s
pon
ds
’t
oa
ny
t
h
i
nga
ta
l
l
.(
p.267)
Indeed, the material adequacy condition ensures that every definition of truth satisfying
this requirement is successful. But no part of this analysis has anything to do with
corresponding to facts or states of affairs. The analysis of the sentential structure of any
given sentence does not even appear in the formulation of this requirement. Moreover, if
onec
o
n
s
t
r
ue
sTa
r
s
ki
’
spos
i
t
i
ona
st
a
ki
ngt
hes
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
onf
unc
t
i
ont
opl
a
yt
her
ol
eoft
h
e
so-called correspondence relation, just as Davidson admits that he once held this
position24, then the correspondence theory is, as Davidson later puts it25, thoroughly
uni
nt
e
l
l
i
g
i
bl
e
.
Ac
c
or
di
ngt
oTa
r
s
ki
’
sde
f
i
ni
t
i
on,e
ve
r
yc
l
os
e
ds
e
nt
e
nc
ei
st
r
uei
fa
ndon
l
yi
f
it satisfies every sequence. It follows that every true sentence corresponds to exactly the
same thing, the big fact. This makes the Tarskian conception of the correspondence theory
useless.
Ani
nt
r
oduc
t
i
onofQui
ne
’
sr
e
as
oni
ngondi
s
quot
at
i
onalc
onc
e
pt
i
onoft
r
ut
h
The intuitive correspondence theory does seem right in the sense that truth should hinge
on reality rather than language. The employment of the notion of a proposition is one
prominent way to account for this point. Quine agrees that the truthfulness of sentences
24
25
Davidson 1990, p. 302, foot note 36.
Ibid., p. 298. Also Davidson, 1996, p. 268.
30
depends on reality to make them so (Quine 1970, p. 10). For the truth of singly given
sentence he states:
In speaking of the truth of a given sentence there is only indirection; we do better simply
to say the sentence and so speak not about language but about the world. So long as we
are speaking only of the truth of singly given sentence, the perfect theory of truth is what
Wilfrid Sellars has called a disappearance theory of truth.
26
(ibid., p. 11)
According to the correspondence theory of truth, in speaking of the truthfulness of a
given sentence we are saying that the meaning of the sentence corresponds to a fact, a
state of affairs, or the like. Even putting aside the fact that the concept of a
correspondence relation is unclear, it will be difficult to specify the notions of sentential
meanings and facts or the like without utilising any linguistic framework. The only refuge
for the correspondence theory is the direct relation between sentences and experience, at
l
e
a
s
ti
nt
hebr
oa
ds
e
ns
e
.Qui
ne
’
sc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
mont
hi
sma
t
t
e
rs
howst
ha
tane
wwa
yof
thinking about the notion of truth is required. And Quine
’
spr
opos
a
lont
het
r
ut
hf
ul
ne
s
sof
a
nys
i
ng
l
yg
i
ve
ns
e
nt
e
nc
ei
ss
i
mi
l
a
rt
oSe
l
l
a
r
s
’di
s
a
ppe
a
r
a
nc
et
he
or
yoft
r
ut
h.
Thepa
s
s
a
ge
c
i
t
e
da
b
ovei
spr
oba
bl
yt
hemos
ti
mpor
t
a
ntr
e
a
s
onwhyma
nyi
nt
e
r
pr
e
tQui
ne
’
s
disquotationalism as well as most disquotational theories of truth, as no different to the
redundancy theory of truth in the cases of singly given sentences. This will be discussed
in Chapter Five. However, this passage is a bit misleading anyway.
This is not the whole story though. Quine is not an advocate of the redundancy theory of
truth. His position, on the contrary, reveals the unsatisfactoriness of this theory. For Quine,
the truth predicate is not redundant and thus has its special function in languages. He
26
Th
et
r
u
t
hpr
e
di
c
a
t
ei
sn
e
e
de
df
ors
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
st
h
a
ta
r
en
otgi
v
e
n
,s
u
c
ha
s‘
Wh
a
tSmi
t
hs
a
i
di
st
r
u
e
’(
Qui
n
e
1990, p. 80). In the cases similar to this, the truth predicate is not applied to a quotation but a pronoun or
bound variable (ibid.). However, the disquotational schema, which will be formulated in a latter discussion,
is still applicable to these contexts through some technical paraphrasing. For instance, Paul Horwich in
Truth (p. 21).
31
expresses his point as follows:
Truth hin
g
e
sonr
e
a
l
i
t
y
… Wh
e
r
et
h
et
r
u
t
hpr
e
di
c
a
t
eh
a
si
t
su
t
i
l
i
t
yi
sj
u
s
tt
h
os
epl
a
c
e
s
where, though still concerned with reality, we are impelled by certain technical
complications to mention sentences. Here the truth predicate serves, as it were, to point
through the sentence to reality; it serves as a reminder that though sentences are
mentioned, reality is still the whole point. (Quine 1970, p. 11)
Ce
r
t
a
i
n‘
t
e
c
hni
c
a
lc
ompl
i
c
a
t
i
ons
’a
r
ea
boutt
hene
c
e
s
s
a
r
yg
r
a
mma
t
i
c
a
lde
vi
c
e
sbywhi
c
h
we are allowed to generalise on sentences with the same feature or to generalise on
s
e
nt
e
nc
e
si
nt
hec
a
s
eofbl
i
nda
s
c
r
i
pt
i
ons
uc
ha
s“
Wha
tTa
r
s
kis
a
i
donApr
i
lf
i
r
s
t
,1953a
t
1
1a
.
m.i
st
r
ue
”
.I
ti
sa
l
wa
y
se
a
s
yt
og
e
ne
r
a
l
i
s
eons
e
nt
e
nc
e
sl
i
ke“
Qui
nei
smor
t
a
l
,
”
“
Ra
ms
e
yi
smor
t
a
l
,
”a
nds
oon,t
of
or
m ag
e
ne
r
a
l
i
s
a
t
i
on“
Al
lme
na
r
emor
t
a
l
”wi
t
houta
ny
mention of truth. It is in contrast not that simple to obtain a generalisation on sentences
s
uc
ha
s“
Snowi
swhi
t
eors
nowi
snotwhi
t
e
”a
nd“
Gr
a
s
si
sg
r
e
e
norgr
a
s
si
snotg
r
e
e
n”
without employing some dummy symbol and the truth predicate in the generalising
s
e
nt
e
nc
e“
Eve
r
ys
e
nt
e
nc
eoft
hef
or
m‘
p or not p’i
st
r
ue
”(
i
bi
d.
)
.I
not
he
rwor
ds
,t
het
r
ut
h
predicate might be a device for abbreviating or expressing the (possible) infinite
conjunctions or disjunctions.27 The truth predicate is thus the grammatical device for
semantic ascent— we can talk about reality by talking about sentences instead.
The
r
ei
sadi
f
f
e
r
e
nc
ebe
t
we
e
ng
e
ne
r
a
l
i
s
i
ng“
Al
lme
na
r
emor
t
a
l
”f
r
om “
Qui
nei
smor
t
a
l
”
and gen
e
r
a
l
i
s
i
ng“
Eve
r
ys
e
nt
e
nc
eoft
hef
or
m‘
p or not p’i
st
r
ue
”f
r
om “
Snowi
swhi
t
eor
Snowi
snotwhi
t
e
”
.I
nt
hef
i
r
s
tc
a
s
ewha
ta
r
ec
ha
ng
e
df
r
om i
ns
t
a
nc
et
oi
ns
t
a
nc
ea
r
ena
me
s
.
I
tc
a
nt
husber
e
a
da
s“
x is mortal for all men x”i
nwhi
c
hx is the sort of things that
‘
Qui
ne
’i
sana
meof
.I
nt
hes
e
c
ondc
a
s
ei
twoul
d,s
i
mi
l
a
r
l
y
,ber
e
a
da
s“
p or not p for all
27
Although Quine does not say this explicitly, it is compatible with his account. Moreover, not every
infinite conjunction is expressible in terms of the truth predicate. This will be briefly discussed in the third
section and more completely in the first section of Chapter Five.
32
things p oft
hes
or
tt
ha
ts
e
nt
e
nc
e
sa
r
ena
me
sof
”
.Buts
e
nt
e
nc
e
sa
r
enotna
me
s
.Soi
ti
s
inevitable that we will need to utilise the truth predicate to allow semantic ascent to talk
about sentences instead of names. There seems to be another option though. It can be
claimed that sentences are the names of propositions. So the target generalising sentence
c
a
nber
e
a
da
s“
p or not p for all propositions p”
.
Apart from all those problems discussed
above, propositions in this particular context do not bring any benefit that the truth
predicate cannot provide (Quine 1970, pp. 11-12). The special function played by the
truth predicate in semantic ascent is unmistakable in the following message:
This ascent to a linguistic plane of reference is only a momentary retreat from the world,
for the utility of the truth predicate is precisely the cancellation of linguistic reference.
The truth predicate is a reminder that, despite a technical ascent to talk of sentences, our
eye is on the world. (ibid., p.12)
ForQui
ne
,
Ta
r
s
ki
’
spa
r
a
di
g
ma
t
i
cs
c
he
maona
l
lT-sentences explicates this characteristic
explicitly. There is a major difference between Tarskian and disquotational T-sentences.
For Tarski, T-s
e
nt
e
nc
e
si
nc
l
udei
n
s
t
a
nc
e
ss
uc
ha
s“
Mor
ni
ngs
t
a
ri
st
hes
t
a
rl
a
s
ts
e
e
ni
nt
he
mor
ni
ng
”i
st
r
uei
fa
ndonl
yi
fVe
nusi
st
hes
t
a
rl
a
s
ts
e
e
ni
nt
hemor
ni
ng
.Fort
her
i
g
ht
hand side sentence is an extensional equivalent of the quoted sentence. But
disquotationalism does not allow instances like this. Henceforth in this chapter and the
following, I will discuss T-sentences, or better, disquotation sentences, in this straight
disquotational sense. For a disquotation sentence—“
Snowi
swhi
t
e
”i
st
r
uei
fa
ndonl
yi
f
snow is white—t
hequot
a
t
i
oni
sana
meofas
e
nt
e
nc
ec
ont
a
i
ni
ngana
me
.Ca
l
l
i
ng“
Sno
w
i
swhi
t
e
”t
r
uei
sme
a
ntt
oc
a
l
ls
nowwhi
t
e
.
Thet
r
ut
hpr
e
di
c
a
t
ei
sade
vi
s
eofdisquotation.
I
n“
No
t
e
sont
heThe
or
yofRe
f
e
r
e
nc
e
”(
Qui
ne1953a) Quine proposes that the theory of
truth should be an extra part parasitic to the language for which the theory is constructed.
33
Although Quine does not say it explicitly, the content of the quoted sentence and the
sentence itself has to be without difference. It is not necessary for us to specify the
(empirical) content of the given sentence as long as we restrict the interpretation or, in
other words, the translation manual of the target language and the disquotational theory,
such that it is the same. On the other hand, in a case when we are affirming an infinite set
of sentences, then talking about reality outright is out of the question. Indeed the truth
predicate has its characteristic as a function of semantic ascent to restore objective
reference. It is because of this characteristic we can affirm an infinite conjunction by
affirming the corresponding generalisation.
A preliminary set-up of a proper formulation
The first question to consider is whether or not the disquotational theory respects Tarski
’
s
distinction between object- and meta-languages. And the answer is no. This, however,
seems to be an advantage rather than a flaw. Many disquotationalists, Halbach, for
instance, take the aforementioned distinction as a problem rather than a requirement of a
s
uc
c
e
s
s
f
ult
he
or
yoft
r
ut
h.
Ta
r
s
ki
’
spr
ooft
ha
tt
hes
e
ma
nt
i
ct
he
or
yofa
nys
e
ma
nt
i
c
a
l
l
y
closed language within which the theory is constructed is destined to be inconsistent, only
shows that the theory of truth of a target language cannot be constructed within the same
language. It does not show that the truth theory has to be constructed in a much stronger
meta-language. To resort to a stronger meta-language is not always achievable—it
depends on how strong the object language is. In some cases, this might cause a problem.
If the disquotational theory of truth is not constructed in a meta-language—that is, a
meta-language relative to an object language, then the relation between the target
34
language, call it the base language, and its theory of truth has to be specified.28 Call the
language that forms the truth theory the truth language. Then the main difference between
the truth language and the base language is that the former has the additional truth
predicate.29 There is of course another constraint that we must impose. The base
language does not contain any vague, ambiguous, indexical, or self-referential
sentences.30 As long as this is a general problem for every deflationary theory, it is not a
pa
r
t
i
c
ul
a
rpr
obl
e
mf
ormyf
or
mu
l
a
t
i
onofQui
ne
’
sdi
s
quotational theory.31 Since I do not
a
doptTa
r
s
ki
’
st
he
or
yofe
xpl
i
c
i
td
e
f
i
ni
t
i
onsoft
r
ut
h,Is
houl
df
ur
t
he
rc
ha
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
et
he
standard di
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
lt
he
or
ya
se
mbr
a
c
i
ngt
hedi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
ls
c
he
ma“
‘
p’i
st
r
uei
fa
nd
only if p”a
sa
na
xi
oms
c
he
ma
,a
n
da
l
li
t
sinstances as axioms. Whether or not there
should be some additional axioms is left to the discussion in the following section. It is
clear then, that the truth predicate has as its syntactical function cancelling the quotation
marks and cashing out exactly the quoted sentence itself.32 Although Quine does not
specifically carry out his account in this way, I think there should be no significant
disputes over this procedure. However, there is at least one other way to formulate the
disquotational theory—namely, a disquotational definition of true sentences.
28
The terminology ‘
base language’i
sbor
r
owe
df
r
omHa
l
ba
c
h
.
Th
i
si
sc
on
s
i
s
t
e
n
twi
t
hQu
i
n
e
’
sownwor
ds
.I
nt
h
es
u
bs
e
c
t
i
ondi
s
c
us
s
i
ngQui
n
e
’
sr
e
a
s
on
i
ngr
e
garding the
di
s
qu
ot
a
t
i
on
a
lc
on
c
e
ptoft
r
u
t
h,Is
h
owe
dt
h
a
tQui
n
e
,i
nh
i
spa
pe
r“
Not
e
sont
h
eTh
e
or
yofRe
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
”
,
considered the theory of truth as an extra part, parasitic on the target language.
30
The main task of this dissertation is to first set up a f
or
mu
l
a
t
i
onofQu
i
n
e
’
sdi
s
qu
ot
a
t
i
on
a
l
i
s
ma
n
dabr
i
e
f
i
n
t
r
odu
c
t
i
onofHor
wi
c
h’
smi
ni
ma
l
i
s
m,a
n
dt
h
e
nt
oe
x
a
mi
n
et
h
e
i
rpe
r
f
or
ma
n
c
ei
na
c
c
ommoda
t
i
n
gs
ome
general issues for deflationary theories. For further discussions of this constraint, please cf. Chapter Five.
31
After all, all deflationists are inclined to see their theories of truth as applicable to sentences of languages
that are free from the threat posed by these problems. Besides, it is a bonus if a theory of truth is capable of
handling these problems nicely. But this alone is not a good reason to prefer one theory over the others.
32
As indicated before, the quoted and disquoted sentences have the same interpretation. Moreover, the
disquotational theory cannot just consist in some axioms instantiating the disquotational schema. This will
be further clarified in the following.
29
35
Disquotational definitions of true sentences
The disquotational schema cannot be turned into a definition simply because objectual
quantifications do not quantify into quotation marks. However, substitution
quantifications can. The problem of utilising a substitution quantification in the
di
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
ls
c
he
ma“
∏p(
‘
p’i
st
r
uei
fa
ndonl
yi
fp)
”
,whe
r
et
hes
y
mbol‘
∏’r
e
pr
e
s
e
nt
s
the universal substitution quantification, is that, normally, a substitution is successful only
when the resultant sentence is true. I should spend some extra space to emphasis this, for
some philosophers seem to underestimate the consequence of utilising substitution
quantifications in explicating truth. Alston, for instance, in A Realist Conception of Truth
uses universal substitution quantification in its traditional sense to formulate a general
account of propositional truth—that is,
∏p(The proposition that p is true iff p) (p. 28).33
Further, he is fully aware of the criticism of utilising it in defining truth. However, he
thinks that this is absolutely fine. The three points he made are as follows: first, universal
substitution quantification is only used but not mentioned in the schema, so it is not clear
that truth must be mentioned to give someone an understanding of this schema; second,
and more fundamental according to Alston, this schema is not meant to be a definition of
truth, and hence there is no danger of the kind whereby a definition is invalidated by
circularity; third, and equally important according to him, this schema does not aim to be
r
e
duc
t
i
ve
,t
or
e
duc
e‘
t
r
ue
’t
ot
e
r
msa
tamor
ef
unda
me
nt
a
ll
e
ve
l(
p.29)
.
Wha
t
Al
s
t
on
misses, it seems, is that whether or not this schema is meant to be a definition of truth is
not so relevant to the circularity criticism. Even if this schema is not a definition, the truth
theory in which it is embedded is nevertheless circular. So one should be more prudent
33
I change the symbol of universal substitution quantifier he used to suit ours.
36
when using substitution quantifications to explain the concept of truth.
But if the main purpose of the truth predicate is to abbreviate infinite conjunctions or
disjunctions, then substitution quantifications can be taken as explicating this particular
feature. In other words, substitution quantifications can be used not to quantify over the
l
e
f
tha
nds
i
deoft
hedi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
ls
c
he
mabutt
her
i
g
htha
nds
i
de
.I
n“
TheDe
f
l
a
t
i
ona
r
y
Conc
e
ptofTr
ut
h”(
Fi
e
l
d1986)
,f
ori
ns
t
a
nc
e
,Fi
e
l
ds
ugg
e
s
t
st
ha
tt
hedi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
t
should utilise substitution quantifications in their formulation of truth to capture the
(possibly infinite) list of true sentences. The explication of the substitution quantifiers,
following this line of reasoning, is as follows:
(
SQ)Thenot
a
t
i
on‘
(
∑p)
(
… p…)
’e
nc
ode
st
hedi
s
j
unc
t
i
onoft
hes
e
nt
e
nc
e
s(
ope
nor
closed)t
ha
tr
e
s
ul
tf
r
om r
e
pl
a
c
i
ngt
hef
r
e
eoc
c
ur
r
e
nc
e
sof‘
p’i
n‘
(
… p…)
’bye;
Thenot
a
t
i
on‘
(
∏p)
(
… p…)
’e
nc
ode
st
hec
onj
unc
t
i
onoft
hes
e
nt
e
nc
e
s(
ope
nor
c
l
os
e
d)t
ha
tr
e
s
ul
tf
r
om r
e
pl
a
c
i
ngt
hef
r
e
eoc
c
ur
r
e
nc
e
sof‘
p’i
n‘
(
… p…)
’bye. (p.
99)
If this is acceptable, then it seems possible to attain a disquotational definition of truth.
I
ns
pi
r
e
dbyFi
e
l
d’
sr
e
a
s
oni
ngons
ubs
t
i
t
ut
i
onqua
nt
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
ons
,Da
vi
di
nCorrespondence
and Disquotation (David 1994) provides a thorough analysis of the possible candidates of
a disquotational definition.
Da
vi
dbe
g
i
nswi
t
ht
hemodi
f
i
e
dve
r
s
i
onofTa
r
s
ki
’
ss
c
he
ma(
T)or
,i
not
he
rwor
ds
,
Convention T—t
ha
ti
s
,‘
p’i
st
r
uei
fa
ndonl
yi
fp—and proposes a simplified definition of
di
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
ls
e
nt
e
nc
et
r
ut
hbyr
e
pl
a
c
i
ngt
he‘
i
fa
ndonl
yi
f
’i
n(
T)byde
f
i
ni
t
i
ons
i
g
n
‘
=DF’
.
Thede
f
i
ni
t
i
oni
sa
sf
ol
l
ows
:
37
(
D*)‘
p’i
sat
r
ues
e
nt
e
nc
e=DF p. (David 1994, p. 64)
This simplified version has quite a few problems, such as the difficulty of forming a
reading of it in terms of ordinary terms. Among the problems, the most important two are
raised by Tarski. (D*) is not a complete definition of truth, according to Tarski, because it
c
ha
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
e
st
hephr
a
s
e‘
t
r
ues
e
nt
e
nc
e
’onl
ywi
t
hi
nc
e
r
t
a
i
nt
y
pe
sofc
ont
e
xt
.
Thei
de
ai
s
that the truth predicate is not just designed to attach to quotations of sentences, but to
attach in some other contexts to a specific sentence picked out by a definite description,
or to sentences with universal or existential generalisations over them. In other words,
this definition cannot account for blind ascription or what Quine calls oblique
generalisations34.
The
s
ei
nc
l
udes
e
nt
e
nc
e
ss
uc
ha
s
:“
Thes
e
nt
e
nc
ewr
i
t
t
e
nbyTa
r
s
kii
sa
t
r
ues
e
n
t
e
nc
e
”
,“
Eve
r
ys
e
nt
e
nc
ei
nTa
r
s
ki
’
sbooki
sat
r
ues
e
nt
e
nc
e
,
”or“
Thes
e
nt
e
nc
e
s
with thef
e
a
t
ur
e‘
p or not p’i
st
r
u
e
”
.(
D*)i
snoteliminative either, according to Tarski,
s
i
nc
eonec
a
nnote
l
i
mi
na
t
et
hephr
a
s
e‘
t
r
ues
e
nt
e
nc
e
’f
r
oma
l
lc
ont
e
xt
si
nwhi
c
hi
toc
c
ur
s
on the basis of the definition alone.35 David argues correctly that the deficiency of (D*) is
that it only provides us conditional information about truth. One knows how to employ
the notion of disquotational truth on every given occasion only if one knows (D*) and all
other relevant facts that help us sort out which sentences are picked out by which
descriptions and which sentences are in the range of which quantificational phrases (p.
72). This is a fatal deficiency for a disquotational definition of truth because it would
render the concept of truth substantive. The definition of disquotational sentence truth,
then, has to employ substitution quantifications and the identity function to resolve these
34
That is, generalisations on sentences with the same feature.
Etchemendy (1988, pp. 53 f.) points out a formal reason for preferring eliminative definitions to
noneliminative ones—ar
e
a
s
onwhi
c
hDa
v
i
dt
h
i
nk
smus
tpl
a
yar
ol
ei
nTa
r
s
k
i
’
sc
on
s
i
de
r
a
t
i
on(
Da
v
i
d1994,
p. 71). The reason is that an eliminative definition of a term would automatically ensure consistency relative
to the theory on the basis of which the term is defined. That is, an eliminative definition cannot lead to
paradoxes, unless they are already derivable without the defined term, because this definition allows us to
do away with the definiendum in favour of its definiens.
35
38
problems. The major definition according to David is the following:
(D) x is a true sentence =DF for some p, x i
si
de
nt
i
c
a
lwi
t
h‘
p’
,and p (p. 74); or
x is a true sentence =DF (
∑p)
(
x =‘
p’&p)(
p.89).
The corresponding generalisation implied by (D) according to David is (GD):
(GD) (x) (x i
sat
r
ues
e
nt
e
nc
e↔ (
∑p)
(
x =‘
p’&p)
)
.(
i
bi
d.
)
David then proves that schema (T) is entailed by (GD).
Do sentence types as the truth bearers create a modal problem?
Aque
s
t
i
onf
ordi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
lt
he
or
i
e
soft
r
ut
hi
nge
ne
r
a
li
st
owha
te
xa
c
t
l
yi
s‘
t
r
ue
’
applicable? Is it sentence types or sentence tokens? Many, if not most, advocates of
disquotationalism incline to choose types over tokens.36 And David thinks that this
causes a modal problem for the instances of the disquotational schema. But I have to
detour a bit because, unlike others, Quine takes sentence tokens as the primary bearers of
truth.
As discussed at the beginning of this section, it is untenable to develop accounts of the
notion of sentential meaning, or of a fact of the matter, without the involvement of any
given linguistic framework. Equally, it is only by reference to visible or audible sentences
that we may comprehensibly say which sentence meaning or proposition we have in mind
when uttering or writing a sentence (Quine 1990b, p. 77). For Quine, the truth vehicles
are eternal sentences—that is, eternalised declarative sentences—in which indexical
terms are supplanted by names, addresses or other identifying particulars as needed, and
the tenses of sentences are dropped by instead using exact time or related predicates such
36
Except Field. Because of his adherence to physicalism, for him it is sentence tokens to be applied by the
truth predicate.
39
a
s‘
e
a
r
l
i
e
rt
ha
n’t
of
i
l
li
n(
p.78)
.Sot
he
s
ee
t
e
r
na
ls
e
nt
ences do not include most utterances
in everyday discourse that are deemed to be either true or false, because in general such
utterances are not thus refined.
The only linguistic expressions which physically exist are those uttered or inscribed.
These utterances or inscriptions are tokens of sentences or other linguistic expressions.
The issue here is whether eternal sentences, as the vehicles of truth, are taken as tokens or
types of sentences. Sentence types are inevitably abstract; if this is not the case there is no
way to explain the possibility of linguistic behaviour in the first place. The abstract
character of sentence types does not suggest that sentence types amount to the sets of
sentence tokens. Otherwise the types of never uttered or inscribed sentence tokens are the
empty sets, and thus these types are identical to each other. Still, the abstract character of
sentence types should not worry us too much, for this is a general feature of every
semantic theory of linguistic behaviour. However, one of the important features of a
sentence type is the sameness in the physical appearances of its tokens, regardless of their
meaning or meanings. For the one and the same physical string of sounds or signs can be
two distinct tokens of different languages, or different evolving stages of one language.
Consequently, according to Quine (1970, p. 14), truth or falsity should be ascribed to
eternalised sentence tokens rather than types of a particular language at a particular time.
But this is not very promising. Sentence tokens have physical existence. It follows that a
s
e
nt
e
nc
ei
sne
ve
rt
r
uei
fi
tha
sne
ve
rbe
e
nut
t
e
r
e
dori
ns
c
r
i
be
d.Fur
t
he
r
,‘
A’a
nd‘
B’mi
g
ht
bebot
hut
t
e
r
e
dori
ns
c
r
i
be
dt
r
ues
e
nt
e
nc
et
oke
ns
,butt
he
i
rc
onj
unc
t
i
on‘
Aa
ndB’mi
g
ht
fail to be at
r
ues
e
nt
e
nc
et
oke
ni
fnoonee
ve
rut
t
e
r
e
dori
ns
c
r
i
be
di
t
.
Wor
s
e
,“
Snowi
s
whi
t
e
”a
ppe
a
r
sont
het
wos
i
de
sofi
t
sdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ons
e
nt
e
nc
e“
‘
Snowi
swhi
t
e
’i
st
r
uei
fa
nd
40
onl
yi
fs
nowi
swhi
t
e
”a
st
wodi
s
t
i
nc
tt
oke
ns
.He
nc
ei
tdoe
snots
e
e
mr
i
g
htt
oc
l
a
i
mthat
we substitute talk of a token for talk of another token used to report or describe reality. So
it is sentence types rather than tokens that are the truth bearers. The eternalisation of
sentence types can also be dropped as long as we preclude vague, ambiguous, indexical,
self-referential, or non-truth-apt sentences as part of the target language. Fixing an
interpretation of the target language can help us to set aside the above-mentioned features
of sentence types.
Recall that according to David, the disquotational schema (T) implied by the
disquotational definition of truth (D) has a serious problem with regards to its modal
status. All the instances of (T) should be necessary.37 But according to the
correspondence theory they are contingent. Consider, for instance:
(
1)‘
Snowi
swhi
t
e
’i
st
r
uei
f
fs
nowi
swhi
t
e
.
(
1)i
snotne
c
e
s
s
a
r
i
l
yt
r
ue
,be
c
a
us
e‘
s
nowi
swhi
t
e
’c
oul
dha
veac
ont
e
ntot
he
rt
ha
nt
heone
t
ha
ts
nowi
swhi
t
e
.I
f‘
s
nowi
swhi
t
e
’ha
di
t
sc
ont
e
nta
ss
nowi
sg
r
e
e
na
nds
nowwe
r
e
indeed green, t
he
nt
hes
e
nt
e
nc
e‘
s
nowi
swhi
t
e
’woul
dha
vebe
e
nt
r
ue
,but(
1)woul
dnot
ha
veb
e
e
nt
r
ue
.Ont
heot
he
rha
n
d
,i
fs
nowwe
r
ewhi
t
e
,j
us
tl
i
kei
ta
c
t
ua
l
l
yi
s
,but‘
s
no
wi
s
whi
t
e
’ha
di
t
sc
ont
e
nta
ss
nowi
sg
r
e
e
n,t
he
n‘
s
nowi
swhi
t
e
’a
nd(
1)woul
dha
vebot
hbe
en
false. The problem is that the disquotational schema cannot get the counterfactuals of its
instances right. The gravity of this objection consists in the fact that the contingency of (1)
indicates the contingency of the schema (T) and thus the contingency of the definition
37
The plausibility of intensional concepts is sensitive to authentic Quinean philosophers. However, even
Qu
i
n
ec
on
s
i
de
r
st
h
er
e
l
a
t
i
onbe
t
we
e
n‘
pi
st
r
u
e
’
,wh
e
r
ep i
st
h
en
a
meof‘
p’
,a
n
d‘
p’s
h
ou
l
dbes
ome
t
h
i
ng
very similar to necessary equivalence. He calls it cognitive equivalence and Field follows him. There is no
n
e
e
dt
oi
n
v
ol
v
eQui
n
e
’
sr
e
j
e
ction of the concept of necessity here. It will suffice to consider the possibility
t
h
a
tt
h
er
e
l
a
t
i
onbe
t
we
e
n‘
pi
st
r
u
e
’a
n
d‘
p’c
ou
l
dbede
r
i
v
e
df
r
ombot
ht
h
eus
u
a
lmoda
la
c
c
ou
n
ta
n
da
separate one that might be favoured by Quine.
41
that implies it. The only possibility of deriving the contingency of the schema (T) from a
necessary truth, according to the correspondence theorist, is to rest on a contingent
premise concerning the contingent relations between sentences and their contents or the
like. The correspondence or representation theory of sentence-truth can provide a good
explanation of the contingency of the schema (T), whereas the disquotational theory has
certain difficulties meeting this challenge.
One way to meet the challenge, according to David, is to contest the assumption that
every genuine definition has to be necessary. Disquotationalists might argue that the
above-mentioned requirement is only plausible when applied to those definitions that
attempt to reveal the nature of their definiendum. Thus this requirement is not applicable
to the disquotational definition of sentence truth. This, however, cannot be the final
answer from the disquotationalist, since she still does not offer any account of the modal
status of her definition. If the corresponding generalisation entailed by (D) is just a
material biconditional, then the disquotationalist owes us an explanation of why (D) is
better or more preferable than the following definition of sentence truth: x is a true
sentence =DF (
∑p)
(
x =‘
p’&p&(
t
he
r
ea
r
epi
g
sors
umme
r
si
nAus
t
r
i
aa
r
emuc
hwa
r
me
r
than in Tucson)) (David 1994, pp. 131-2). The answer is not too difficult to get, of course,
for the truth predicate is a device only for abbreviating relevant lists. But (D) still should
have an interpretation stronger than just coextensionality.
Ac
c
or
di
ngt
oDa
vi
d,t
hes
ol
ut
i
onc
a
nbef
oundi
nMc
Ge
e
’
sVagueness, Truth, and
Paradox. Let M be my idiolect that by definition is the set of sentences that are
intelligible to me. The reformulation of (1), it can be claimed, is necessarily true:
42
(
2)‘
Snowi
swhi
t
e
’i
st
r
uei
nM i
f
fs
nowi
swhi
t
e
.
Da
vi
dt
he
nc
l
a
i
ms
:“
[I]n the language that I actually speak,i
ti
sne
c
e
s
s
a
r
yt
ha
t‘
Snowi
s
whi
t
e
’i
st
r
uei
f
fs
nowi
swhi
t
e
.Butt
hi
sdoe
snote
nt
a
i
lt
ha
tt
he
r
ei
s
n’
ta
l
s
oar
e
a
di
ngof(
1)
unde
rwhi
c
hi
ti
sc
ont
i
nge
nt
”(
Da
vi
d1994,p.
133)
.I
not
he
rwor
ds
,i
fIa
c
t
ua
l
l
ys
pe
a
ka
di
f
f
e
r
e
ntl
a
ng
ua
g
e
,s
a
y
,N,i
tc
ou
l
dbene
c
e
s
s
a
r
yt
ha
t‘
Snowi
swhi
t
e
’i
st
r
uei
nNi
f
fs
now
is green. The contingency of (T) then rests on the contingent fact that I speak the language
that I actually speak.
Da
vi
d’
smos
ti
mpor
t
a
ntc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
mc
a
nbef
oundi
nhi
sa
r
g
ume
nt
,foreign intruder. Here is
the quote from David:
My idiolect, M, contains a large part of English. If any language different from M
c
on
t
a
i
nsas
e
nt
e
n
c
et
h
a
ti
si
de
n
t
i
c
a
lt
o‘
Sn
owi
swhi
t
e
’buti
st
r
u
ei
f
fa
l
lwh
a
l
e
sa
r
ef
i
s
h
,
then this sentence will be a foreign intruder. It will come out true, according to (D), even
though it is untrue. (David 1994, p. 138)
Thef
o
l
l
owi
ngquot
ema
ke
smor
ea
ppa
r
e
ntDa
vi
d’
si
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
onofdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
m.He
claims:
[
I
]
fa
nyl
a
n
gu
a
g
edi
f
f
e
r
e
n
tf
r
omM c
on
t
a
i
n
sas
e
n
t
e
n
c
et
h
a
ti
si
de
n
t
i
c
a
lt
o‘
Sn
owi
sg
r
e
e
n
’
but is true iff all whales are mammals, then this sentence will also be a foreign intruder. It
will come out untrue, according to (D), even though it is true. (ibid., emphasis mine)
Many philosophers agree with David on this point. Brendel, for instance, in Brendel 2000
sides with David and views this as the consequence of failing to respect the distinction
between object- and meta-languages. Following this, a disquotationalist does not have a
c
ount
e
r
pa
r
toft
het
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
onr
e
l
a
t
i
oni
nTa
r
s
ki
’
sConve
nt
i
onT.
There are three important features ofDa
vi
d’
si
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
onofdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
m.Fi
r
s
tof
all, what David means by saying that something in quotation is identical to something
43
disquoted, is that they are identical sentence types onl
y
.Se
c
ond,i
nt
e
r
msofDa
vi
d’
s
understanding of the disquotational schema, the right hand side and the left hand side are
disjointed. Sentences on the right side are those in use to report or describe what happens
in the world, and those quoted on the left hand side are just sentence types relative to a
given language. Third, as a consequence of the first and the second, when the meaning or
content of the left hand side sentence varies from one interpretation to another or from
one language to another, the meaning or content of the right hand side sentence is fixed
because the whole schema or definition is formulated in a particular language. Given
t
he
s
et
hr
e
ef
e
a
t
ur
e
s
,t
hequot
e
ds
e
nt
e
nc
e“
Snowi
sg
r
e
e
n”i
nDa
vi
d’
sa
r
g
ume
nta
c
t
ua
l
l
y
has as its meaning or content, that all whales are mammals. So it is actually true, but turns
out to be untrue according to the disquotational definition of truth.
To make his interpretation of disquotationalism more thorough, David also considers
Fi
e
l
d’
sf
or
mul
a
t
i
onoft
hedi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
lt
he
or
yoft
r
ut
hi
n“
TheDe
f
l
a
t
i
ona
r
yConc
e
pt
i
on
ofTr
u
t
h”(
Fi
e
l
d1986)
.I
nt
ha
ta
r
t
i
c
l
e
,Fi
e
l
ds
ugge
s
t
st
ha
ti
ti
snotf
e
a
s
i
bl
et
oa
ppl
yt
he
disquotational truth predicate to sentences that one does not understand. After all, our
understanding of the disquotational truth of a given sentence is nothing more than the
understanding of that sentence itself. It makes no sense to talk disquotationally about the
truthfulness of a sentence that one does not understand. It follows that the truth predicate
is not applicable to every language, but only my own idiolect. This leads to the revision of
(D):
(DM) x is a true M-sentence =DF (
∑p)
M(x =‘
p’& p)
.(
Da
vi
d1994,p.141)
However, according to David, this newly revised (DM), providing restrictions both on the
range of the variable x a
ndt
hes
u
b
s
t
i
t
ut
i
onc
l
a
s
sof‘
p’
,c
a
nnotove
r
c
omet
hef
or
e
i
g
n
44
intruder problem. The reason is that (DM) characterises a conjunctive predicate—namely,
t
hepr
e
di
c
a
t
e‘
x is true and x is a M-s
e
nt
e
nc
e
’(
p.142)
.
Thi
sc
onj
unc
t
i
vepr
e
di
c
a
t
e
indicates that sentences can be true but not M-sentences, and thus generates the gap
allowing the foreign intruders to sneak in. The only remaining alternative for construing
the disquotationalist position, David suggests, is to interpret the disquotational definition
as defining a simple, non-conjunctive truth predicate for the sentences of my
idiolect—that is, it is a truth predicate that is undefined for sentences outside my idiolect.
The newly revised definition is:
(DM) x is trueM =DF (
∑p)
M(x =‘
p
’&p)
.(
i
bi
d.
)
This should do the trick, because sentences from the intersection of two idiolects, say, M
and N in the case of the foreign intruder problem, turn out to be both trueM and not trueN,
or vice versa, and this is not a problem at all.
David provides several reasons to believe that this newly refined version does no better
than its predecessors. Most seriously, the foreign intruder problem does not go away,
be
c
a
us
ei
ti
ss
t
i
l
lpos
s
i
bl
ef
ort
het
r
ut
hpr
e
di
c
a
t
e‘
t
r
ue
M’
t
oa
c
c
ountf
ors
omeN-sentences,
which are not supposed to be accounted for by it. The only way to circumvent the foreign
intruder problem, David argues, is to exclude potential foreign intruders entering the
overlap area, and do so without invoking any substantive resources such as a
representational theory of content. Again, the main issue in the foreign intruder argument
is that, without the help of any theory of content, there is no decent way to employ the
truth predicate disquotationally. This of course suggests that the disquotationalist cannot
account for the strong modal status of schema (T) and its instances.
45
The interpretation and the resultant criticism of disquotationalism made by David are
incorrect and misleading. Most astonishingly, if the main function of the truth predicate is
to allow semantic ascent—that is, to substitute talk of sentences for talk of reality—then
byDav
i
d’
sde
f
i
ni
t
i
on, whe
nones
ubs
t
i
t
ut
e
st
a
l
kof
,s
a
y
,“
Snowi
swhi
t
e
”f
ort
a
l
kofs
now’
s
be
i
ngwhi
t
e
,onec
a
na
l
wa
y
ss
ubs
t
i
t
ut
et
a
l
koft
hes
e
nt
e
nc
e“
Snowi
swhi
t
e
”t
ha
tha
s
arbitrary c
ont
e
nt
,f
ort
a
l
kofs
now’
sbe
i
ngwhi
t
e
.I
fDa
vi
di
sr
i
g
ht
,t
he
ni
ti
sr
e
a
l
l
ya
mystery why the disquotationalist would have proposed something similar to this in the
very first place. It is not just that on this interpretation the disquotational schema of truth
does not form an explicit definition of truth, but it is a schema for sentence types that
disregard what meaning or content they might have. It is plainly wrong to disjoint the two
sides of the biconditionals. The schema has to be formulated relative to a given language
with a fixed interpretation manual. That is,
(DQ)‘
p’i
st
r
uei
f
fp,
whe
r
et
hef
i
r
s
t‘
p’i
sr
e
pl
a
c
e
dbya
nys
e
nt
e
nc
eoft
heba
s
el
a
ng
ua
g
ea
ndt
hes
e
c
ond
‘
p’byt
hes
a
mes
e
nt
e
nc
ewi
t
ht
hes
a
mei
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
on.
Any sentence that is incidentally identical to a given sentence type does not cause any
problem. Speakers of a given language would take it as a sentence of the language they
speak. If this creates any trouble, then it is an empirical matter and will eventually be
discovered through practical reasoning. Further characterisation of this formulation is best
seen from the context of explaining the major features or functions of this theory, and this
will not be discussed until Chapter Five.
Qui
ne
,i
n“
Tr
ut
ha
ndDi
s
quot
a
t
i
on”(
Qui
ne1976)
,g
i
ve
sust
hee
xa
c
tr
e
a
s
ont
obe
l
i
e
vet
ha
t
(DQ) is the proper formulation of the disquotational schema. In a different kind of logic,
46
Quine explains, in which the work of quantifiers and variables are managed by constants,
the complication resulting from the semantic concepts of reference and satisfaction is
dispensable (p. 309). Since the p
o
i
ntofdi
s
c
us
s
i
ngt
hi
spa
r
tofQui
ne
’
sr
e
a
s
oni
ngi
st
o
emphasise that the mentioned and used sentences in the instances of (DQ) are exactly the
s
a
mes
e
nt
e
nc
ewi
t
ht
hes
a
mei
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
on,Iwi
l
ll
e
a
veoutt
het
e
c
hni
c
a
l
i
t
yofQui
ne
’
s
account. Employing a language with full set-t
he
or
e
t
i
cs
t
r
e
ng
t
ha
ndQui
ne
’
s
predicate-functor logic, which is not stronger than the standard logic of quantification and
identity, we can get a good explication of the disquotational schema.38 According to
Quine, the definition of truth for a given object language is settled in a metalanguage
c
ont
a
i
ni
ngt
hi
sobj
e
c
tl
a
ng
ua
ge
,t
h
ede
f
i
ni
e
ns(
,t
ha
ti
s
,t
hede
s
i
g
na
t
i
ons
i
g
n‘
Δ’
)a
nda
notation for naming the expressions of the object language.39 Pa
r
a
phr
a
s
i
ngTa
r
s
ki
’
st
r
ut
h
schema with a dummys
y
mbol‘
p’a
sf
ol
l
ows
:
(
Ds
)‘
p’i
st
r
uei
fa
ndonl
yi
fp,
and forming a corresponding designation schema also with a dummy symbol as follows:
(
De
s
)Δ(
‘
p’
)=p,
i
ti
sc
l
e
a
rt
ha
t
Δ(
‘
p’
)i
se
qua
lt
ot
hec
l
a
i
mt
ha
t‘
p’i
st
r
uea
c
c
or
di
ngt
o(
Ds
)a
nd(
De
s
),
whe
r
et
hedummys
y
mbol‘
p’r
e
pr
e
s
e
nt
sas
e
nt
e
nc
e
.
Thei
nt
e
r
me
di
a
t
ec
onc
e
pti
nduc
t
i
ve
l
y
defined here is not satisfaction, but designation. This inductive definition is destined to
make every equation of (Des) with any one name replacing the dummy symbol, come out
true. It turns out that truth is a special case of the designation schema, where again the
dummy symbol represents a sentence (pp. 309-310).40
38
According to Quine, th
el
a
n
gu
a
g
ee
mpl
oy
e
di
si
nc
onn
e
c
t
i
onwi
t
hSc
h
önf
i
nk
e
l
’
sc
ombi
n
a
t
or
yl
ogi
c
.
I argued previously that the distinction between an object language and a metalanguage is not essential to
my formulation of disquotationalism. I maintain this distinction here for the sake of convenience only.
40
In Quine 1995, the disquotational character of the truth predicate can be seen as a special case for the
denotation of no-pl
a
c
epr
e
di
c
a
t
e
.“
I
nt
h
ez
e
r
oc
a
s
e
,t
h
e
r
ebe
i
n
gn
ot
h
i
ngf
ort
h
en
o-place predicate to be true
of, de
n
ot
a
t
i
onr
e
du
c
e
ss
i
mpl
yt
ot
r
u
t
hou
t
r
i
gh
t
.
”(
p.65)
39
47
This is quite similar to what Quine claimed in Quine 1953a. In that paper, he claimed that
the theory ofr
e
f
e
r
e
nc
es
houl
dbec
ha
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
e
da
sf
ol
l
ows
:‘
p’i
st
r
ue
-in-L of every p and
not
hi
nge
l
s
e
;‘
p’na
me
s
-in-L p a
n
dnot
hi
nge
l
s
e(
i
nwhi
c
h‘
L’i
snotaf
r
e
eva
r
i
a
bl
er
a
ng
i
ng
ove
ra
l
ll
a
ng
ua
ge
s
)
.
Thedi
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
ebe
t
we
e
nQui
ne
’
snot
i
onofdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
ndTa
r
s
ki
’
si
s
t
ha
t
,i
nQui
ne
’
sa
c
c
ount
,a
f
t
e
rt
hel
a
s
tme
t
a
l
i
ng
ui
s
t
i
cs
i
g
nha
sbe
e
ndi
s
pos
e
dof
,j
us
tt
he
formula of the object language quoted in the disquotational truth schema (or the
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
onone
)r
e
ma
i
ns
.I
nTa
r
s
ki
’
sa
c
c
ount
,wha
tr
e
ma
i
nsi
se
qui
va
l
e
ntto the quoted
formula.41 Thi
ss
ug
ge
s
t
st
ha
tt
hes
t
r
onge
rdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
lpr
ope
r
t
yunde
rQui
ne
’
sa
c
c
ount
is not preserved under the recursive definition of satisfaction. We should also consider
whether or not any version of designation deserves that name, insofar as it fulfils (Des).
For instance, unlike the designation accounta
tha
ndi
nwhi
c
hΔ(
‘
S’
)i
sunwoundi
nt
oS,
a
not
he
ra
c
c
ountunwi
ndsΔ(
‘
S’
)i
n
t
oS1 because S and S1 happen to be the same object,
the same function. The virtue of the disquotational account, Quine argues, is that it
e
xa
c
t
l
yunwi
ndsΔ(
‘
S’
)i
nt
oSa
ndΔ(
‘
S1 ’
)i
nt
oS1 respectively.42 Since Quine is only
i
nt
e
r
e
s
t
e
di
na
c
c
ount
i
ngf
ort
het
r
u
t
hofi
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
e
dl
a
ng
ua
g
e
s
,t
hequot
e
ds
e
nt
e
nc
e
s‘
S’
a
nd‘
S1’a
ndt
hos
edi
s
quot
e
da
r
ee
xa
c
t
l
yt
hes
a
mes
e
nt
e
nc
e
swi
t
ht
hes
a
mei
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
on.
Again, what are unwound are not sentence tokens but sentence types. Otherwise, the
whole point of disquotation is missed.
41
Th
ewor
d“
di
s
qu
ot
a
t
i
on
”h
e
r
ei
son
l
yme
a
n
tt
obet
h
epr
oc
e
du
r
eofr
e
mov
i
ngt
h
equ
ot
a
t
i
onma
r
k
si
nt
h
e
T-s
c
h
e
maa
n
dt
h
edi
s
qu
ot
a
t
i
ona
ls
c
h
e
ma
.Howe
v
e
r
,i
ti
sa
r
g
ua
bl
ewh
e
t
h
e
rorn
otTa
r
s
k
i
’
st
he
or
yi
swith the
feature of disquotationalism. For instance, Devitt, Romanos and many others think it is.
42
The usual way to define logical particles depends on truth and falsity. For instance, negation in the
logical sense can be defined in terms of two conditionals: <p>i
st
r
u
e→ <not p> is false; <p>i
sf
a
l
s
e→
<not p>i
st
r
u
t
h(
Fol
l
owi
ngHor
wi
c
h
,wedi
s
t
i
ngu
i
s
h‘
not’f
r
om‘
n
ot
’
,whi
c
hi
si
ni
t
sor
di
na
r
ys
e
ns
e
.
)I
t
seems that, unless there is another method to avoid this, logical particles might cause some trouble of
circularity. Nevertheless, Paul Horwich considers a way out in Truth. For instance, negation can be defined
not in terms of a truth table, but in terms of a set of theses: p → not not p; not p → not p; p or not p.
48
(D), (DM) and (DM) are of course not in harmony with my formulation of the
disquotational theory. Besides mine, there are two objections made by Field and Halbach.
Fi
e
l
di
nFi
e
l
d1994wa
r
nsust
ha
t
,i
ft
hes
or
tofi
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
onsl
i
keDa
vi
d’
sha
sge
ne
r
a
l
applicability, then the truth predicate no longer serves the purpose of abbreviating infinite
conjunctions or disjunctions, or expressing blind ascription. Halbach also makes a correct
observation in Halbach 1999 and Halbach 2000 on this sort of interpretation, which he
c
a
l
l
sLe
vy
’
sa
r
g
ume
nt
.
Tha
ti
s
,t
he
r
ea
r
enone
c
e
s
s
a
r
yt
r
ut
hsi
nt
e
r
msofs
uc
ha
n
i
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
on.“
Anys
e
nt
e
nc
e
,
”hec
ont
i
nue
st
oa
r
g
uei
nHa
l
ba
c
h2001,“
e
ve
nat
a
ut
ol
ogy
,
could have meant something else and thus be false; therefore no sentence is necessarily
t
r
ue
.
”
The
r
ei
sa
not
he
rpr
obl
e
mf
orDa
vi
d’
s(
D)
,(
DM)a
nd(
DM). That is, do we have
substitution quantifications in ordinary languages? Field, for instance, suggests in Field
1986 as follows:
[
I
]
f‘
t
r
u
e
’i
ss
i
mpl
yade
v
i
c
eofi
n
f
i
n
i
t
ec
on
j
u
n
c
t
i
on
,t
h
e
nweh
a
v
eas
e
r
i
ou
sn
e
e
df
ora
predicate of truth only because (or, only if)wedon
’
th
a
v
eas
u
bs
t
i
t
u
t
i
onqu
a
n
t
i
f
i
e
ri
n
English.43 (p. 58)
Grover, Camp, and Belnap might disagree with this assumption, claiming that the
substitution quantifier in English is actually expressed by the truth predicate (serving as a
‘
pr
os
e
n
t
e
nc
e
’a
c
c
or
di
ngt
ot
he
i
rt
e
r
mi
nol
ogy
)
.Da
vi
d(
1994)c
l
a
i
mst
ha
twec
a
nha
vea
weaker or a stronger position toward this question. The weaker position is that, although
the formulation of the disquotational definition of truth is not entirely based on ordinary
language, the definition plus the metalinguistic explication of substitution quantifiers
43
Field mentions this in his footnote number 4. However, there are some different opinions regarding the
assumption that the sole purpose of the truth predicate is a device of infinite conjunctions or
disjunctions—f
ori
n
s
t
a
n
c
e
,Gupt
ai
n“
Mi
n
i
ma
l
i
s
m”
.
49
makes it clear enough to understand the disquotational definition of truth. Besides, if
there is a device in an ordinary language that can abbreviate the infinite disjunctions or
conjunctions, the truth predicate is dispensable anyway. The reason why the truth
predicate still has a role is the very reason why we cannot give an account of truth purely
in terms of ordinary terms. The stronger position, on the other hand, is that the
metalinguistic explication of substitution quantifications can be managed to become part
of our ordinary language. That is, the truth predicate is dispensable as far as we can in
principle learn substitution quantifications to abbreviate the infinite list (p. 109). The
weaker position, it seems, is more comprehensible than the stronger one since the
intuitive understanding of the truth predicate is clearer than the understanding of
substitution quantifications. This is because there seems to be no intuitive way that we
can formulate substitution quantifications without thedummys
y
mbol‘
p’
.
Toa
s
s
umet
ha
t
the metalinguistic explication of substitution quantifications is learnable in principle and
thus that the truth predicate can be replaced by substitution quantifications in an ordinary
language seem less promising.44
Moreover, Quine does not accept substitution quantification. Since there is no restriction
on the grammatical category of the admissible substituends, the substituted expressions
are not just for sentences but for any symbol or sequence of symbols in a sentence as well.
In Philosophy of Logic, Quine makes the distinction between objectual quantification and
substitution quantification. In standard logic, names are redundant—t
ha
ti
s
,‘
Fa’c
a
n
44
The issue on which David concentrates is this: How can the disquotational definition of truth be
comprehensible in ordinary terms? What concerns me here is the role played by substitution quantifications
in the explication of the disquotational theory of truth. On this particular concern, it see
mst
h
a
tDa
v
i
d’
s
viewpoint also helps make some clarification.
50
45
a
l
wa
y
sbepa
r
a
phr
a
s
e
di
nt
o‘
(
x)(Ax & Fx)
’
.
So the singular terms contained in
objectual quantification are variables only. It is another story for substitution
quantification. Names are essential to this non-standard quantification. Consequently, it is
deviant when the domain of discourse is rich. For, there are nameless things in the
discourse even if we grant it an infinitude of names (p. 92). Furthermore, according to
Quine, substitution quantification for sentences is defined in terms of the
interchangeability of true substituted expressions, as well as the interchangeability of
false expressions, in all contexts salva veritate. Therefore, it is circular to employ
substitution quantification in formulating an explicit disquotational definition of truth. For
these two reasons, it is not possible for Quine to accept Davi
d’
sva
r
i
ousde
f
i
ni
t
i
ons
.
Ac
c
or
di
ngt
oGupt
a(
1993)Da
vi
d
’
sde
f
i
ni
t
i
onsa
r
ea
l
s
onotr
i
g
htbe
c
a
us
e“
Thes
e
nt
e
nc
e
wi
t
ht
hef
or
m‘
φor not φ’i
st
r
ue
”a
ndt
hei
nf
i
ni
t
ec
onj
unc
t
i
oni
te
xpr
e
s
s
e
sa
r
enots
e
n
s
e
equivalence. We do not need to know the meaning of every disjunct to know that the
s
e
nt
e
nc
ewi
t
ht
hef
or
m‘
φor not φ’i
st
r
ue
.Ne
ve
r
t
he
l
e
s
st
hi
ss
e
e
mst
obeapr
obl
e
mf
o
rt
he
disquotational theories of truth in general. It raises two questions: 1) What does it mean to
say that the truth predicate expresses the infinite conjunctions and disjunctions in certain
cases? 2) How much deductive power is desirable according to the disquotational theory?
3. Conservativeness and Substantiveness
If the disquotational theory consists only of the disquotational schema, (DQ), as axiom
schema and all of its instances as axioms, it will be too weak to account for all the facts
with regard to the concept of truth of the target language. For instance, it implies all the
Orbe
t
t
e
r
,wec
a
nu
s
e‘
(
x) (Ax)
’a
n
d‘
(
x)( y)(Ax & Ay & (x y)
)
’t
og
e
t
h
e
rt
oi
n
di
c
a
t
et
ha
tpr
e
di
c
a
t
eAi
s
only true of one thing (Quine 1970, p.25).
45
51
T-s
e
nt
e
nc
e
soft
hei
ns
t
a
nc
e
sof“
Thes
e
nt
e
nc
ewi
t
ht
hef
or
m‘
p or not p’i
st
r
ue
”butnot
this very sentence itself. Moreover, all the instances of the disquotational schema are held,
but not the schema itself. So, it seems, the theory of truth needs to include something else.
The reason I choose to focus on the issue of the conservativeness of the disquotational
theories, is to show that loosening my previous formulation of disquotationalism to
include additional axioms for the purpose of enforcing deductive power, is a risky matter.
But first let us turn to question one given at the end of the last section. Namely, what does
it mean for a disquotationalist to say that the truth predicate helps express infinite
conjunctions or disjunctions in the cases of blind ascriptions or sentences with the same
feature, s
uc
ha
s“
Eve
r
ys
e
nt
e
nc
ewi
t
ht
hef
or
m‘
p or not p’i
st
r
ue
”
?
Expressibility
First of all, not every infinite conjunction or disjunction is expressible with the help of the
truth predicate. For instance, the infinite conjunction of sentences that have less than ten
words is not expressible in terms of the truth predicate. Although it is most likely false,
we can hardly find any reason to see how the truth predicate helps express this
generalisation. The reason is clear. The instances of it are not derivable from it. So we
may say that the truth predicate only helps express an oblique generalisation over
sentences with the same syntactic feature. Therefore, the truth predicate does not express
all infinite conjunctions or disjunctions.
However, an infinite conjunction of sentences with the same syntactic feature is not
necessarily expressible in terms of the truth predicate. All sentences, for instance, with the
52
f
e
a
t
ur
e‘
i
fp or not p,t
he
np’t
og
e
t
he
rf
or
ma
ni
nf
i
ni
t
ec
onj
unc
t
i
onnote
xpr
e
s
s
i
bl
ei
nt
e
r
ms
of the truth predicate, for the truth-value of every instance of it depends on the truth-value
of‘
p’
.I
tf
ol
l
owst
ha
ts
omec
ont
r
a
di
c
t
or
yi
ns
t
a
nc
e
ss
uc
ha
s“
I
fs
nowi
swhi
t
eors
nowi
s
notwhi
t
e
,t
he
ns
nowi
swhi
t
e
”a
nd“
I
fs
nowi
snotwhi
t
eors
nowi
swhi
t
e
, then snow is
notwhi
t
e
”a
r
ede
r
i
va
bl
e
.
The
r
e
f
or
e
,t
hee
xpr
e
s
s
i
bi
l
i
t
yofi
nf
i
ni
t
ec
onj
unc
t
i
onsor
disjunctions in terms of the truth predicate is not subject to the condition of their having
the same syntactic feature only, but is also subject to the condition of their instances
having consistent truth-value.46 But this second condition is not obtainable because if
there is not sufficient deductive power, then an axiomatic disquotational theory in which
only instances of the disquotational schema are axioms does not even fix the extension of
the truth predicate. Halbach (1999) correctly observes that, if a model-theoretic definition
oft
r
ut
hi
spr
e
s
uppos
e
d,t
hef
or
mu
l
a“
(
x) (
φ(
x)
→Tx)
”i
nde
e
de
xpr
e
s
s
e
st
hei
nf
i
ni
t
e
conjunction over a set of sentences specifiedbyt
hef
unc
t
i
on‘
φ’
.
Tha
ti
s
,“
(
x)(
φ(
x)
→Tx)
”
hol
dsi
namode
li
fa
ndonl
yi
ft
hei
nf
i
ni
t
ec
onj
unc
t
i
on‘
φ(
x)
’hol
dsi
nt
hes
a
memode
l
(Halbach 1999, p. 7). Without doubt, this solution is not available for the
disquotationalist.
Another option suggested by Halbach is provability. The second condition to be satisfied
can be thus characterised as the following: an infinite conjunction or disjunction is
expressible in terms of the truth predicate if and only if the valid or provable translation
of it in the truth-theoretic language is provable (Halbach, 1999, p. 9). To be precise,
suppose the target language is a first-order language L0 plus a recursively enumerable
theory T0 that is formulated in classical logic and is with some deductive power not
46
In Chapter Five, what sorts of oblique generalisations are expressible in terms of the truth predicate is
i
mpor
t
a
n
tt
omya
r
g
ume
n
tbywhi
c
hGu
pt
a
’
ss
e
n
s
ee
qu
i
v
a
l
e
n
c
ec
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
mi
sr
e
j
e
c
t
e
d.
53
exceeding first-order logic. And further suppose a language L1 as L0 together with the
disquotational truth predicate, and a disquotational theory of truth T1 as T0 along with the
additional T-sentences of L0 as axioms. Hence, an infinite conjunction can be expressed in
terms of the truth predicate in T1 if and only if it can be proved in T0. If an infinite
c
onj
unc
t
i
on“
(
x) (
φ(
x)
)
”c
a
nbepr
ove
di
nT0, then (x) (
φ(
x)
→Tx) can be proved in T1.47
But does saying that an infinite conjunction is provable by all its conjuncts and some
inferential rules in T0 not amount to saying that the corresponding generalising sentence is
derivable from all its instances and some inferential rules in T1? This is untenable because
the disquotational theory T1 consisting of T-sentences as axioms and T0 does not have the
deductive power exceeding first-order logic. Tarski (1956b) is probably the first one who
notices this. Without the help of some infinitary rule such as ω-rule, the provability of
infinite conjunctions in T0 or the derivability of the generalising sentences in T1 is out of
our reach. Moreover, it is not sure at this stage that T1 has the capacity to prove that any
sentence is not true if its negation is true, or that all propositional tautologies are true. And
any infinite conjunction or disjunction can only be expressed by attaching the truth
pr
e
di
c
a
t
et
ot
hec
or
r
e
s
pondi
ngg
e
ne
r
a
l
i
s
i
ngs
e
nt
e
nc
e
.I
not
he
rwor
ds
,“
a
l
ls
e
nt
e
nc
e
swi
t
h
t
hes
y
nt
a
c
t
i
cf
e
a
t
ur
e‘
pa
ndnotp’a
r
et
r
ue
,
”f
ori
ns
t
a
nc
e
,i
sa
l
s
oal
e
g
i
t
i
ma
t
ege
ne
r
a
l
i
s
i
ng
s
e
nt
e
nc
ef
ort
hei
nf
i
ni
t
ec
onj
unc
t
i
on“
(
x) (
φ(
x)
)
”
.
The
s
ec
ons
e
que
nc
e
si
mme
di
a
t
e
l
yf
ol
l
ow
when it is shown that T1 does not fix the extension of the truth predicate.
But this seems to be rather unbearable. With what sort of additional apparatus can
disquotational theories similar to T1 make this disadvantage disappear? This leads us to
one of the main topics of this section, namely, conservativeness.
47
Halbach (1999) offers a detailed argument showing t
h
a
t(
φ(
x)
→Tx) is not provable in T1.
54
Conservativeness
Shapiro (1998) and several others make a forcible attack on disquotationalism, claiming
that it will be inevitable for disquotationalism to imply some substantive consequences. It
will be an easy job to prove this if disquotationalists concede to the constraint that all
disquotational theories have to be conservative over logic. For a trivial argument offered
by Halbach (2001) simply showst
ha
ti
npur
ei
de
nt
i
t
yl
og
i
c
,whe
r
e“
(
x) (x = x)
”i
s
pr
ova
bl
ea
nd“
(
x) (x ≠x)
”i
sr
e
f
ut
a
bl
e
,“
(
x) (x = x)≠(
x) (x ≠x)
”a
nd“
xy(x ≠y)
”a
r
e
consequences of T1.48 Claiming that the above argument employs the identity axioms to
which the truth predicate is already applied is not a shelter for disquotationalists because
this makes every newly introduced symbol conservative trivially. No rules or axioms of
logic can in principle be extended to the expanded language with any new symbol (p.
179). So, standard disquotational theories such as T1 imply that there are at least two
objects. But this is not surprising, for standard disquotational theories already commit to
the abstract objects—namely, sentence types—according to my analysis in the last section.
At any rate, conservativeness over logic is a formidable Lorelei for disquotationalists. In
the following, I turn to another kind of conservativeness, conservativeness over the base
theory formulated by the target language.
If the base theory is Peano arithmetic, the conservativeness of standard disquotational
theories is quite straightforward according to Halbach (2001). The base theory together
with T-sentences does not license the derivation of any arithmetical sentence that is not
provable in Peano arithmetic. Further, if rules of inference and axioms of first-order
48
T1 is of course presupposed to have the deductive power of pure identity logic here.
55
propositional logic are allowed to apply to sentences with the truth predicate, the standard
disquotational theory T1 is capable of fixing the extension of the truth predicate. It can
also be proved that a sentence is not true if its negation is true, and that a sentence with
the syntactic form of any propositional tautology is true. Here is one demonstration.
For a given T-sentence,
(1) Tx ↔ x, where x is the name of x,
giving that the rule of modus tollens in propositional logic be applicable to sentences with
the truth predicate, we can get
(2) Tx ↔ x
f
r
om‘
x’
.
Re
pl
a
c
e‘
x’a
nd‘
x’i
n(
1)by‘
x’a
nd‘
x’
,wege
t
(3) Tx ↔ x.
From (2) and (3), (4) follows:
(4) Tx ↔ Tx.
So any given sentence is not true as long as its negation is true.
Giving (5): Tx ↔ Tx,
(6) Tx Tx
follows. And (7) can be derived from (1), (2), and (6):
(7) x x.
Giving the T-sentence of (7), we get
(8) T x x ↔ x x.
From (7) and (8):
(9) T x x
follows. So any sentence with the syntactic form of any propositional tautology can be
56
proved to be true in a similar fashion. Any sentence, it was proved, cannot be both true
and not true.49 However, what can be proved are sentences with some tautological
syntactic feature but not the corresponding generalisation because of the lack of an
infinitary rule of inference. So the applicability of all inferential rules of first order logic
to disquotation sentences is the default position of the disquotational theory regarding
(DQ).50 Furthermore, the disquotational theory of truth is not just an axiomatisation of
truth but a theory about the axiomatisation of truth within which all uses of the truth
predicate can be explained by its axioms and other truth-free explanatory resources.51
As stated previously, not all generalisations should be proved by the theory of truth. For
s
ome
,“
a
l
lt
hec
ons
e
que
nc
e
soft
hege
ne
r
a
lt
he
or
yofr
e
l
a
t
i
vi
t
ya
r
et
r
ue
”i
sa
mongt
he
m.
Most importantly, Halbach (2001) correctly makes the claim that some mathematical
generalisations should be left not proved by the theory of truth. For instance, if all
mathematical generalisations are provable in terms of the disquotational theory and the
base theory of Peano arithmetic, substantive consequences such as the consistency of ZF
plus the continuum hypothesis follow.
For most disquotationalist accounts by which the disquotational theory of truth is
characterised as consisting of T-sentences of the target language as axioms and the
disquotational schema as an axiom schema only, the generalisations of different sets of
sentences with the same syntactic feature is to play a role of reasoning similar to the role
49
Fixing the extension of the disquotational truth predicate seems to be extremely important. Otherwise the
disquotational theory fulfils the material adequacy condition trivially by implying all T-sentences of the
target language sentences but not the NT-s
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
s“
Tx ↔ x”
.
50
Th
i
si
sa
l
s
oHor
wi
c
h’
sde
f
a
u
l
tpos
i
t
i
on
.
51
In Horwich 1998b, Horwich emphasises the methodological point that not all the facts regarding truth
are about truth only. Therefore, it is perfectly proper to make use of theories about those matters to explain
these sorts of facts (p. 7). I am with Horwich on this point.
57
played by infinite conjunctions or disjunctions. Whether or not these conjunctions or
disjunctions are derivable from the truth theory and other suitable explanatory resources
is not that important.52 Equa
l
l
y
,whe
t
he
rornot“
Al
ls
e
nt
e
nc
e
swi
t
ht
hef
or
m‘
p or not p’
a
r
et
r
ue
,
”f
ori
ns
t
a
nc
e
,i
sde
r
i
va
bl
ef
rom all its instances is less important. What matters is
wha
ts
or
tofs
e
nt
e
nc
e
st
he
yi
mpl
y
;i
nt
hec
a
s
eof“
Al
ls
e
nt
e
nc
e
swi
t
ht
hef
or
m‘
p or not p’
a
r
et
r
ue
,
”wha
ti
si
mpor
t
a
nti
st
ha
ti
ti
mp
l
i
e
sa
l
lt
hes
e
nt
e
nc
e
s“
or not ,
”whe
r
e‘
’
stands for a sentence of the target language. If we are inclined to strengthen our
disquotational theory, it seems quite natural to add some further inductive axioms similar
t
ot
hos
er
e
s
ul
t
i
ngf
r
omt
hea
xi
oma
t
i
s
a
t
i
onofTa
r
s
ki
’
sr
e
c
ur
s
i
vede
f
i
ni
t
i
onofs
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
on.
For instance, Halbach claims the following to be one of the inductive axioms: For all
closed terms t: Pt is true if and only if Pval(t) (for all one-predicate symbols P and
similarly for predicate symbols with more places; val(t) of a term is defined in terms of a
reference scheme).53 The exact content of these new axioms depends on the base theory
formulated in terms of the target language.
Halbach (2001) and Field (1999) are two advocates of this expansion of the
disquotational theory of truth. They both try to defend disquotationalism against the
attack issued by Shapiro (1998) that the disquotational theories of truth embracing the
above-mentioned inductive axioms are not conservative over the base theory. Halbach
(2001) concludes,
If the deflationist understands his claim that truth is not a substantial notion as implying
that his truth theory has no substantial consequences, he commits a mistake. (p. 188)
[The deflationist] claimed only that truth serves the purpose of generalisation, and he
does well to parse this purpose in a strong way such that his truth theory also proves
52
Please cf. the second section of Chapter Five for a more elaborate discussion.
The last clause in the brackets is a paraphrase. Halbach chooses Peano arithmetic as the base theory so
that val(t) of a term is defined within it.
53
58
c
e
r
t
a
i
ng
e
n
e
r
a
l
i
s
a
t
i
on
s
.
Th
a
ti
ti
n
c
i
de
n
t
a
l
l
ya
l
s
oy
i
e
l
dsc
e
r
t
a
i
n‘
s
u
bs
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
’c
ons
e
qu
e
n
c
e
s
is merely a secondary effect. (p. 189)
Butbec
a
r
e
f
ul
,c
e
r
t
a
i
n‘
s
ubs
t
a
nt
i
a
l
’c
ons
e
que
nc
e
smight be very unwelcome. In the
following I would like to show two reasons for not embracing the additional inductive
axioms of reference and satisfaction. One reason relates to the need for an accurate
f
or
mul
a
t
i
onofQui
ne
’
sdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
m.
Theot
he
rrelates to disquotationalism in
general.
It was repeatedly emphasised in the first two sections that Quine could hardly agree with
t
hee
xpl
a
na
t
or
yor
de
rofTa
r
s
ki
’
ss
e
ma
nt
i
ct
he
or
yoft
r
ut
h.Mor
epr
e
c
i
s
e
l
y
,a
nyg
i
ve
n
reference scheme is acceptable only if it can preserve the distribution of truth. Hence, the
notion of truth is explanatorily more basic to the notion of reference. Additionally,
Horwich dissents from the idea of bringing inductive axioms of reference and satisfaction
into a deflationary theory of truth, for the following reasons.54 First, he thinks that only
the axiom schema, but not inductive axioms, of reference and satisfaction can make
sense—that is, they have to be infinite too; second, many kinds of propositions or
sentences cannot have their truth explained on the basis of the referents of their parts—for
instance, statements of probability or counterfactual conditionals; and most importantly to
his minimalism, propositions constructed from the primitive concepts that are not
expressed in our language are not explainable (Horwich 1998b, pp. 136-137).
The second reason is that my objective regarding the issue of conservativeness and
s
ubs
t
a
nt
i
ve
ne
s
si
sdi
f
f
e
r
e
ntf
r
om Fi
e
l
d’
sa
ndHa
l
ba
c
h’
s
.Fi
e
l
dt
r
i
e
st
of
i
nda
na
c
c
e
pt
a
b
l
e
54
Th
e
s
er
e
a
s
on
sa
c
t
u
a
l
l
yc
omef
r
omHor
wi
c
h’
sdi
s
a
ppr
ov
a
loft
r
u
t
hc
on
ditional semantics, but it also
seems suitable to see them as objections to bringing inductive axioms of reference and satisfaction into the
disquotational account of truth.
59
way to embrace the inductive axioms without being accused of inflating the
disquotational theory of truth. Halbach, on the other hand, handsomely admits that the
revised version does have some substantial consequences. But this does not amount to an
inflation of disquotationalism for him. Field and Halbach use Peano arithmetic as the base
theory in both of their arguments, for the disquotational theory of truth is destined to fail
if it cannot survive in giving an explanation of the truths of mathematical theories. This is
fine, but my interests are different. I would like to show that embracing the inductive
axioms might cause some problems in accounting for the truths of natural languages.55
I
ne
vi
t
a
bl
yi
nHa
l
ba
c
ha
ndFi
e
l
d’
sr
e
a
s
oni
ng
,ar
e
f
e
r
e
nc
es
c
he
mei
si
nvol
ve
di
ne
xplaining
the truths of any given natural language. Even if the inductive axioms do not cause any
inflation, introducing a reference scheme into the account might. Take English as the
target language, and consider any given belief system formulated in English that is
comprehensive enough to include as many as empirical truths as the base theory. Then the
reference scheme introduced is not supposed to have any empirical, semantical, and
ontological features to lend any substantive flavour to the disquotational theory of truth.
Fori
ns
t
a
nc
e
,t
hi
sba
s
et
he
or
ys
houl
di
nc
l
udes
omee
mpt
yna
me
ss
uc
ha
s‘
t
heKi
ngof
France Louis XVIII’or‘
phl
og
i
s
t
o
n’
.
Tos
pa
r
edi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
munne
c
e
s
s
a
r
yi
nf
l
a
t
i
on,
substantive theories of reference such as a causal theory have to give way to some
de
f
l
a
t
i
ona
r
yr
e
f
e
r
e
nc
et
he
or
i
e
s
.
Amongt
he
m,
Ta
r
s
ki
’
si
snowor
s
et
ha
na
nyot
he
r
s
.
Th
e
r
e
are three ways to explain empty names. First, there are no empty names in the reference
scheme. That is, the reference scheme does not enlighten us with regard to empty names.
55
Halbach admits in Halbach 2001 that he is taking the advantage of employing Peano arithmetic as the
base theory by not being in need of providing any consideration with regard to a selection of the theory of
reference.
60
They then disappear from the list of T-sentences. This is untenable because empty names
appear essentially in many sentences. Second, empty names behave just like others, as if
they refer to something—t
ha
ti
s
,‘
t
he King of France Louis XVIII’
,f
ori
ns
t
a
nc
e
,
vacuously refers to the King of France Louis XVIII.56 This is also not practical because
any name behaving in this way cannot be used in the inductive axioms. Again, the
corresponding T-sentences are not implied by this reference scheme and the inductive
axioms. Finally, empty names refer to nothing.57 He
nc
e“
TheKi
ngofFr
a
nc
eLoui
s
XVIII i
sba
l
d”i
spr
e
-determined to be satisfied by no sequences of objects. But this does
notg
i
veust
hene
e
de
dpi
e
c
eofi
nf
or
ma
t
i
ont
oa
l
l
owust
ode
t
e
r
mi
newhe
t
he
rornot“
The
King of France Louis XVIII is bald or the King of France Louis XVIII i
snotba
l
d”i
sa
n
instance of the infinite conjunc
t
i
one
xpr
e
s
s
e
dby“
Al
ls
e
nt
e
nc
e
swi
t
ht
hef
or
m‘
p or not p’
a
r
et
r
ue
.
”I
fnos
e
que
nc
e
sofobj
e
c
t
ss
a
t
i
s
f
y“
TheKi
ngofFr
a
nc
eLoui
sXVIII i
sba
l
d”
pur
e
l
ybe
c
a
us
e‘
t
heKi
ngofFr
a
nc
eLoui
sXVIII’i
sa
ne
mpt
yna
me
,t
he
n“
TheKi
ngof
France Louis XVIII i
snotba
l
d”i
sa
l
s
onots
a
t
i
s
f
i
e
dbya
nys
e
que
nc
eofobj
e
c
t
s
.‘
The
King of France Louis XVIII’i
sj
us
tadr
a
ma
t
i
cc
a
s
e
.Ma
nyt
he
or
e
t
i
c
a
lt
e
r
msf
a
c
eas
i
mi
l
a
r
problem. And these problems of reference should not be the business of any
disquotational theory of truth in the very first place. So committing to the inductive
axioms causes serious problems to which the standard disquotational theories are not
committed. This will be further clarified in the following chapter.
Final Remarks
Asar
e
s
ul
t
,Qui
ne
’
sdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
mi
sbe
t
t
e
rof
fnott
oe
mbr
a
c
et
hei
nduc
t
i
vea
xi
omsof
56
Cf
.t
h
ef
ol
l
owi
n
gc
h
a
pt
e
r
:“
I
n
s
c
r
u
t
a
bi
l
i
t
yofRe
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
,Ont
ol
og
i
c
a
lRe
l
a
t
i
v
i
t
ya
n
daDi
s
qu
ot
a
t
i
on
a
l
Scheme of Refere
n
c
e
”
.
57
If singular terms are paraphrased as one-place predicates, it is important not to consider them to be true
of the class of all things that it is true of. Otherwise empty names fallaciously turn out to be coextensive.
61
r
e
f
e
r
e
nc
ea
nds
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
on.Howe
ve
r
,Qui
ne
’
sdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
lt
he
or
yi
snotj
us
ta
bouta
theory of truth but also about a t
he
or
yofr
e
f
e
r
e
nc
ei
nge
ne
r
a
l
.‘
Se
ma
nt
i
ca
s
c
e
nt
’a
l
s
o
a
ppl
i
e
st
os
i
ng
ul
a
rt
e
r
ms
,g
e
ne
r
a
lt
e
r
ms
,a
ndpr
e
di
c
a
t
e
s
.He
nc
et
hee
xpl
i
c
a
t
i
onofQui
n
e
’
s
di
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
mi
snotc
ompl
e
t
eunt
i
lQui
ne
’
st
he
or
yofr
e
f
e
r
e
nc
ei
ss
ubj
e
c
t
e
dt
o
thorough investigation.
62
Chapter III
Inscrutability of Reference, Ontological Relativity and a
Disquotational Schema of Reference
The central issue of this chapter is the role played by a disquotational schema of reference
i
nQui
n
e
’
sont
ol
og
i
c
a
lt
he
or
y
.I
nt
e
r
msof the analysis of this issue, it is also important to
see whether or not we should incorporate inductive axioms of reference and satisfaction
i
nt
ot
hedi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
lt
h
e
or
yoft
r
ut
h.
Al
t
houg
hImus
ti
ne
vi
t
a
bl
ydi
s
c
us
sQui
ne
’
s
ontological theory, it is not my intention to evaluate its significance and plausibility.1 On
the contrary, by concentrating on one important argument against the thesis of ontological
relativity, my analysis will illustrate the essential nature of a disquotational schema of
reference wi
t
hi
nQui
ne
’
sont
ol
og
i
c
a
lt
he
or
y
.Ba
s
e
dont
hi
s
,t
hewhol
epi
c
t
ur
eofQui
ne
’
s
disquotational theory of truth should be further clarified.
To begin with, two related theses of Quine will be briefly introduced, namely, the thesis
of inscrutability of reference and the thesis of ontological relativity. The thesis of
1
Fori
n
s
t
a
n
c
e
,Fog
e
l
i
ni
n“
Qu
i
n
e
’
sLi
mi
t
e
dNa
t
u
r
a
l
i
s
m”c
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
e
sQu
i
n
e
’
si
n
de
t
e
r
mi
n
a
c
ys
e
ma
nt
i
c
sa
s
incompatible with his naturalism. Although it seems implausible, I am not tempted to include the related
discussion in this chapter. Moreover, Fodor in The Elm and the Expert offers an argument against the thesis
ofi
ns
c
r
u
t
a
bi
l
i
t
yofr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
ea
n
dGe
or
g
a
l
i
si
n“
Re
f
e
r
e
n
c
eRe
ma
i
n
sI
ns
c
r
u
t
a
bl
e
”t
r
i
e
st
ot
a
c
k
l
ei
t
.Bot
hof
them seem to show some insufficiency in a proper understanding of the target thesis. This can be
exemplified in the foll
owi
n
g
.Fodorc
l
a
i
ms
:“
[
G]
i
v
e
nt
h
eda
t
aI
n
f[
or
ma
nt
]pr
ov
i
de
s
,t
h
el
i
n
gu
i
s
t
sk
n
owt
h
a
t
I
n
fh
ol
d‘
t
h
e
r
e
’
sar
a
bbi
t
’t
r
u
ei
nas
i
t
u
a
t
i
oni
f
fh
eh
ol
ds‘
t
h
e
r
e
’
sa
nu
r
p[
,t
h
a
ti
s
,un
de
t
a
c
h
e
dpr
o
pe
rr
a
bbi
t
pa
r
t
,
]
’t
r
u
ei
nt
h
a
ts
a
mes
i
t
u
a
t
i
on
’
”(
Fodor199
4,p
.63
)
.Bu
th
owc
a
nt
h
ei
nf
or
ma
n
th
ol
dt
r
u
ebot
h‘
t
h
e
r
e
’
sa
r
a
bbi
t
’a
n
d‘
t
h
e
r
e
’
sa
nu
r
p’
?Ge
or
g
a
l
i
st
h
i
n
kst
h
a
tFodor
’
sa
r
g
ume
n
tbe
gst
h
equ
e
s
t
i
on
.Forh
i
m,Fodor
simply presupposes that we have to interpret certain general terms in the standard interpretations of them
while the non-standard interpretation of them assumed for the reductio is gone. And this causes a
disagreement in the truth-values of certain sentences between linguists. However, this is exactly what the
reductio is about. According to the target thesis, linguists will provide incompatible reference schemes even
if the totality of empirical truth is preserved. Fodor intends to show, in terms of his argument, that
incompatible reference schemes will inevitable cause disagreements in the truth-values of certain sentences
between linguists, and Georgalis seems to miss the point. Again, this is not my primary task of this chapter.
63
i
ns
c
r
ut
a
bi
l
i
t
yofr
e
f
e
r
e
nc
ei
sa
sf
ol
l
ows
:i
ft
her
e
f
e
r
e
nc
eoft
het
e
r
msofa
ni
nf
or
ma
nt
’
s
language is not uniquely decidable by a field linguist purely on empirical grounds, then
what these schemes say about the reference of the terms of the translated language is
therefore not an empirical feature of those terms. That is, the linguist can provide more
than one translation manual within which the reference schemes of the terms can be
radically different from each other, but still be compatible with all (possible) pieces of
empirical evidence. It follows that the choice of one particular reference scheme is
arbitrary or, in other words, these terms do not uniquely determinate a reference scheme.
What of the thesis of ontological relativity? One simplified version of ontological
r
e
l
a
t
i
vi
t
yc
a
nbeputi
nt
hi
swa
y
:“
Wha
tma
ke
ss
e
ns
ei
st
os
a
ynotwha
tt
heobj
e
c
t
sofa
theory are, absolutely speaking, but how one theory of objects is interpretable or
re
i
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
bl
ei
na
not
he
r
”(
Qui
ne1968,p.50)
.I
twa
she
l
di
nCha
pt
e
rTwot
ha
tt
hema
i
n
reason not to incorporate the inductive axioms with regard to reference and satisfaction
i
nt
oQu
i
ne
’
sdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
lt
he
or
yoft
r
ut
hi
st
hee
xpl
a
na
t
or
ypr
i
or
i
t
yoft
heconcept of
truth. This claim, however, is plunged into turbulence when both of the aforementioned
theses are under fire.
Hartry Field considers the thesis of ontological relativity to be incompatible with the
correspondence theory of truth. If a correspondence theory of truth is about the
explanation of the notion of truth in terms of the relation between words on the one hand
and the extralinguistic objects that they are about on the other, then the only noteworthy
correspondence, following the thesis of ontological relativity, is the one between the
wor
dsofonet
he
or
ya
ndt
hewor
d
sofa
not
he
r(
Fi
e
l
d1974,p.199)
.Fi
e
l
d’
sa
mbi
t
i
oni
st
o
show that, granted the thesis of inscrutability of reference, the correspondence theory of
64
truth still prevails (perhaps in a more general sense, however). Donald Davidson accepts
the thesis of inscrutability of reference and a relativised concept of ontology, but he
a
gr
e
e
swi
t
hFi
e
l
d’
sa
r
g
ume
nta
ga
i
ns
tQui
ne
’
st
he
s
i
sofont
ol
og
i
c
a
lr
e
l
a
t
i
vi
t
y
,c
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
i
ngi
t
as falling short of providing an intelligible way to justify itself. Roger Gibson, Jr. on the
ot
he
rha
nd,c
e
ns
ur
e
sbot
hFi
e
l
da
ndDa
vi
ds
on’
smi
s
i
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
onofQui
ne
’
st
he
or
i
e
s
.One
i
mpor
t
a
ntf
e
a
t
ur
eofhi
si
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
onofQui
ne
’
sont
ol
og
i
c
a
lr
e
l
a
t
i
vi
t
yt
he
s
i
si
sthat
speakers of every language are normally uncritical of their own languages and thus make
available a way to end the ultimate relativisation of ontology by maintaining a
word-world correspondence relation between words and extralinguistic objects.
This chapter has five sections, in which the following five tasks will be undertaken. First,
Iwi
l
le
l
uc
i
da
t
eQui
ne
’
sr
e
a
s
oni
n
gwi
t
hr
e
s
pe
c
tt
or
e
l
a
t
i
vi
s
i
ngont
ol
ogy
.Se
c
ond,Iwi
l
l
s
howt
ha
tFi
e
l
d’
sa
r
g
ume
nti
nf
a
vourofac
or
r
e
s
ponde
nc
et
he
or
yoft
r
ut
hi
sinvalid. Third,
Iwi
l
ls
howt
ha
tGi
bs
on’
si
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
onofQui
ne
’
sont
ol
og
i
c
a
lr
e
l
a
t
i
vi
t
yt
he
s
i
si
si
nc
or
r
e
c
t
.
Fourth, I will show that a disquotational schema of reference of our mother tongue is
essential to enable us to continue common sensically doing science and living daily.
Finally, I will show that a disquotational schema of reference does not and cannot provide
any support to the reasoning that, in order to redeem the lack of deductive power of the
disquotational theory of truth, one should explicate the disquotational conception of truth
in terms of the inductive axioms of reference and satisfaction. And more notably all
instances of the disquotational schema of reference do not constitute a genuine reference
scheme.2
2
Th
eph
r
a
s
e‘
t
h
edi
s
qu
ot
a
t
i
ona
ls
c
h
e
maofr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
’i
sus
e
dt
h
r
ou
gh
outt
h
i
sc
h
a
pt
e
ri
ni
t
sg
e
n
e
r
a
ls
e
ns
e
.
That is, it includes satisfaction as well. Any point made in relation to the disquotational schema of reference
is equally applicable to the disquotational schema of satisfaction. This is the default position and will not be
emphasised hereafter.
65
1.
Qui
ne
’
sManoe
uv
r
e
In the quoted passage about ontological relativity, the point seems to be that, although it is
improper to ask what terms of a theory (or language) refer to in an absolute sense, it does
make sense to ask this question in a relativised way. More plainly, the only sensible way
to talk about reference is to relativise it to a background language or a background theory.
The simplest and probably least questionable manner of explicating ontological relativity
mi
g
htbei
na
c
c
or
da
nc
ewi
t
hQui
ne
’
sa
c
c
ountofpr
oxyf
unc
t
i
on—that is, for any given
theory we can provide a function which maps its universe on to the universe of a
background theory. This mapping can be a one-to-one or many-to-one relation, depending
on our purpose in utilising it. And the universe of a background theory is, if not identical
to, then normally broader than the object one. In the case of a many-to-one relation, we
use this relation as a means of ontological reduction. According to Quine, it is not
necessarily worrying that we must grant the ontological profligacy of the excessive
universe of the background theory in order to operate the reduction. This is because the
worry is no more pressing than in the case of reductio ad absurdum, where we assume a
falsehood so as to disprove it (Quine 1968, p. 58). So the excessive universe is eventually
dispensable. In the case of a one-to-one relation, a given theory is always reducible to a
background theory, according to Quine, and it can also form an argument in favour of the
thesis of inscrutability of reference. Put simply, for any given theory in which a name
refers to an object x according to its reference scheme, one can produce a proxy function,
say, ø to map x on to ø(x) in the reference scheme of the background theory; similarly, if a
predicate refers to (is true of) each thing x such that F(x) in the object theory, it refers to
each thing x in the background theory such that Fø(x); along with an appropriate
66
characterisation of a relation like satisfaction in, presumably, each case, the truth
conditions assigned by the background theory are equivalent to those assigned by the first
theory, thus the inscrutability of reference. However, it seems to be one step further to
hold the thesis of ontological relativity in terms of the thesis of inscrutability of reference.
If there are neither semantical nor physical facts to determine the choice of reference
scheme uniquely, then the only significant way to talk about the reference of any given
theory (or language) is to relativise it to another theory (or language) no matter how
arbitrary the choice is. The consequence of doing so is the risk of infinite regress from
one theory or language to another. For Quine, we end the infinite relativisation of
ontology in practice by acquiescing in our own language and taking its words at face
va
l
ue(
i
bi
d.
,p.49)
.Le
tusc
a
l
lt
hi
sQui
ne
’
sma
noe
uvr
e
.
Wi
t
hr
e
s
pe
c
tt
ot
hi
s
,bot
hFi
e
l
d
and Davidson hold an opposing position.
The proxy function argument is the one that really indicates the mystery of reference,
since proxy function can produce more dramatic cases than those in radical translation.
Byt
hi
sIme
a
nt
ha
tnor
ma
l
l
y
,i
nt
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
nga
ni
nf
or
ma
nt
’
sl
a
ng
ua
g
ewewoul
dnotus
ea
reference scheme that maps itself on to, for instance, the cosmic complement of its
objects. In translating a remote language it is more likely to be a limited case in which the
mi
s
s
i
o
noft
hef
i
e
l
dl
i
ng
ui
s
ti
st
of
i
ndawa
yt
ounde
r
s
t
a
ndori
nt
e
r
pr
e
the
ri
nf
or
ma
nt
’
s
language in a more ordinary vein. However, it is different in the case of ontological
relativity since it is in a more theoretical vein. That is, in the ordinary vein the field
linguist works hard to reduce the amount of competing manuals, while in the theoretical
vein it is supposed to show that the interpretation of the ontology of any given language
or theory could be varied drastically but that the sentence-to-sentence structure is still
67
preserved. Probably because of this difference, some philosophers such as Field are
prompted to assume that providing a solution to the inscrutability of reference in the case
of radical translation is sufficient to answer the mystery of reference issued from the
thesis of ontological relativity. In a similar sense, perhaps, Gibson does not make a clear
distinction between these two cases, either. Fie
l
d’
sr
e
a
s
oni
ngi
sonl
yj
us
t
i
f
i
e
dwhe
nt
he
thesis of ontological relativity can be successfully renounced. It will be shown, however,
i
nt
hef
ol
l
owi
ngdi
s
c
us
s
i
on,t
ha
tadi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
li
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
onofQui
ne
’
sma
noe
uvr
ec
a
n
save him from the criticism, made by Field, that he commits the fallacy of the myth of the
museum, whilst also maintaining the thesis of ontological relativity. But let us first shed
s
omel
i
g
htonFi
e
l
d’
sa
r
gume
nt
.
2.
Fi
e
l
d’
sAr
gume
ntag
a
i
ns
tOnt
ol
o
gi
c
a
lRe
l
at
i
v
i
t
y
If the idea of signification3 is to be explained relative to a translation manual, Field
argues, then this relativised way of talking about the reference scheme of a given theory
or language is useless. There is no difference between saying that a term T used in one
language signifies the set of rabbits, relative to a translation manual M, and saying that M
translates T a
s‘
r
a
bbi
t
’
,i
ft
heonl
ys
e
ns
i
bl
ewa
yt
ot
a
l
ka
boutt
her
e
f
e
r
e
nc
es
c
he
meofa
theory or language is to interpret or reinterpret it in another theory or language. More
precisely,
(1) for every predicate T, set {x | Fx}, and manual M, T signifies {x | Fx} relative to M
if and only if M maps T ont
o‘
F’(
Fi
e
l
d1974,p.203)
.
This is not satisfactory because we cannot quantify into quotation marks in an objectual
fashion. According to Field, we can make some adjustment to avoid this problem by
3
Qu
i
n
eu
s
e
s‘
de
n
ot
a
t
i
on’
.
68
paraphrasing (1) into the following:
(2) for every predicate T, set {x | Fx}, and manual M, T signifies {x | Fx} relative to M if
and only if M maps T onto some term which signifies {x | Fx} (ibid.).
Fi
e
l
d’
sobj
e
c
t
i
ont
o(
2)i
st
ha
tt
her
e
l
a
t
i
vi
s
e
de
xpl
i
c
a
t
i
onofa
nyg
i
ve
nr
e
f
e
r
e
nc
es
c
he
me
has to rely on unrelativised semantic notions applied to our own language. The
assumption that the ontology of our own language, unlike others, is fixed, is what Field
cannot accept. He thinks that this makes Quine a victim of the myth of the museum (p.
204). That is, if the ontology of our own language is fixed and the relativisation ends in
our mother tongue, all the reference schemes of different theories or languages seem to be
fixed eventually by relativising them to our language. It is, however, hard to see the
difference between the myth of the museum and this account in which the exhibits are the
referents, and referential words of different languages are just like expository labels for
different language speaking visitors. Davidson agrees with Field on this point and renders
a similar argument (Davidson 1979, pp. 230-1), which will not be discussed.
Moreover, Field cannot accept the arbitrariness of the choice between the competing
translation manuals due to the fact that there are no semantical or physical facts to show
the adequacy of choosing between any of them. Instead, he proposes a reformed account
of certain semantical notions. Although there is no empirical ground for choosing one
translation manual over another to relativise the reference scheme of a given theory or
language to another, it can be held that a general term x of a given language partially
signifies the sets of objects of all competing manuals. A simplified example can be put as
follows: the term gavagai partially signifies the set of rabbits (relative to a translation
manual M1) and the set of undetached rabbit parts (relative to M2) but fully signifies either.
69
The problem for Field is that the indeterminacy of reference scheme occurs hand in hand
with the translation of the identity predicate. Generally this is not a problem for Quinean
s
e
ma
nt
i
c
sbe
c
a
us
et
het
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
onof‘
ga
va
g
a
i
’
,s
a
y
,i
sf
i
xe
da
sf
a
ra
st
het
r
a
ns
l
a
t
ion of the
i
de
nt
i
t
ypr
e
di
c
a
t
ei
s
.I
not
he
rwo
r
ds
,‘
ga
va
g
a
i
’c
a
nbet
r
a
ns
l
a
t
e
da
ss
i
g
ni
f
y
i
ngt
hes
e
tof
rabbits, if the identity predicate is translated in certain relevant ways. However, this is a
di
f
f
i
c
ul
t
yf
orFi
e
l
d’
sa
c
c
ount
,be
c
a
us
eoft
her
a
ndom c
ombi
nations of the translations of
‘
ga
va
g
a
i
’a
ndt
hei
de
nt
i
t
ypr
e
di
c
a
t
e
.
Tos
ol
vet
hi
spr
obl
e
m,Fi
e
l
dc
l
a
i
mst
ha
ti
ti
s
inevitable to that some sort of correspondence relations be introduced to define relevance
in terms of them. It follows that these causal relations between terms and extralinguistic
objects can provide a way for Quine to avoid committing the myth of the museum fallacy.
Da
vi
ds
onont
heot
he
rha
ndc
or
r
e
c
t
l
yc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
e
sFi
e
l
d’
sr
e
f
or
me
da
c
c
ountont
heg
r
ounds
that although in a standard theory of truths, semantic roles are assigned to the parts of a
sentence to explain what makes it true, Field confuses the issue by overemphasising the
importance of the independent account of the semantic properties of reference, naming,
signification, and so on (Davidson 1979, p. 236). The confusion is the failure to notice the
difference between explaining truth, given the theory, and providing evidence that the
theory is true of a speaker or community (ibid.). In addition to the assumption that there
are causal connections between terms of a language and extralinguistic objects, it can be
imagined that these connections do not play any role in the explanation of the use of these
terms in sentences. Consequently, these connections are irrelevant to an account of that
particular language. Establishing a reference scheme of a given theory or language relies
on evidence concerning the adequacy of a theory of truth at the sentential level.
70
Fur
t
he
r
,i
ts
e
e
mst
ha
tFi
e
l
d’
sa
c
c
ountdoe
snotpr
ovi
dear
e
a
s
ona
bl
es
ol
ut
i
ont
o the alleged
failure of the thesis of ontological relativity. This account is disputable in the case of
radical translation because the main purpose of it is, after all, to reduce the number of the
competing translation manuals.4 It is different in the case of the thesis of inscrutability of
reference. According to this thesis, the reference scheme of any given theory or language
is in principle i
nde
t
e
r
mi
na
t
e
.
Thepr
oxyf
unc
t
i
ona
r
g
ume
nts
howst
ha
tt
het
e
r
m‘
r
a
bbi
t
’
,
for instance, can be reinterpreted by permuting the universe to map it on to, say, the
cosmic complement of rabbits. We can even permute the universe of our language or
theory and map it on to itself. It follows that there could be many, if not infinitely many,
r
e
f
e
r
e
nc
es
c
he
me
sofEng
l
i
s
h.‘
Ra
bbi
t
’woul
dpe
r
ha
pss
i
g
ni
f
yma
nyt
hi
ng
st
ha
ty
ouc
a
n
imagine as far as the truth conditions assigned by the new reference scheme are
equivalent to the old one. It can be claimed that, in some, if not in most cases, some
general terms of a given theory or language might be boiled down to partially signifying
e
xa
c
t
l
yt
hes
a
mes
e
t
sofobj
e
c
t
s
.Fori
ns
t
a
nc
e
,t
heg
e
ne
r
a
lt
e
r
ms‘
r
a
bbi
t
’a
nd‘
unde
t
a
c
he
d
r
a
bbi
tpa
r
t
s
’a
nd‘
r
a
bbi
ts
t
a
ge
s
’a
l
lpa
r
t
i
a
l
l
ys
i
g
ni
f
yt
hes
e
tofr
a
bbi
t
s
,t
hes
e
tofunde
t
a
c
he
d
rabbit parts, a
ndt
hes
e
tofr
a
bbi
ts
t
a
g
e
s
.
Thi
si
snoti
nc
ompa
t
i
bl
ewi
t
hFi
e
l
d’
sa
c
c
ount
.
Unless Field can prove that this is in principle impossible, I can hardly see how his
account can work and how to establish any causal, correspondence relations between
words and objects.
3.
OnGi
b
s
on’
sCr
i
t
i
c
i
s
m ofFi
e
l
d’
sandDav
i
d
s
on’
sAr
g
ume
nt
s
Whe
t
he
rFi
e
l
d’
sa
ndDa
vi
ds
on’
sa
r
g
ume
nt
sa
r
ec
onc
l
us
i
veornot
,t
he
r
ea
r
ea
tl
e
a
s
tt
wo
4
I
nt
h
e‘
Pos
t
s
c
r
i
pt
’ofFi
e
l
d1974,Fi
e
l
dc
l
a
i
ms
:
Even though Quine was not sympathetic to a causal theory of reference, he did often
grant that the stimulus meanings of terms could be used to rule out alternative reference
schemes. (p. 219)
Still, I think, this is in the case of radical translation rather than ontological relativity.
71
wa
y
st
oa
c
c
ountf
orQui
ne
’
sma
noe
uvr
e
.Onec
a
nma
keadi
c
hot
omybe
t
we
e
none
’
s
mother tongue and translated languages, and thus hold that the relativisation of ontology
only happens in translating (/interpreting) another language. Or, one can find a way to
a
c
c
ountf
orQui
ne
’
sma
noe
uvr
ewi
t
houtvi
ol
a
t
i
ngt
het
he
s
i
sofont
ol
og
i
c
a
lr
e
l
a
t
i
vi
t
y
.Iwi
l
l
discuss these respectively in this and the following sections.
Gi
bs
onha
sas
t
r
ongc
ount
e
r
vi
e
wt
oFi
e
l
d’
sa
c
c
us
a
t
i
ont
ha
tQui
nec
ommi
t
st
hemy
t
hoft
he
mus
e
um f
a
l
l
a
c
y
.Si
nc
eDa
vi
ds
ononl
yoppos
e
st
hepa
r
tofFi
e
l
d’
sa
r
g
ume
nt
a
t
i
oni
nf
a
v
our
of the correspondenc
et
he
or
yoft
r
ut
h,Gi
bs
on’
sde
pr
e
c
a
t
i
onofFi
e
l
d’
spos
i
t
i
ona
ppl
i
e
s
e
qua
l
l
yt
oDa
vi
ds
on’
svi
e
w.I
nt
hef
ol
l
owi
ngdi
s
c
us
s
i
onIwi
l
lf
i
r
s
tma
kec
l
e
a
rGi
bs
on’
s
argument, and then indicate my disagreement with it afterwards.
Gibson thinks that Field and Davidson failed to notice in Quine the significant distinction
in the thesis of inscrutability of reference and the thesis of ontological relativity in the
epistemological vein—in which there is no fact of the matter on the denotation of the
terms of a particular language—and in the ontological vein—in which the denotation of
t
het
e
r
msofone
’
sunc
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
l
ya
c
c
e
pt
e
dl
a
ng
ua
g
ei
sama
t
t
e
roff
a
c
t(
Gi
bs
on1988,p.143)
.
The idea is that we must conduct our epistemological investigation under an ontological
framework. And this ontological framework is nothing but our scientific enterprise. There
is, however, another problem regarding the choice between competing scientific theories
that are empirically equivalent to, but logically incompatible with each other, insofar as
t
hi
smi
g
htunde
r
mi
neGi
bs
on’
sa
c
c
ount
.
Tha
ti
s
,t
het
he
s
i
sofunde
r
-determination is now
the problem.5 It is very likely that incompatible theories formulated in the same language
5
The thesis of under-determination in the broadest and probably most appropriate sense is: providing all
possible evidence or observation data, there are many, if not infinitely many, theories that are empirically
72
might have different reference schemes. Thus the aftermath of ontological relativity hits
Gi
bs
on’
sont
ol
og
i
c
a
lf
r
a
me
wor
ka
f
t
e
ra
l
l
.I
ti
snots
ur
pr
i
s
i
ngt
ha
tGi
bs
ondoe
snott
hi
nki
t
this way, since he and Dagfinn Føllesdal would like to persuade Quine to adopt his
sectarian position regarding competing comprehensive scienti
f
i
ct
he
or
i
e
s
.
Tha
ti
s
,“
on
eof
two systems of the world must be deemed false if we know them to be empirically
e
qui
va
l
e
nt
”(
Qui
ne1986b, p. 156). So we have to pin down our (scientific) theory no
matter what the reason is, and then we have the reference scheme in terms of the theory
wepi
c
k
.Buti
s
n’
tt
hei
de
aofont
o
l
og
i
c
a
lr
e
l
a
t
i
vi
t
yt
os
howt
ha
t
,f
ora
nyg
i
ve
nt
he
or
yor
language, its universe can be permuted to map it on to something else or even itself? To
this, Gibson argues that we uncritical English speakers can of course go critical, refusing
t
ot
a
ke‘
r
a
bbi
t
’
,s
a
y
,a
ti
t
sf
a
c
eva
l
ue
,butwene
e
dnotdot
hi
s
.Ont
heot
he
rha
nd,t
hef
i
e
l
d
linguist has to go critical in the case of radical translation because she does not have any
other choice (Gibson 1988, p. 144). Whether or not our willingness to go critical to our
home language has any essential power of overturning the presumably ultimate regress of
relativisation seems to be a minor point to him.
Gi
bs
on’
si
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
onofQui
ne
’
sma
noe
uvr
e
—that is, ending the regression of
background languages is, in practice, by acquiescing in our mother tongue and taking its
words at face value—is that the reference scheme is fixed by acquiescing to homophonic
translation in the home language (Gibson 1988, p. 139). This is of course in an
ontological vein a
ndf
orGi
bs
oni
tf
ol
l
owst
ha
twha
tt
het
e
r
msofone
’
sunc
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
accepted language denote is a matter of fact (p. 143). Indeed, Gibson even claims that
some, if not all, are behavioural facts. The uncritical speakers of English would probably
equivalent but logically incompatible. The explication of the notion of empirical equivalence is that theories
are empirically equivalent if and only if they imply exactly the same set of observational consequences.
73
a
s
s
e
ntt
ot
heque
r
y“
Doe
s‘
r
a
bbi
t
’r
e
f
e
rt
or
a
bbi
t
s
?
”whi
l
eouri
ndi
g
e
nousf
r
i
e
nddoe
snot
s
t
a
ndac
ha
nc
et
oa
s
s
e
ntt
ot
hequ
e
r
y“
Doe
s‘
ga
va
ga
i
’r
e
f
e
rt
or
a
bbi
t
s
?
”
This is a rather bizarre way to argue, because what Gibson shows is merely the fact that
the indigenous informant does not acquire the ability to speak English. It seems to be
mor
es
e
ns
i
bl
et
oa
s
kourf
i
e
l
dl
i
ng
ui
s
twhe
t
he
rornots
hea
g
r
e
e
st
ha
t‘
g
a
va
g
a
i
’r
e
f
e
r
st
o
rabbit. She is in any rate the expert who provides translation manuals. And following the
same reasoning of sectarianism, she can choose one of the competing manuals and thus
de
c
i
det
her
e
f
e
r
e
nc
es
c
he
meofhe
ri
nf
or
ma
nt
’
sl
a
ng
ua
ge
.
Thi
si
spr
oba
bl
yve
r
y
controversial, because there seems to be a difference between the choice of a scientific
theory, which has facts of the matters to back it up, and the choice of a translation manual,
whi
c
hdoe
snot
.Butt
hi
sdoe
snots
e
e
mt
oc
a
us
ea
nyt
r
oubl
ei
fwea
doptGi
bs
on’
s
interpretation anyway.6 If, presumably
,s
hea
s
s
e
nt
st
oourque
r
y“
Doe
s‘
g
a
va
ga
i
’r
e
f
e
rt
o
r
a
bbi
t
s
?
”wha
tne
xt
?I
st
hi
sabehavioural fact that can show the incorrectness of both of
the theses of inscrutability of reference and ontological relativity?7 Surely not, and not
because this is not a behavioural fact, but because it is illegitimate. The major dispute so
far on either the thesis of inscrutability of reference or the thesis of ontological relativity
i
st
ha
tt
he
r
ei
snowa
yt
ode
t
e
r
mi
nehowt
ous
et
hes
e
ma
nt
i
ct
e
r
ms‘
r
e
f
e
r
’ort
hel
i
ke
uni
que
l
y
.
The
r
e
f
or
e
,“
Doe
s‘
r
a
bbi
t
’(
or‘
g
a
va
ga
i
’
)r
e
f
e
rt
or
a
bbi
t
s
?
”i
snotal
e
g
i
t
i
ma
t
e
question, because the only sensible way to ask this question is if there are some related
s
e
ma
nt
i
cf
a
c
t
st
ohe
l
puss
i
ng
l
eoutt
heus
a
geof‘
r
e
f
e
r
’
.Buta
c
c
or
di
ngt
oGibson, there
are no semantic facts.
6
7
For the simplicity sake of argument, I will ignore this problem.
Gibson is a full-blooded Quinean, so he surely does not accept the existence of semantic facts.
74
Mor
e
ove
r
,e
ve
ni
func
r
i
t
i
c
a
lEng
l
i
s
hs
pe
a
ke
r
sdoa
s
s
e
ntt
ot
heque
r
y“
Doe
s‘
r
a
bbi
t
’r
e
f
e
r
t
or
a
bbi
t
s
?
”i
ft
hec
ount
e
r
f
a
c
t
ua
lc
ons
i
de
r
a
t
i
oni
sdr
oppe
d,i
ti
sdubi
oust
ha
tt
he
ywi
l
l
assent to or dissent from this sort of queries uniformly. For instance, some, if not most,
unc
r
i
t
i
c
a
lEng
l
i
s
hs
pe
a
ke
r
smi
g
hta
s
s
e
ntt
ot
heque
r
y“
Doe
s‘
At
l
a
nt
i
s
’r
e
f
e
rt
oAt
l
a
nt
i
s
?
”
or“
Do
e
s‘
phl
og
i
s
t
on’r
e
f
e
rt
ophl
og
i
s
t
on?
”Gi
bs
o
ndoe
snots
howust
ha
tunc
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
speakers of English would uni
f
or
ml
ya
s
s
e
ntt
oe
ve
r
yque
r
yoft
hef
or
m“
Doe
s‘
n’r
e
f
e
r
st
o
n(
s
)
”
.
Wor
s
e
,i
fs
omeunc
r
i
t
i
c
a
lEng
l
i
s
hs
pe
a
ke
r
sdoa
s
s
e
ntt
ot
heque
r
y“
Doe
s
‘
phl
og
i
s
t
on’r
e
f
e
rt
ophl
og
i
s
t
on?
”wha
ts
houl
dGi
b
s
one
xpl
a
i
nt
hi
sword-world
correspondence relation? Therefore, there is no such demarcation as Gibson expects to be
be
t
we
e
ns
t
a
y
i
ngunc
r
i
t
i
c
a
lorg
oi
ngc
r
i
t
i
c
a
lt
oone
’
shomel
a
ng
ua
g
e
.I
nSe
c
t
i
onFour
,I
will show that what Gibson shows us is not a word-world correspondence reference
scheme of a given language constituted by taking words at their face value, but a
disquotational schema of reference that is essential to our daily communication as well as
scientific discourse.
Tobee
xa
c
t
,t
heg
r
a
vi
t
yofQui
ne
’
si
nde
t
e
r
mi
na
c
yt
he
s
i
si
st
hede
ni
a
lofs
e
ma
nt
i
cf
a
c
t
s
that can absolutely determine certain semantic features such as in the case of radical
t
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
on,a
nda
l
lt
her
e
l
a
t
e
dphy
s
i
c
a
lf
a
c
t
sc
a
ndonobe
t
t
e
ront
hi
spoi
nt
.Fi
e
l
d’
s
position is that, even if we grant the assumption that there are no semantic facts, the thesis
of ontological relativity does not follow. Consequently, the reference scheme of a given
theory or language is neither explicable in the absolute sense of a word-world relation nor
in the relativised sense of a word-word relation. This predicament can be solved, Field
claims, by introducing the causal relations between words and extralinguistic objects and
thus maintaining a more general sense of word-world correspondence relations between
75
them. Surprisingly, Gibson is eager to retain this word-world correspondence relation8
a
ndnot
i
c
e
st
ha
tt
hepoi
ntQui
nema
dei
n“
Re
pl
yt
oEl
e
ve
nEs
s
a
y
s
”(
Qui
ne1981a) is so
deserving of putting out the welcome mat—na
me
l
y
,“
Ius
et
hewor
d[
‘
r
e
f
e
r
’
]t
or
e
l
a
t
e
linguistic expressions to objects. Real obj
e
c
t
s
.
”(
p.243)
.Gi
bs
on’
sma
i
npos
i
t
i
oni
sa
s
follows:
However, so long as linguists A and B continue to conform unquestionably in their usages
of‘
r
a
bbi
t
’a
n
d‘
un
de
t
a
c
h
e
dr
a
bbi
tpa
r
t
s
’
,j
u
s
ts
ol
on
gdo‘
r
a
bbi
t
’a
n
d‘
u
n
de
t
a
c
h
e
dr
a
bbi
t
pa
r
t
s
’r
e
f
e
r
,r
e
s
pe
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
,t
or
a
bbi
ta
n
dun
de
t
a
c
h
e
dr
a
bbi
tpa
r
t
s
.An
dt
h
i
s
…pa
i
rofr
e
l
a
t
i
on
s
,
u
n
l
i
k
et
h
epa
i
rofr
e
l
a
t
i
on
s‘
g
a
v
a
g
a
i
’
/
‘
r
a
bbi
t
’a
n
d‘
g
a
v
a
g
a
i
’
/
‘
u
n
de
t
a
c
h
e
dr
a
bbi
tpa
r
t
s
’
,i
s
not of the word-word type but of the word-wor
l
dt
y
pe
:‘
r
a
bbi
t
’
/
r
a
bbi
t
,‘
u
n
de
t
a
c
h
e
dr
a
bbi
t
pa
r
t
s
’
/
u
n
de
t
a
c
h
e
dr
a
bbi
tpa
r
t
s
.
Qu
i
n
e
’
spoi
n
ti
st
h
a
tt
h
e
s
e
…wor
d-world relations, too, can
be disturbed, but they need not be. And so long as they remain undisturbed, it makes
pe
r
f
e
c
t
l
yg
oods
e
n
s
et
os
a
yt
ha
t‘
r
a
bbi
t
’r
e
f
e
r
st
o(
i
.
e
.de
n
ot
e
s
)r
a
bbi
t
sa
n
d‘
un
de
t
a
c
h
e
d
rabbi
tpa
r
t
s
’r
e
f
e
r
st
o(
i
.
e
.de
n
ot
e
s
)u
n
de
t
a
c
h
e
dr
a
bbi
tpa
r
t
s
.
(
Gi
bs
on1988,
p.1
40)
Iwi
l
lr
e
nde
radi
f
f
e
r
e
nti
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
onofQui
ne
’
sma
noe
uvr
e
.ButIwoul
dl
i
ket
of
i
r
s
t
poi
ntouthowmi
s
l
e
a
di
ngGi
bs
on’
se
xpl
i
c
a
t
i
oni
s
.
If, presumably, there are word-world correspondence relations between words and
extralinguistic objects, real objects, in our own language, and others can only have a
relativised word-word relations in their interpreting reference schemes of my language,
then it seems to make perfectly good sense to claim that this establishes a solid case of
private language. After all, nobody is in principle able to grasp my understanding of my
own language, except me.
Of course, there is an important difference that might cause some trouble to my
8
Gi
bs
onc
e
r
t
a
i
n
l
ydoe
sn
ota
c
c
e
ptFi
e
l
d’
sc
or
r
e
s
pon
de
n
c
ea
c
c
ou
n
toft
r
u
t
h
,bu
th
ol
ds that the thesis of
ontological relativity does not preclude a correspondence theory of truth, at least in some general sense of
‘
c
or
r
e
s
pon
de
n
c
e
’s
u
c
ha
sDa
v
i
ds
on
i
a
n(
Gi
bs
on1988,
p.1
40)
.
Th
i
si
sn
ote
n
t
i
r
e
l
ywr
on
g
.Bu
tIc
a
nh
a
r
dl
y
a
c
c
e
ptGi
bs
on’
sr
e
a
s
oning.
76
criticism—na
me
l
y
,Ius
e‘
myownl
a
ng
ua
g
e
’i
ns
t
e
a
dof‘
ourhomel
a
ng
ua
ge
’
.
Thi
si
s
,
however, exactly the point. If it is the case that the reference scheme of our language is
f
i
xe
ds
ot
ha
t‘
r
a
bbi
t
’onl
yr
e
f
e
r
st
or
e
a
lr
a
bbi
t
s
,t
he
ns
oi
st
her
e
f
e
r
e
nc
es
c
he
meof my
language. But how do I know that other people who speak English uncritically do use
‘
r
a
bbi
t
’t
or
e
f
e
rt
or
a
bbi
t
s
?I
ft
he
r
ea
r
enos
e
ma
nt
i
cf
a
c
t
sa
boutt
hi
st
he
nt
he
r
emus
tbe
physical or, probably, behavioural facts to help me figure it out. It nevertheless follows
that there should also be physical or behavioural facts to pin down the reference scheme
ofa
nyf
or
e
i
g
nl
a
ng
ua
g
e
.
AsQui
nes
a
y
si
n“
Ont
ol
og
i
c
a
lRe
l
a
t
i
vi
t
y
”
:
If it is to make sense to say even of oneself that one is referring to rabbits and formulas
and not to rabbit stages and Gödel numbers, then it should make sense equally to say it of
s
ome
on
ee
l
s
e
.
Af
t
e
ra
l
l
…t
h
e
r
ei
sn
opr
i
v
a
t
el
a
ngu
a
g
e
.(
p.47)
My argument is clear. If the reference scheme of my language can be fixed by a set of
word-world correspondence relations as Gibson expects it to be, there must be either
semantic or physical/behavioural facts to support that. And similarly my fellow English
speakers should equally be able to fix their reference scheme. In fact, we should have
exa
c
t
l
yt
hes
a
mer
e
f
e
r
e
nc
es
c
he
mei
nwhi
c
h‘
r
a
bbi
t
’r
e
f
e
r
st
or
e
a
lr
a
bbi
t
si
nawor
d-world
correspondence sense. Since Gibson holds that there are no semantic facts, this fix of
ontology has to depend on physical or behavioural facts. Just what kind of facts, then,
fixes the ontology of a home language but not the one of a remote language? Certainly
notGi
b
s
on’
sbehavioural fact that our jungle informant fails to reply affirmatively to our
que
r
y“
Doe
s‘
g
a
va
g
a
i
’r
e
f
e
rt
or
a
bbi
t
s
?
”AsIs
a
i
dbe
f
or
e
,ouri
nf
or
ma
nt fails to respond
otherwise rather because he takes our question as gibberish. The difference between home
and remote languages in this sense should only be a matter of degrees but not of kinds. If
Gi
bs
on’
spos
i
t
i
oni
mpl
i
e
st
ha
tone
’
shomel
a
ng
ua
gei
spr
ivileged over other translated
77
languages, it follows, however, that all related indeterminacy theses fail. But this means
t
ha
tt
he
r
ea
r
es
e
ma
nt
i
cf
a
c
t
s
,a
ndt
hi
si
sc
ont
r
a
r
yt
oGi
bs
on’
sor
i
g
i
na
ls
uppos
i
t
i
on.
Therefore, there is no way to fix the reference scheme of our language as well as our
i
nf
or
ma
nt
’
s
.I
fGi
bs
oni
ns
i
s
t
sont
hepoi
ntt
ha
tt
hedi
f
f
e
r
e
nc
ei
sama
t
t
e
rofki
nds
,t
he
nhe
has to respond to the question that what kind or kinds of physical/behavioural facts can
fix our ontology but not our informa
nt
’
s
.Mor
e
ove
r
,hea
l
s
oha
st
og
i
veas
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
or
y
a
ns
we
rt
oamor
eg
e
ne
r
a
lque
s
t
i
on:howi
si
tt
ha
tIc
a
nde
t
e
r
mi
nemyf
e
l
l
ows
pe
a
ke
r
’
s
reference scheme? and what is the difference between this determination and the one in
the case of radical translation? If the answers are not satisfactory, especially to the second
question, Gibson has to face the charge, even from Quine, of conceding to the existence
of private languages.
Quine also makes an analogy between staying aboard/rocking the boat and his manoeuvre
(ending the regression of background languages is, in practice, by acquiescing in our
mother tongue and taking its words at face value)/contemplating a permutational mapping
ofourl
a
ng
ua
geoni
t
s
e
l
forunde
r
t
a
ki
ngt
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
oni
n“
Thi
ng
sa
ndThe
i
rPl
a
ces in
The
or
i
e
s
”(
Qui
ne1981b,p.20)
.
Gi
bs
on’
sr
e
a
di
ngoft
hi
sa
na
l
ogyi
st
ha
tr
e
f
e
r
e
nc
edoe
s
not go inscrutable unless we rock the boat. Otherwise there is a fact of the matter to
que
s
t
i
onsl
i
ke“
Doe
s‘
r
a
bbi
t
’r
e
f
e
rt
or
a
bbi
t
s
?
”i
no
urhomel
a
ng
ua
g
e(
Gi
bson 1988, p.
145)
.
Tha
t‘
f
a
c
toft
hema
t
t
e
r
’i
ss
uppos
e
dl
ys
e
ma
nt
i
cr
a
t
he
rt
ha
nphy
s
i
c
a
lorbe
ha
vi
our
a
l
.
What I am not sure is whether or not Quine himself is absolutely consistent on the issues
of inscrutability of reference and ontological relativity. But it is almost certain that
Gi
bs
on’
sa
c
c
ount
,whi
c
ha
s
s
i
g
nse
ve
r
yr
e
f
e
r
e
nt
i
a
lt
e
r
m ofourownl
a
ng
ua
geawor
d-world
correspondence relation to a specific object or set of objects, causes a discrepancy
78
between the relativisation of reference scheme in the case of mother tongue and the
relativisation of the reference scheme in the case of remote languages. This is exactly
what Field argues against. And this is just what we cannot accept. The staying
aboard/rocking the boat analogy should have a more sensible interpretation.
4. Disquotational Schema of Reference and Semantic Ascent of Terms
Da
vi
ds
ona
ppr
ove
sofFi
e
l
d’
sc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
mt
ha
tt
he
r
ei
snoi
nt
e
l
l
i
g
i
bl
ewa
yt
oj
us
t
i
f
yt
he
concept of ontological relativity in either an absolute or a relativised sense. For him, there
is no intelligible way to stride the first step in a so-called relativisation of ontology. The
original reason to relativise the reference scheme of a given language or theory to another
is that no empirical evidence can fix its reference scheme. That very problem, however,
materialises again in the interpreting language or theory. This occurs accordingly in every
attempt to relativise any given language or theory. It is then hard to see why the
ontological regress should have gone on in the first place. Except for this, Davidson does
agree that it makes sense to say about a relativised concept of ontology. His reasons are
twofold. On the one hand, all acceptable reference schemes of a given language for a
speaker or a community have a common feature that they ascribe equivalent truth
conditions to all sentences. On the other hand, these schemes are distinguishable from
each other not on empirical grounds, but because they employ predicates that cannot have
the same extension (Davidson 1979, p. 238). This relativised concept of ontology,
however, only helps us answer questions about reference but not reference itself (p. 239).
Thi
si
sDa
vi
ds
on’
ss
t
a
ndpoi
ntont
het
he
s
i
sofont
ol
og
i
c
a
lr
e
l
a
t
i
vi
t
y
.
Myi
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
onofQui
ne
’
sma
noe
uvr
ei
snoti
nc
ompa
t
i
bl
ewi
t
hDa
vi
ds
on’
spos
i
t
i
onon
79
the thesis of ontological relativity. I think that Davidson makes a more feasible and more
prudent interpretation than Gibson does. Quine does not offer us an account of
word-world correspondence relations between words of our home language and
e
xt
r
a
l
i
ng
ui
s
t
i
cobj
e
c
t
s
.
Whe
nhes
a
y
st
ha
tt
heus
eof‘
r
e
f
e
r
’i
st
or
e
l
a
t
el
i
ng
ui
s
t
i
c
expressions to real objects, he does not pin down the reference scheme of English in
whi
c
h‘
r
a
bbi
t
’r
e
f
e
r
st
oreal rabbits rather than real undetached rabbit parts or anything
e
l
s
e
.
Thi
si
sa
ppa
r
e
nti
nQui
ne
’
sr
e
pl
yt
oPa
ul
A.Rot
h(
Qui
ne1986a) in The Philosophy
of W. V. Quine:
Within the home language, reference is best seen (I now hold) as unproblematic but
t
r
i
v
i
a
l
,onapa
rwi
t
hTa
r
s
k
i
’
st
r
u
t
hpa
r
a
di
gm.
Th
u
s‘
Lon
don’de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
sLon
don
(whatever that i
s
)a
n
d‘
r
a
bbi
t
’de
n
ot
e
st
h
er
a
bbi
t
s(
wh
a
t
e
v
e
rthey are). (p. 460)
Those italics are the key to my interpretation.9 In Quine 1953a, Quine holds that, except
the truth paradigm, Tarskian paradigms on ‘
i
st
r
ueof
’(
t
ha
ti
s
,‘
de
not
e
’or‘
s
i
g
ni
f
y
’
)a
nd
‘
na
me
’r
e
l
a
t
i
vet
oag
i
ve
nl
a
ng
ua
g
ea
r
ea
l
s
os
us
t
a
i
na
bl
e(
pp.134-6). They can be
characterised as follows:
(
1)‘ ’i
st
r
ue
-in-L of every
(
2)‘ ’na
me
s
-in-L
thing and nothing else;
and nothing else.
(1) holds when any one general term is written in the two blanks and (2) holds when any
name is written in the two blanks. According to these three paradigms, I think we should
i
nt
e
r
pr
e
tQui
ne
’
sma
noe
uvr
ea
ssemantic ascent of terms—as offering a disquotational
s
c
he
maofr
e
f
e
r
e
nc
et
oone
’
sownl
a
ng
ua
g
e
.I
n“
Qui
nea
ndt
heCor
r
e
s
ponde
nc
eThe
or
y
”
(1974), Field thinks that our disquotational schema of reference is incompatible with
i
nde
t
e
r
mi
na
c
yoft
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
on.I
nt
he“
Pos
t
s
c
r
i
pt
”(
2001)oft
hi
spa
pe
r
,hedisagrees with
hi
ms
e
l
font
hi
spoi
nt
.Ho
we
ve
r
,hedoe
snotc
ha
ngehi
smi
ndonhi
sc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
mt
oQui
ne
’
s
9
Th
es
a
mepoi
n
ti
sa
l
s
os
h
owni
n“
Tr
u
t
ha
n
dDi
s
qu
ot
a
t
i
on
”
.Pl
e
a
s
ec
f
.t
h
epr
e
v
i
ousc
h
a
pt
e
r
.
80
ontological relativity thesis. It follows that he at least does not go in for this
disquotationalist approach.
Some commentators overlook the significance of this point. For instance, Hylton in
“
Qui
neonRe
f
e
r
e
nc
ea
ndOnt
ol
ogy
”(
Hy
l
t
on2004)ma
i
nt
a
i
nsas
i
mi
l
a
rpoi
ntt
oGi
bs
on’
s
.
After his citation of Quine 1986a, (cited above in the previous paragraph) he says:
The point here, I think, is that while we are speaking our familiar language (or a language
whose translation into it is well established), the inscrutability of reference simply gets no
grip. (p. 142)
Butr
e
me
mbe
rQui
nes
a
y
st
ha
t‘
London’de
s
i
g
na
t
e
sLondon(
wha
t
e
ve
rthat i
s
)a
nd‘
r
a
bbi
t
’
denotes the rabbits (whatever they are) right after he says that reference within the home
language should be best seen onaparwi
t
hT
ar
s
k
i
’
st
r
ut
hpar
adi
gm. He sees T-sentences
i
nadi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
ls
e
ns
e
,s
oi
st
ha
t‘
London’de
s
i
gna
t
e
sLondon(
wha
t
e
ve
rthat is) and
‘
r
a
bbi
t
’de
not
e
st
her
a
bbi
t
s(
wha
t
e
ve
rthey are). Similar to (DQ), of course, the term
quoted and not quoted in an instance of the disquotational schema of reference have to be
regarded as the same word type with the same interpretation.10
This is probabl
yabi
tr
e
mi
ni
s
c
e
ntofSt
e
phe
nLe
e
ds
’a
c
c
ountofont
ol
og
i
c
a
lr
e
l
a
t
i
vi
t
yi
n
“
Howt
oThi
nka
boutRe
f
e
r
e
nc
e
”(
Le
e
ds1973)
.Le
e
dst
a
ke
st
het
he
s
i
sofont
ol
og
i
c
a
l
relativity to amount to a philosophically uninteresting triviality that (semantical)
questions, whatever their subject matters are, must be asked relative to a background
language (p. 488). He continues his argument in the following way:
To speak of reference, we must pretend that certain questions about our language have
been answered—these questions are questions about the reference of the terms in our
language; the answer is given by the Tarski schema for reference in the background
10
Horwich holds the same view. Please cf. the following section.
81
theory. (p. 490, my italics)
Thi
spr
e
t
e
ndi
ngha
si
t
spr
a
c
t
i
c
a
lv
a
l
uea
sar
e
s
ul
tofi
t
s‘
ha
r
ml
e
s
sc
onve
ni
e
nc
e
’
.
The
ontological talk, in which the subject matter is not the relations between language and the
world but some important relations such as intertranslatability held between languages, is
in principle possible without ever speaking of reference (pp. 491-2). This account of
ont
ol
og
i
c
a
lr
e
l
a
t
i
vi
t
yi
sne
ve
r
t
he
l
e
s
si
nc
ompa
t
i
bl
ewi
t
hQui
ne
’
sna
t
ur
a
l
i
s
mi
nt
ha
tt
he
existence of objects depends on our ontological commitments and they must in turn reside
within a (scientific) theory. Surely the ontological talk is not about relations between
languages but between language and the world. Or better, it is about relations between
theories and the world.11 Theory as a whole does owe its ontology to the world in the
sense that its observational consequences have to be compatible with the world observed.
It is only when theories are empirically equivalent, the ontological talk seems to be
bl
ur
r
e
d
.
Tode
ve
l
opa
ni
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
onofQui
ne
’
sphi
l
os
ophya
c
c
or
di
ng
l
y
,bya
s
s
umi
ngt
ha
t
there is an objective position to be occupied to claim the truthfulness of any theory, or that
the importance of ontology is not about the relations between language and the world but
be
t
we
e
nl
a
ng
ua
g
e
s
,i
sa
nut
t
e
rmi
s
unde
r
s
t
a
ndi
ng
.Exc
e
ptf
ort
hi
s
,Le
e
ds
’a
c
c
ountdoe
s
offer a valuable observation that Tarskian paradigms have to play a role of great
ma
g
n
i
t
udei
nt
hei
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
onofQui
ne
’
st
he
s
i
sofont
ol
og
i
c
a
lr
e
l
a
t
i
vi
t
y
.Buti
ti
snota
matter of pretending, but of offering a disquotational schema of reference to make
possible ontological talk. And all the instances of this schema do not constitute any
genuine reference scheme that can possibly be given.
11
Qu
i
n
edoe
sh
a
v
et
h
ei
n
c
l
i
n
a
t
i
ont
ou
s
e‘
l
a
ngu
a
g
e
’a
n
d‘
t
h
e
or
y
’i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
ng
e
a
bl
y
.
An
ot
h
e
rf
a
miliar
t
e
r
mi
n
ol
ogyi
s‘
c
on
c
e
pt
u
a
ls
c
h
e
me
’t
h
a
tc
a
us
e
sade
ba
t
ebe
t
we
e
nDa
v
i
ds
ona
n
dQu
i
n
e
.(
Th
a
ti
s
,“
Ont
h
e
Ve
r
yI
de
aofaCon
c
e
pt
u
a
lSc
he
me
”a
n
d“
Ont
h
eVe
r
yI
de
aofaTh
i
r
dDog
ma
”
.
)Th
i
si
sh
owe
v
e
rn
ota
mong
the main issues here.
82
Constructing a disquotational schema of reference is not doable in translating or
i
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
i
ngal
a
ng
ua
g
eot
he
rt
ha
nt
het
r
a
ns
l
a
t
orori
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
e
r
’
shome language. For
i
ns
t
a
nc
e
,“
‘
Sc
hne
e
’r
e
f
e
r
st
os
now”i
snota
ni
ns
t
a
nc
eofadi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
ls
c
he
maof
reference in English.12 This is already apparent in the discussion of the designation
schema in the previous chapter. Therefore, to take the disquotational schema of reference
a
st
hepr
ope
ri
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
onofQui
ne
’
sma
noe
uvr
ei
st
heonl
ywa
yt
oma
kes
e
ns
eofi
t
.
A disquotational schema of reference is crucial to the thesis of ontological relativity and
even the thesis of ontological commitments.13 There are at least two aspects of the thesis
of ontological relativity, and the disquotational schema of reference is essential to both.
One way to see this is in terms of so called notational relativity—that is, the universe of
our language or theory can be permuted to map it on to itself. In this aspect, the universe
is kept intact. So the relativity comes from the different notational permutation between
referential terms and the members of the given universe.14 However, it is inevitable for
the notational permutation to depend for its significance on a pre-established
di
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
ls
c
he
maofr
e
f
e
r
e
nc
e
.Fori
ns
t
a
nc
e
,i
f‘
s
now’unde
rt
hepe
r
mut
a
t
i
onr
e
f
e
r
st
o
mi
l
ki
n
s
t
e
a
dofs
now,t
hi
sc
a
nonl
yma
kes
e
ns
ei
f‘
s
now’r
e
f
e
r
st
os
nowa
nd‘
mi
l
k’r
e
f
e
r
s
to milk disquotationally. Otherwise we have difficulties in understanding what the word
‘
mi
l
k’s
t
a
ndsf
ori
nt
hec
a
s
eofpe
r
mut
a
t
i
on.
Anot
he
rwa
yt
os
e
eont
ol
og
i
c
a
lr
e
l
a
t
i
vi
t
yi
si
n
terms of the inscrutability of reference in which the universe is varied, as pointed out in
12
However, in terms of a
na
de
qu
a
t
et
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
i
onma
nu
a
l“
‘
Sc
h
n
e
e
’r
e
f
e
r
st
os
n
ow”mi
gh
tbec
on
c
e
i
v
e
dof
indirectly.
13
Ag
a
i
n
,Idon
oti
n
t
e
n
dt
ode
f
e
n
dQu
i
n
e
’
sv
i
e
wpoi
ntonon
t
ol
og
i
c
a
lc
ommi
t
me
nt
s
.Fori
ns
t
a
n
c
e
,
Az
z
oun
i
i
n“
On“
OnWh
a
tTh
e
r
eI
s
”
”u
r
g
e
su
st
h
a
tt
h
e
r
emi
gh
tbes
omeother criteria for recognizing what a
discourse commits us to (CRD in his abbreviation). He might be right, but this does not concern me
anyway.
14
This notational permutation is not necessary on a global scale. And the permutation on a small scale
reminds usoft
h
er
e
c
ons
t
r
u
a
lofpr
e
di
c
a
t
e
si
n
t
r
odu
c
e
dbyQu
i
n
ei
n“
OnEmpi
r
i
c
a
l
l
yEqu
i
va
l
e
n
tSy
s
t
e
msof
t
h
eWor
l
d”
.
83
t
hef
i
r
s
ts
e
c
t
i
on.Fora
nyg
i
ve
nt
h
e
or
yi
nwhi
c
hage
ne
r
a
lt
e
r
m,s
a
y
,‘
r
a
bbi
t
’r
e
f
e
r
st
o
rabbits according to its reference scheme, one can produce a proxy function, say, ø to map
rabbits on to ø(rabbits) or , say, undetached rabbit parts in the reference scheme of the
ba
c
kg
r
oundt
he
or
y
.Si
mi
l
a
r
l
y
,t
oma
kes
e
ns
eoft
hi
sweha
vet
or
e
l
yonr
e
a
di
ng“
‘
Ra
bb
i
t
’
r
e
f
e
r
st
or
a
bbi
t
s
”a
nd“
‘
Unde
t
a
c
h
e
dr
a
bbi
tpa
r
t
s
’r
e
f
e
r
st
ounde
t
a
c
he
dr
a
bbi
tpa
r
t
s
”
disquotationally.
In the case of ontological commitments, the crucial nature of the disquotational schema of
reference is even more apparent. When Quine says that the answer to the question of
whether or not there is an F, say, depends on our decision to assign or not assign a value
to the variable of an objectual quantifi
c
a
t
i
on“
x(Fx)
”i
nar
e
g
i
me
nt
a
t
i
onofours
c
i
e
nt
i
f
i
c
theory into the language of first-or
de
rl
og
i
c
,hec
e
r
t
a
i
nl
ydoe
snots
pe
c
i
f
ywha
t‘
F’r
e
f
e
r
s
t
o.I
nt
h
ea
bovec
a
s
e
,wha
t‘
F’r
e
f
e
r
st
oi
sofc
our
s
eF(
s
)
.
Tha
ti
s
,i
f‘
F’a
mount
st
o‘
r
a
b
bi
t
’
t
he
n‘
F’r
e
f
e
r
st
or
a
bbi
t
s
,ori
f‘
F’a
mount
st
o‘
unde
t
a
c
he
dr
a
bbi
tpa
r
t
s
’t
he
n‘
F’r
e
f
e
r
st
o
undetached rabbit parts, and so on. Indeed, the thesis of ontological commitments tells us
that the comprehensive scientific theory held by us commits us to certain sorts of objects,
but what it does not tell us is what these objects really are. This is why in Quine 1995
Quine says:
Ic
on
c
l
u
de
…t
h
a
twh
a
tma
t
t
e
r
sf
ora
nyobj
e
c
t
s
,c
on
c
r
e
t
eora
bs
t
r
a
c
t
,i
sn
otwh
a
tt
h
e
ya
r
e
but what they contribute to our overall theory of the world as neutral nodes in its logical
structure. (pp. 74-75)
Without the disquotational schema of reference, none of this is possible.
In Word and Object, Quine holds that semantic ascent of terms usually happen when we
are talking about some abstract objects such as miles or points. In the case of physical
84
objects such as wombats or kangaroos, this normally would not happen. The usefulness of
semantic ascent of terms is as follows:
The strategy of semantic ascent is that it carries the discussion [of what there is] into a
domain where both parties are better agreed on the objects (viz., words) and on the main
terms concerning them. (p. 272)
My borrowing of this strategy is not entirely unreasonable. In the same page, Quine states:
“
Se
ma
nt
i
ca
s
c
e
nt
,a
sIs
pe
a
kofi
t
,
a
ppl
i
e
sa
ny
whe
r
e
.
”Hea
l
s
oc
l
a
i
mst
hef
ol
l
owi
ng
:“
we
have talked more of words than of objects even when most concerned to decide what
t
he
r
er
e
a
l
l
yi
s
:wha
tobj
e
c
t
st
oa
dmi
tonourowna
c
c
ount
”(
p.270)
.I
ns
pe
a
ki
ngof
Qui
ne
’
sma
noe
uvr
ea
ndt
het
hesis of ontological relativity, this strategy is essential.
Without it the manoeuvre fails miserably. And this can be well grasped in my illustration
of the disquotational schema of reference. We simply substitute talk of terms for talk of
extralinguistic objects. What should not be confused with the disquotational schema of
reference is that we do not render any fixed reference scheme of our mother tongue.
Inscrutability of reference and ontological relativity are inevitable in doing empirical
semantics. They represent the mystery of the semantic concept of reference. Conversely,
the disquotational schema of reference and satisfaction are the reason why scientific
research can still be carried on without being disturbed by the semantic mystery.
If the ontology of one language or theory has to be reinterpreted in a background
language or theory so that it can be understood by others, and this process is infinite, then,
presumably, one has to understand all these theories or languages in order to understand
the original ontology. This makes the thesis of ontological relativity the most inflationary
theory ever, and the most inflationist theory one can imagine.15 It seems that the
15
Th
i
si
si
n
s
pi
r
e
dbyA.Gu
pt
a
’
sc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
mt
oP
.Hor
wi
c
h’
smi
n
i
ma
l
i
s
t
i
ct
h
e
or
yoft
r
u
t
hi
n“
Mi
n
i
ma
l
i
s
m”
(collected in Philosophical Perspectives, Volume 7, Issue Language and Logic, p. 365).
85
disquotational schema of reference can provide a shelter for the thesis of ontological
relativity from this criticism. It is also crucial to scientific theories so that they can have a
significant way to talk about their reference schemes without the infinite regression of
reinterpretation.16 Thi
ss
c
he
mai
sa
l
s
oc
ompa
t
i
bl
ewi
t
hQui
ne
’
sgeneral view on ontology.
After all, he states:
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
ei
swha
tma
t
t
e
r
st
oat
h
e
or
y
…n
ott
h
ec
h
oi
c
eofi
t
sobj
e
c
t
s
… Th
eob
j
e
c
t
s
,or
values of variables, serve merely as indices along the way, and we may permute or
supplant them as we please as long as the sentence-to-sentence structure is preserved.
(Quine 1981b, p. 20)
Therefore, the disquotational schema of reference can be seen as a part of the more
general account of disquotationalism.
I
n“
On
t
ol
ogya
ndI
de
ol
ogy
”(
Qu
i
ne1951)
,Qui
nee
xpl
a
i
nst
hedi
s
t
inction between
ontological and ideological commitments as follows:
Given a theory, one interesting aspect of it into which we can inquire is its ontology: what
entities are the variables of quantification to range over if the theory is to hold true?
Another no less important aspect into which we can inquire is its ideology … wh
a
ti
de
a
s
can be expressed in it? (p. 14)
One of the values of the disquotational schema of reference is to help us axiomatise some
familiar mathematical theories without question begging (Quine 1960, pp. 272-273). In
other words, by going up a level we can separate the target theory from its ideology. For
instance, in axiomatisation of a geometrical theory, one is in trouble with not being sure
that one deduces some familiar formulas of the axiomatised theory purely from its axioms
without utilising any part of further geometrical knowledge. To avoid this unwelcome
embarrassment one can turn to the device of disinterpretation, acting as if one only
16
Marian David in Correspondence and Disquotation offers a disquotational account of reference to
contribute to the recursive definition of disquotational truth (pp. 110-119). My interpretation, on the other
hand, shows that there is a distinct need to provide a disquotational schema of reference.
86
understands the logical vocabulary but not those peculiar terms with regard to the
axiomatised geometrical system. The problem with this method, according to Quine, is
t
ha
ti
tl
e
a
dsust
ot
hef
ol
l
owi
ngc
ons
e
que
nc
e
:“
wene
ve
rknowwha
twea
r
et
a
l
ki
nga
bout
,
17
nor whether what we are saying is t
r
ue
.
”
Qui
net
he
nc
l
a
i
mst
ha
t
,wi
t
hFr
e
ge
’
s
achievement of a full formalisation of logic, semantic ascent as a device against
question-begging turns out to be available (ibid., p. 273). He then says:
Given the deductive apparatus of logic in the form specified operations on notational
forms, the question whether a given formula follows logically from given axioms reduces
to the question whether the specified operations on notational forms are capable of
leading to that formula from the axioms. (ibid.)
What concerns us in the axiomatisation of a mathematical theory is the danger that its
ideology is always inseparable from the axiomatisation. Semantic ascent as described
above shows a way to avoid this danger.
Another value is in the evaluation of a neoteric scientific theory (Quine 1990b, p. 81).
Qui
ne
’
se
xa
mpl
ei
sEi
ns
t
e
i
n’
ss
p
e
c
i
a
la
ndg
e
ne
r
a
lt
he
or
i
e
sofr
e
l
a
t
i
vi
t
ybywhi
c
hourb
a
s
i
c
conceptions of space and time are challenged tremendously.18 The evaluation of this new
theory is cumbersome with or without the ideology of Newtonian physics. Without this
particular ideology, the evaluation would not proceed in the first place. With the help of
this ideology, however, the evaluation begs the question. It is just like taking the premise
that kanji (which is bot
ht
hepr
on
u
nc
i
a
t
i
onof‘
Chi
ne
s
ec
ha
r
a
c
t
e
r
’i
nChi
ne
s
ea
ndi
n
Japanese) is purely a cultural product of Japan, to evaluate whether or not Japanese kanji
is under the influence of Chinese characters. In terms of the semantic ascent of terms,
Quine then says:
17
Th
i
si
sQu
i
n
e
’
sc
i
t
a
t
i
onofRu
s
s
e
l
l
’
sMysticism and Logic and Other Essays (p. 75) in Word and Object (p.
273).
18
A related point is also made in Quine 1960, p. 272.
87
But by semantic ascent one could compare the new and old theories as symbolic
structures, and so appreciate that the new theory organized the pertinent data more simply
than the old. Simplicity of symbolic structures can be appreciated independently of those
basic conceptions. (ibid.)
In other words, by taking the special and general theories of relativity and Newtonian
physics as symbolic structures, one can compare the two with regard to which
sentence-to-sentence structure is capable of organising empirical data more simply.
5. Disquotational Schema of Reference and Disquotational Theory of
Truth
In the last chapter, I considered two reasons to reject the idea of incorporating inductive
axioms of reference and satisfaction into the formulation of a disquotational theory of
truth. The central issue there was what sort of theory of reference for a given natural
language we can get to obviate the potential difficulties of our axiomatised disquotational
theory of truth suggested by the incorporation.19 The first reason is that the theory of
reference involved has to deal with the explanatory order of semantic concepts, as
indicated there that this is crucial to Quinean semantics. The second reason is that the
theory of reference has to be without any substantive feature, so that the resultant
inductive axioms are be able to properly imply nothing but all disquotation sentences of
the truth language within which the disquotational theory of truth of the base language is
constructed. It seems that, now, we have a candidate here, namely, the disquotational
schema of reference.
Nelson is probably one of the philosophers who might object to this reasoning, but for the
19
As stated there, the incorporation of inductive axioms only arrests our interest when this is about to give
a formulation of disquotational theory of truth for any given natural language.
88
wrong reason. The main rationale for incorporating inductive axioms into the
disquotational theory of truth is to render a way to explain how the semantic ascent of
sentences helps express some infinite conjunctions or disjunctions with the same syntactic
feature. The disquotational schema of reference is not supposed to amount to explicit
definitions of the semantic concepts of reference and satisfaction. If it were, then it would
have violated the explanatory order between semantic concepts. Since it is not, it follows
that all disquotation sentences are material biconditionals. This, however, according to
Nelson (1997), causes a problem of compatibility between the disquotational theory of
truth and the thesis of ontological relativity. In the case of notational relativity in which
the universe is not varied, suppose one produces a proxy function, say, ø to map a on to
ø(a) in the reference scheme of the background theory and similarly to map a predication
F(a), that F refers to (is true of) each thing a such that F(a) in the object theory, to Fø(a)
in the background theory. The T-s
e
nt
e
nc
e“
‘
F(
a)
’is true iff F(a)
”i
sama
t
e
r
i
a
l
biconditional according to the above analysis. Nelson indicates that, in terms of
ontological relativity, according to which F(a) iff Fø(a)
,wec
a
ns
ubs
t
i
t
ut
e‘
Fø(
a)
’f
or
‘
F(
a)
’i
nt
heT-sentence. The resultant biconditional i
s“
‘
F(
a)
’i
st
r
uei
f
fFø(
a)
”a
ndi
ti
s
certainly not a T-sentence. This is apparently not a problem to my formulation of the
disquotational theory, (DQ)
,i
nt
hel
a
s
tc
ha
pt
e
r
,f
or
,a
f
t
e
rs
ubs
t
i
t
ut
i
ng‘
Fø(
a)
’f
or‘
F(
a)
’i
n
“
‘
F(
a)
’i
st
r
uei
f
fF(
a)
”
,“
‘
F(
a)’i
st
r
uei
f
fFø(
a)
”i
snotadi
s
quot
a
t
i
ons
e
nt
e
nc
ea
ny
wa
y
.I
t
is the conclusion of two premises—na
me
l
y
,t
hebi
c
ondi
t
i
ona
l“
F(
a) iff Fø(a)
”
,r
e
s
ul
t
i
ng
f
r
omus
i
ngt
hepr
oxyf
unc
t
i
on‘
ø’t
oma
pF(
a) on to Fø(a), and the disquotation sentence
“
‘
F(
a)
’i
st
r
ueiff F(a)
”
.
The best way to see the disquotational schema of reference in general is to see it as based
89
on the pre-theoretic intuitive concepts of reference and satisfaction of any given natural
language. It does seem right, intuitively, that speakers of any language incline to
understand the pre-theoretic referential and satisfaction relations of their languages in the
disquotational sense. For instance, every English speaker normally accepts the
disquotational schema of reference with no regard to whether or not the referent, say, of
t
hel
e
ge
nda
r
yc
i
t
yof‘
At
l
a
nt
i
s
’o
rt
hemy
t
hi
c
a
lc
r
e
a
t
ur
e‘
Pe
ga
s
us
’e
xi
s
t
.I
ft
he
r
ea
r
ewor
ds
s
uc
ha
s‘
r
a
bbi
t
’a
nd‘
London’i
nEng
l
i
s
ha
swe
l
la
swor
dsl
i
ke‘
phl
og
i
s
t
on’a
nd‘
Vul
c
a
n’
,
pe
opl
ea
r
er
e
a
dyt
oa
c
c
e
ptt
ha
t‘
p
h
l
og
i
s
t
on’de
not
e
sphl
og
i
s
t
ona
nd‘
Vul
c
a
n’r
e
f
e
r
st
o
Vul
c
a
na
sf
a
ra
st
he
ya
r
er
e
a
dyt
oa
c
c
e
ptt
ha
t‘
r
a
bbi
t
’de
not
e
sr
a
bbi
t
sa
nd‘
London’r
e
f
e
r
s
to London. There are no ontological reflections involved here.
The problem of incorporating inductive axioms of reference and satisfaction in
formulating a disquotational account of the semantic concept of truth, is that it is difficult
to find a suitable theory of reference to account for the explanatory order and to enable
the inductive axioms to imply all disquotation sentences. Providing that the thesis of
ont
ol
og
i
c
a
lr
e
l
a
t
i
vi
t
yhol
ds
,Ha
l
ba
c
h’
si
de
aofi
nc
or
por
a
t
i
ngi
nduc
t
i
vea
xi
omsofr
e
f
e
r
e
nc
e
and satisfaction to enhance the deductive power of the disquotational theory of truth is
therefore not satisfactory. For no matter whether or not the disquotational schema of
reference goes finite or infinite, it is not a genuine reference scheme. Otherwise, it
contradicts the thesis of ontological relativity.20 Even if we assume that the thesis of
ontological relativity is untenable, to consider a disquotational schema of reference as
providing a genuine reference scheme is problematic. This will be shown in the following
20
McGee is another philosopher who is in favour of accounting for disquotational truth in terms of the
n
ot
i
on
sofr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
ea
n
ds
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
on
.
Al
t
h
oughh
edoe
sn
ota
c
c
e
ptQu
i
n
e
’
si
n
de
t
e
r
mi
n
a
c
yt
h
e
s
e
s
,t
h
e
implausibility of his account will not be discussed, even briefly, until Chapter Five.
90
di
s
c
us
s
i
onofHor
wi
c
h’
sr
e
a
s
oni
ng
.
Andt
hec
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
mt
oHor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ounti
se
qua
l
l
y
a
ppl
i
c
a
bl
et
oHa
l
ba
c
h’
s.
Horwich is another important advocate of a disquotational theory of reference and
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
on.
Ac
c
or
di
ngt
ohi
m,Qui
ne
’
st
he
s
i
sofont
ol
og
i
c
a
lr
e
l
a
t
i
vi
t
ydoe
snothol
d.
Hence he can consistently see the instances of the disquotational schema of reference (and
satisfaction) as providing a genuine reference scheme. That is,
Th
er
ou
g
hi
de
ai
st
h
a
tou
rme
a
n
i
ngwha
twedobyt
h
ewor
d“
r
e
f
e
r
s
”c
on
s
i
s
t
si
nou
r
disposition to accept sentences such as
Tokens of *London* refer to London,
Tokens of *the highest mountain* refer to the highest mountain,
and so on. Since an ambiguous s
i
n
gu
l
a
rt
e
r
m,“
n”
,wh
e
nus
e
da
st
h
e
s
ee
x
a
mpl
e
st
o
designate a referent, must be understood in just one of its senses, it will not (if any
s
e
ns
eof“
n”
)bet
r
u
et
os
a
yt
ha
tevery token of“
n”(
i
n
di
v
i
dua
t
e
dph
on
ol
og
i
c
a
l
l
y
)r
e
f
e
r
s
to n. This is why the expression-types deployed in disquotational reference
specifications are articulated using star quotation marks—indicating that they are
i
n
di
v
i
du
a
t
e
d…i
nt
h
eba
s
i
sofme
a
ni
ng
.
Thus our meaning wha
twedoby“
r
e
f
e
r
s
”c
on
s
i
s
t
si
nou
ri
n
c
l
i
n
a
t
i
ont
oa
c
c
e
pt
instances of the disquotational schema
Tokens of *n* refer to n,
whe
r
ewh
a
ta
r
es
u
bs
t
i
t
u
t
e
df
ort
h
et
wooc
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
sof“
n”a
r
eu
n
de
r
s
t
oodi
nt
h
es
a
me
way.21 (Horwich 1998a, p. 118)
In the followingc
ha
pt
e
rIwi
l
ls
howt
ha
tHor
wi
c
h’
sr
e
j
e
c
t
i
onoft
het
he
s
i
sofont
ol
og
i
c
a
l
relativity fails. So we could tentatively say that one can always find a proxy function ø to
map n of the disquotational reference scheme on to ø(n) in the reference scheme of the
background theory, and similarly to a predication F(n).
21
Hor
wi
c
hdoe
sn
otu
s
e‘
di
s
pos
i
t
i
on’a
n
d‘
i
n
c
l
i
n
a
t
i
on’i
n
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
l
y
.I
naf
oot
n
ot
e(
23)of“
ADe
f
e
ns
eof
Mi
n
i
ma
l
i
s
m”(
Hor
wi
c
h2001a), Horwich makes it clear that he distinguishes inclinations from dispositions
to accept instances of the equivalence schema because of consideration regarding the liar paradoxes.
However, it seems that he does use them indifferently here.
91
Butwedonotha
vet
o.Hor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ountha
st
hedi
f
f
i
c
ul
t
yofpr
ope
r
l
ye
xpl
a
i
ni
nga
l
l
relevant facts regarding reference. Let me first make some clarification of his schema of
reference. For Halbac
h’
sa
c
c
ount
,t
hepr
obl
e
mi
st
ha
ti
tf
a
l
l
ss
hor
tofe
xpl
a
i
ni
ngs
ome
di
s
quot
a
t
i
ons
e
nt
e
nc
e
ss
uc
ha
s“
‘
Pe
ga
s
usi
saf
l
y
i
nghor
s
e
’i
st
r
uei
fa
ndonl
yi
fPe
g
a
s
u
si
s
af
l
y
i
nghor
s
e
.
”Hor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ount
,ont
heot
he
rha
nd,i
si
mmunet
ot
hi
sc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
m,s
i
n
c
e
he does not attempt to explicate disquotational or minimalist truth in terms of the
inductive axioms of reference and satisfaction. He is fully aware of this sort of problem,
and hence he modifies his schema as follows:
(R) Tokens of *n* refer, if at all, to n.22 (Horwich 1998a, p. 119)
He further provides some principles to help form a corresponding schema accounting for
our attribution of reference to terms of foreign languages. To simplify my discussion, (R)
can be restricted as only applying to referential words of a home language with a fixed
interpretation, when indexical, vague, and ambiguous words along with other related
matters are precluded.23 An account of reference surely need not tell us which words
refer and which do not. But it has to tell us why some words refer and why some do not.
For instance, a causal theory of reference would explain that a word refers if and only if a
causal relation between it and its referent can be established. Otherwise, the word does
not refer. Since Horwich regards it asf
a
l
s
et
ha
t‘
At
l
a
nt
i
s
’a
nd‘
t
hel
a
r
g
e
s
tpr
i
menumbe
r
’
refer to Atlantis and the largest prime number, because of there being no such things to be
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
dt
o,t
he‘
i
fa
ta
l
l
’i
n(
R)i
st
oma
ket
hede
ma
r
c
a
t
i
onbe
t
we
e
nwor
dst
ha
tr
e
f
e
ra
n
d
those that do not.
Thepr
obl
e
mo
fHor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ounta
r
i
s
e
sf
r
om t
hi
sa
ddi
t
i
ona
lc
ondi
t
i
on
22
Th
es
e
n
t
e
n
c
e“
Pe
g
a
s
u
si
saf
l
y
i
ngh
or
s
e
”i
sade
c
l
a
r
a
t
i
v
es
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
,a
n
da
c
c
or
di
n
gt
oHor
wi
c
h’
s
equivalence schema, there is a corresponding proposition expressed by it. As a result, that the proposition
t
h
a
t“
Pe
g
a
s
u
si
saf
l
y
i
n
gh
or
s
e
”i
st
r
u
ei
fa
n
don
l
yi
fPe
g
a
s
usi
saf
l
y
i
ngh
or
s
ei
sa
na
x
i
omoft
h
ee
qu
i
v
a
l
e
n
c
e
s
c
h
e
maofpr
opos
i
t
i
on
a
lt
r
u
t
h
.I
ti
sc
l
e
a
rt
h
e
nwhyHor
wi
c
hdoe
sn
ota
n
dwou
l
dn
ota
c
c
e
ptHa
l
ba
c
h’
s
approach.
23
Hor
wi
c
h’
sdi
s
qu
ot
a
t
i
on
a
ls
c
he
maofr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
ea
n
da
l
li
t
sa
xi
omsa
r
es
i
mpl
i
f
i
e
di
nn
ot
a
t
i
ona
s“
‘
n’r
e
f
e
r
s
to n”h
e
r
e
a
f
t
e
r
.
92
s
t
oodf
orby‘
i
fa
ta
l
l
’
.Fori
ns
t
a
nc
e
,wha
tdoe
st
he‘
i
fa
ta
l
l
’s
t
a
ndsf
ori
nt
hec
a
s
eof
“
‘
Phl
og
i
s
t
on’r
e
f
e
r
s
,i
fa
ta
l
l
,t
ophl
og
i
s
t
on”
?
Hor
wi
c
h’
sf
or
ma
lc
ha
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
a
t
i
onof(
R)might be helpful; that is
(R1) (x) (Tokens of *n* refer to x iff n = x). (ibid.)
This is similar to his formulation of the disquotational schema of reference in Truth; that
is:
(R2) (x) (<d> refer to x iff d = x),
whe
r
e‘
<d>’s
t
a
ndsf
orwor
dt
y
pe
s
.(
Hor
wich 1998b, p. 116)
Apparently, if (R1)i
st
hef
or
ma
lc
ha
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
a
t
i
onof(
R)
,t
he
n“
Toke
nsof*n* refer to x”a
t
the left hand side of (R1) is definitely meaning that tokens of *n* refer disquotationally to
x. Otherwise, that tokens of *morning star* refers to evening star if and only if morning
star = evening star is an instance of (R1). But this is not an instance of (R).24 The
deflationary account of reference, according to Horwich, admits no substantive relation of
reference. Although there is really a relation of reference, this relation is without any
underlying nature (Horwich 1998a, p. 123). And all the facts regarding reference can be
explained by all the axioms/instances of the disquotational schemata of reference and
satisfaction (ibid.). Thus the ‘
i
fa
ta
l
l
’c
a
nnotbee
xpl
i
c
a
t
e
da
se
nc
a
ps
ul
a
t
i
ngwi
t
hi
ni
tt
ha
t
tokens of *n* (or <d>) bear some non-semantic relation r to something x. This is not just
inflationary and circular, but absurd. (R) is then saying that, if there is really an object to
which tokens of *n* bear a substantive referential relation, tokens of *n* refer to n. The
absurdity rests on the assumption that a substantive referential relation always boils down
to a disquotational referential relation, so the disquotational reference scheme is the only
24
Mor
e
ov
e
r
,‘
i
fa
ta
l
l
’i
n(
R)c
a
n
n
otber
e
a
da
st
h
a
ti
ft
ok
e
n
sof*
n* refer they refer to n. For one should
rather regard the account of whether or not tokens of *n* refer as the account of reference, and it is far from
clear that this account would be not substantive.
93
reference scheme. Therefore, what Horwich has in mind must be that some reference-free
auxiliary explanatory resources can explain, not which word refers, but whether or not
something that is referred exists. For instance, if there is a suitable explanation of the
e
xi
s
t
e
nc
eoft
a
c
hy
on,t
he
n‘
t
a
c
hy
on’r
e
f
e
r
st
ot
a
c
hy
on.
The
r
ei
snos
ui
t
a
bl
ee
xpl
a
na
t
i
onof
t
hee
xi
s
t
e
nc
eofAt
l
a
nt
i
s
,s
ot
he
r
ei
snot
hi
ngt
ober
e
f
e
r
r
e
dby‘
At
l
a
nt
i
s
’
.
Thi
s
,howe
ve
r
,
leads to three problems.
First, according to what criterion does one acquire the suitable explanatory resources by
which what there really is, is explained? It cannot be our commonsense, for it is very
unlikely that commonsense provides all the answers of what there is. It seems that we do
not have other options but to regard a comprehensive scientific theory as the auxiliary
explanatory resources. But it is more than apparent that different theories are very likely
to commit us ontologically to different entities. For instance, for a disquotational schema
of reference based on a comprehensive theory within which the theory of phlogiston is a
br
a
nc
h,‘
phl
og
i
s
t
on’r
e
f
e
r
s
,a
ndr
e
f
e
r
st
ophl
og
i
s
t
on.Sowepr
oba
bl
yha
vet
or
e
s
or
tt
ot
h
e
notion of the division of linguistic labour to depend for the suitable selection of our
25
c
ompr
e
he
ns
i
ves
c
i
e
nt
i
f
i
ct
he
or
yo
ne
xpe
r
t
s
’pr
of
e
s
s
i
ona
lknowl
e
dge
.
This leads us to
the second problem.
I
ts
e
e
mst
ha
tHor
wi
c
h’
sde
f
l
a
t
i
on
a
r
ya
c
c
ountofr
e
f
e
r
e
nc
e
,ba
s
e
de
s
s
e
nt
i
a
l
l
yont
he
disquotational schema of reference and satisfaction, cannot explain that in some cases
different theories are actually logically equivalent, if not identical, but formulated in
25
In Horwich 1998a, Hor
wi
c
hbor
r
owsPu
t
n
a
m’
si
de
aof“
t
h
edi
v
i
s
i
onofl
i
ngu
i
s
t
i
cl
a
bou
r
”t
oe
x
pl
a
i
nwhy
the regularities of experts, with different specialised knowledge, are the paradigm samples of the
regularities of the use of all kinds of words. So it seems quite reasonable to use this notion to explain why
s
omewor
dsdon
otr
e
f
e
ri
nt
e
r
msofs
omee
x
pe
r
t
s
’s
pe
c
i
a
l
i
s
ed knowledge of whether or not there is
something to be referred to.
94
different languages, or even the same language. For the auxiliary explanatory resources
are supposed to be born from the selected comprehensive theory. Suppose there are two
comprehensive theories T1 and T2, and according to both of them there are electrons and
mol
e
c
ul
e
s
.
Ac
c
or
di
ng
l
y
,t
ha
t‘
e
l
e
c
t
r
on’r
e
f
e
r
st
oe
l
e
c
t
r
onsa
ndt
ha
t‘
mol
e
c
ul
e
’r
e
f
e
r
st
o
molecules are axioms of the disquotational theory of reference. Suppose it is further
found out that T1 and T2 are logically incompatible in the sense that what T1 says about
electrons is about molecules in T2 and what T1 says about molecules is about electrons in
T2, and vice versa. In ot
he
rwor
d
s
,Qui
ne
’
sr
e
c
ons
t
r
ua
lofpr
e
di
c
a
t
e
sc
a
nr
e
nde
rT1 and T2
to be logically equivalent.26 Regarding a disquotational reference scheme as a genuine
reference scheme seems to undermine our strategy of reconstrual of predicates. This
strategy, according to Quine, does not only work for one pair of predicates but many
(
Qui
ne1975,p.320)
.I
ts
e
e
msr
e
a
l
l
ydi
f
f
i
c
ul
tf
orHor
wi
c
h’
sdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
la
c
c
ountof
reference to utilise the strategy of reconstrual of predicates to discern the logical
equivalence of the two theories. Further, some cases are much less trivial than the
r
e
c
on
s
t
r
ua
lof‘
e
l
e
c
t
r
on’a
nd‘
mol
e
c
ul
e
’
.ForQui
ne
,t
her
e
c
ons
t
r
ua
lofpr
e
di
c
a
t
e
si
s
a
ppl
i
c
a
bl
et
oe
ve
nPoi
nc
a
r
é
’
si
ns
t
a
nc
et
ha
tonef
or
mul
a
t
i
onofc
os
mol
ogyt
a
ke
ss
pa
c
ea
s
finite, but depicts all objects as shrinking in proportion as they move away from centre,
while another formulation takes space as infinite. This is not doable if one considers
Hor
wi
c
h’
sdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
ls
c
he
maofr
e
f
e
r
e
nc
ea
spr
ovi
di
ngage
nui
ner
e
f
e
r
e
nc
es
c
he
me
.
26
For reconstrual of predicates, Quine says:
[T]he general way of reconstruing an n-place predicate is by supplying an open sentence
in n variables, not caring whether there happens to be a word in our language with the
same extension as the open sentence.
By a reconstrual of the predicates of our language, accordingly, let me mean any
mapping of our lexicon of predicates into our open sentences (n-place predicates to
n-variable sentences). (Quine 1975, p. 320)
I
nt
h
ec
a
s
eof‘
e
l
e
c
t
r
on
’a
n
d‘
mol
e
c
u
l
e
’
,t
h
epr
e
di
c
a
t
e
s‘
mol
e
c
u
l
e
’a
n
d‘
e
l
e
c
t
r
on’c
a
nbema
ppe
dt
o
t
h
er
e
s
pe
c
t
i
v
eope
ns
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
s‘
xi
sa
ne
l
e
c
t
r
on
’a
n
d‘
xi
sa
nmol
e
c
u
l
e
’
.
95
Fina
l
l
y
,t
het
hi
r
dpr
obl
e
mi
smor
es
e
ve
r
et
ha
nt
hef
i
r
s
tt
wo.Hor
wi
c
h’
sdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
account of reference cannot account for some very important facts of reference. In the
case of evaluating a neoteric scientific theory discussed toward the end of last section, one
cannot properly evaluate any neoteric theory if one always sticks to the original theory.
Thei
ns
t
a
nc
er
a
i
s
e
dbyFi
e
l
di
n“
The
or
yCha
ngea
ndt
heI
nde
t
e
r
mi
na
c
yofRe
f
e
r
e
nc
e
”
(Field 1973) is a good example showing that some important fact of reference is not
27
e
xpl
i
c
a
bl
ei
nt
e
r
msofHor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ountofr
e
f
e
r
e
nc
e
.
That is, for Newtonian physics
‘
ma
s
s
’di
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
l
yr
e
f
e
r
st
oma
s
s
,butf
orEi
ns
t
e
i
ni
a
nphy
s
i
c
s‘
ma
s
s
’i
sa
na
mbi
g
uous
term referring either to rest mass or to relative mass. Or, consider Aki
ba
’
si
ns
t
a
nc
ei
n
“
Ca
nDe
f
l
a
t
i
oni
s
mAl
l
owf
orHi
dde
nI
nde
t
e
r
mi
na
c
y
?
”(
Aki
ba2002)
:
The pre-Ne
wt
oni
a
ns
’t
e
r
m‘
h
e
a
v
i
e
rt
h
a
n
’i
st
obec
on
s
i
de
r
e
di
n
de
t
e
r
mi
n
a
t
ebe
t
we
e
nmore
weighty than and more massive than from post-Newtonian viewpoint; the
pre-Newtonians themselves did not have this distinction.28 (p. 225)
In other words, there are examples of hidden indeterminacy of reference in
pre-Newtonian formulation of physics.29 It is hard to see how a deflationary theory of
r
e
f
e
r
e
nc
es
uc
ha
sHor
wi
c
h’
sc
a
na
c
c
ountf
ort
hi
spr
obl
e
m.ForHor
wi
c
h,‘
ma
s
s
’r
e
f
e
r
s
,i
f
a
ta
l
l
,t
oma
s
s
;‘
r
e
s
tma
s
s
’r
e
f
e
r
s
,i
fa
ta
l
l
,t
or
e
s
tma
s
s
;a
nd‘
r
e
l
a
t
i
vema
s
s
’r
e
f
e
r
s
,i
fa
ta
l
l
,
t
or
e
l
a
t
i
vema
s
s
.Buthowt
oe
xpl
a
i
nt
her
e
f
e
r
e
nt
i
a
li
nde
t
e
r
mi
na
c
yofNe
wt
on’
st
e
r
m
‘
ma
s
s
’
?I
ti
sve
r
yl
i
ke
ly that some referential indeterminacy is hidden in our formulation
of the selected comprehensive theory too, and it will always be possible for a future
t
he
or
yt
oc
ont
a
i
nhi
dde
ni
nde
t
e
r
mi
na
c
y
.Hor
wi
c
h’
sdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
la
c
c
ountofr
e
f
e
r
e
nc
ei
s
too deflationary to account for referential indeterminacy. A disquotational schema of
27
Wh
a
ti
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
smei
son
l
yFi
e
l
d’
si
ns
t
a
n
c
eoft
h
ec
ompa
r
i
s
onbe
t
we
e
nNe
wt
on
i
a
n‘
ma
s
s
’
/
ma
s
sa
n
d
Ei
n
s
t
e
i
n
i
a
n‘
ma
s
s
’
/
ma
s
sbu
tnoth
i
sopi
n
i
onsont
h
ei
s
s
u
e
sbe
h
i
n
dt
h
i
si
n
s
t
a
n
c
e
.
28
Th
i
si
sa
l
s
oapr
obl
e
mi
nHor
wi
c
h’
sus
e
-theoretic account of meaning. I will discuss this in the following
chapter.
29
A hidden indeterminacy by definition is not a manifest indeterminacy of a given language, such as
vagueness, relative to a particular time period. The hidden indeterminacy is also objective—that is, it is not
decidable in terms of our awareness of it.
96
reference is useful in scientific reasoning, but serious problems emerge when it is seen as
providing a genuine reference scheme. So I can conclude that a disquotational schema of
refe
r
e
nc
ec
a
nnotpr
ovi
deHa
l
ba
c
h’
sa
c
c
ountt
hene
e
de
dr
e
f
e
r
e
nc
es
c
he
mef
ore
xpl
i
c
a
t
i
ng
the disquotational concept of truth in terms of the inductive axioms of reference and
satisfaction. And it is a mistake for Horwich as well as for Halbach to see a disquotational
account of reference as providing a genuine reference scheme.
Final Remarks
Thi
st
e
mpor
a
r
i
l
yput
sa
ne
ndt
omya
na
l
y
s
i
sofQui
ne
’
sdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
lt
he
or
yoft
r
ut
h.
Many issues are left without discussions until Chapter Five in order for a more integrated
a
na
l
y
s
i
s
.Ne
xtont
hea
ge
ndai
sPa
ulHor
wi
c
h’
smi
ni
ma
l
i
s
m.I
fonec
ommi
t
sone
s
e
l
ft
ot
he
intelligibility of the concept of a proposition, and indeed the existence of propositions, it
seems that minimalism is attractive. In the next chapter, I will summarise what
mi
ni
ma
l
i
s
mc
ons
i
s
t
si
na
nd,mor
ei
mpor
t
a
nt
l
y
,Iwi
l
ldi
s
c
us
sHor
wi
c
h’
sus
e
-theoretic
theory of meaning according to which the legitimacy of a minimalist theory of
propositional truth can be well established.
97
Chapter IV
On Horwi
c
h’
sMi
ni
mal
i
s
tThe
or
i
e
sof
Truth and Meaning
Re
a
di
ngt
hef
i
r
s
tc
ha
pt
e
rofPa
ulHor
wi
c
h’
sTruth (Horwich 1998b), one can almost feel
the enthusiasm in his attempt to show how concise the elaboration of the minimal theory
of truth is. The chapter has only eight pages to expound to the minimal theory. Of course,
however, the theory is not that concise after all. After the first chapter, there are six more
to go. Although very many articles are devoted to the debate over deflationary theories of
truth, it is not the task of this chapter to take a stand on these matters. Instead, this chapter
aims to offer a brief introduction of minimalism. For minimalism has little to distinguish
it from disquotationalism, especially in terms of my analysis in the following chapter,
except that for a minimalist like Horwich, the primary truth bearers are propositions.
This difference is, however, certainly significant with respect to the problem of the
expressibility of the truth predicate discussed in Chapter Two. For his theory of truth to be
philosophical interesting, Horwich has to show us that it is possible to come up with an
account of propositions without any involvement of the concept of truth. In considering
this issue, this chapter consists of four sections. The first section is a brief introduction of
t
hemi
n
i
ma
lt
he
or
yoft
r
ut
h.
Thef
ol
l
owi
ngs
e
c
t
i
onr
e
l
a
t
e
st
oHor
wi
c
h’
sc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
mof
Qui
ne
’
ss
c
e
pt
i
c
i
s
mc
onc
e
r
ni
ngme
a
ni
ng
.
Thet
hi
r
ds
e
c
t
i
ona
na
l
y
s
e
sa
ndc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
e
st
he
c
e
nt
r
a
li
de
aofHor
wi
c
h’
sus
e
-theoretic account of meaning. And the final section
considers his account of compositionality.
98
1. The Framework of the Minimal Theory of Truth
Thef
o
r
mul
a
t
i
onofHor
wi
c
h’
smi
ni
ma
l
i
s
ta
c
c
ounti
si
nde
e
ds
i
mpl
e
.Hor
wi
c
h(
1998b)
claims that for any declarative sentence
(1) p
there is an equivalent sentence
(
1’
)Thepr
opos
i
t
i
onthat p is true,
and the equivalence schema i
sg
i
ve
nwhe
nc
ombi
ni
ng(
1)a
nd(
1’
)wi
t
hal
og
i
c
a
l
connective of biconditional—that is,
The proposition that p is true if and only if p.1
Or following Horwic
h’
swa
ybyp
ut
t
i
ngt
hedummys
y
mbol‘
p’i
nt
oa
ng
l
ebr
a
c
ke
t
st
o
represent a proposition, we can convert the equivalent schema into
(E) <p> is true if and only if p.
I
ns
t
a
nc
e
sof(
E)
,s
uc
ha
s“
<Snowi
swhi
t
e
>i
st
r
uei
fa
ndonl
yi
fs
nowi
swhi
t
e
”
, constitute
not the axioms but the expressions of them of the minimal theory of truth, for according
to Horwich, the axioms are also propositions.2 He further explains that axioms such like
“
<<Sn
o
wi
swhi
t
e
>i
st
r
uei
fa
ndonl
yi
fs
nowi
swhi
t
e
>”c
a
nbes
e
e
na
sa
pplying the
pr
opos
i
t
i
ona
ls
t
r
uc
t
ur
eor
,i
not
he
rwor
ds
,t
hepr
opos
i
t
i
ona
lf
or
m of“
<<p> is true if and
3
only if p >”t
ot
hepr
opos
i
t
i
on“
<Snowi
swhi
t
e
>”
.
(cf. Horwich 1998b, pp. 17-20)
There are three important features of the minimal theory, or, rather, of deflationary
1
Just what sort of equi
v
a
l
e
n
c
er
e
l
a
t
i
onh
ol
dsbe
t
we
e
n(
1)a
nd(
1’
)i
swor
t
hpu
r
s
u
i
ng
.
Th
i
swi
l
lber
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
for the next chapter.
2
However, in the following the distinction between the expression of an axiom and the axiom itself is
dropped for the sake of simplification in some discussions.
3
This is based on what Horwich calls the Fregean Principle. Please see section four of this chapter. In
a
ddi
t
i
on
,Hor
wi
c
ht
a
k
e
st
h
epr
opos
i
t
i
on
a
lf
or
mss
u
c
hl
i
k
e“
<<p> is true if and only if p >”a
sun
i
v
e
r
s
a
l
propositions.
99
theories in general. First, every instance of the equivalence schema is an axiom of the
minimal theory. Second, the entire conceptual and theoretical role of truth is completely
explicable in terms of these axioms and the equivalence schema (E) (Horwich 1998b, p.
5).4 Finally, all the facts involving truth and certain other matters can be also explained
on the basis of the minimal theory, along with appropriate theories of those other matters
(p. 7). Disquotationalism, on the other hand, will be totally unattractive to philosophers,
and even undeserving the name of deflationism, if it does not conform to these three
features. The major task of this chapter, then, is to specify the major difference between
minimalism and disquotationalism. Except for this difference between them, and the
pe
c
ul
i
a
rc
ons
e
que
nc
e
soft
he
i
rdi
ve
r
g
e
nc
e
,t
hepr
obl
e
msr
e
g
a
r
di
ngHor
wi
c
h’
smi
ni
ma
l
i
s
m
a
ndQui
ne
’
sdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
ma
r
es
i
mi
l
a
r
.
Thi
si
swhyt
he
s
epr
obl
e
mswi
l
lber
e
s
e
r
ve
df
or
the next chapter.
But first let us examine whether or not it is possible to formulate the minimal theory
di
f
f
e
r
e
nt
l
y
.Hor
wi
c
ha
ppa
r
e
nt
l
y‘
g
oe
si
nf
i
ni
t
e
’whe
ne
xpl
i
c
a
t
i
nghi
smi
ni
ma
lt
he
or
y
,a
nd
he explains why this is inevitable in accounting for semantic concepts (cf. Horwich 1998b,
the fifth objection). Matthew McGrath thinks otherwise.5 Taking propositions as objects,
we can use objectual quantifications to form finite theories of propositional truth. In
“
We
a
kDe
f
l
a
t
i
oni
s
m”(
Mc
Gr
a
t
h1
997b)
,f
ol
l
owi
ngHor
wi
c
h’
si
de
a
,Mc
Gr
a
t
ht
hi
nkst
ha
t
propositional forms or structures are functions from entities to propositions, and are
expressed by schematic sentences (p. 73). For instance, the propositional form <p & q> is
4
For some general fact regarding truth it is inevitable to employ schemata to do the explication.
Mc
Gr
a
t
h’
st
h
e
or
yi
samodi
f
i
c
a
t
i
onofwha
tEr
n
e
s
tSos
apr
opos
e
si
n“
Th
eTr
u
t
hofMode
s
tRe
a
l
i
s
m”
(Philosophical Issues 3, Science and Knowledge, pp. 77-95). The finite theory proposed by Sosa is as
follows:
For all propositions P, P is necessarily equivalent to the proposition that it is true.
The corresponding principle for deriving instances is
(PE) If <p> entails <q>, then if p, then q.
5
100
a function, CONJ, which, given propositions P and Q, returns a proposition CONJ (P, Q)
(ibid.). Similar functions include DISJ for disjunction, IFF for bi-conditional, and so on.
Most importantly, the truth predicate is seen as a function, namely, Tr. Tr is to be the
propositional function that takes an entity and returns the proposition with respect to it,
that it is true. (E) then can be seen as a function E-prop, which is decomposable into the
functions IFF and Tr in such a way that for all propositions P, E-prop(P) = IFF(Tr(P), P)
(
p.74)
.Mc
Gr
a
t
h’
sf
i
ni
t
et
he
or
y
,weak deflationism is as follows:
(FTP) For all propositions P, P is materially equivalent to Tr(P).
In order to derive instances of (FTP), McGrath introduces a principle of material
implication:
(PMI) If <p> materially implies <q>, then, if p, then q.
If this is doable, then the minimal theory should be reformulated in this fashion, providing
s
omeunpr
obl
e
ma
t
i
cpr
e
mi
s
e
s
,s
uc
ha
s“
<Snowi
swhi
t
e
>=EXP(
‘
Snowi
swhi
t
e
’
)
”a
nd
6
“
Tr
(
‘
Snowi
swhi
t
e
’
)=<‘
Snowi
swhi
t
e
’i
st
r
ue
>”(
i
bi
d.
)
.
But is it?
Whether or not the material e
qui
v
a
l
e
nc
er
e
l
a
t
i
onbe
t
we
e
n‘
P’a
nd‘
Tr
(
P)
’i
sf
e
a
s
i
bl
ei
snot
what concerns me here.7 What interests me is whether or not (FTP) along with (PMI)
successfully formulate the minimal theory. According to Adam Kovach, however, this is
nott
hec
a
s
e
.I
n“
De
f
l
a
t
i
oni
s
ma
ndt
heDe
r
i
va
t
i
onGa
me
”(
Kova
c
h1997)
,Kova
c
ha
r
g
ue
s
6
McGrath also provides finite theories of sentence, belief, and utterance. The basic idea is to use a function
‘
EXP’t
oe
x
pl
a
i
nt
h
er
e
l
a
t
i
onbe
t
we
e
napr
opos
i
t
i
ona
n
dt
h
es
e
n
t
e
n
c
ee
x
pr
e
s
s
i
ngi
t
.
Th
ef
unc
t
i
on
,EXP
,
“
t
a
k
e
sa
ne
n
t
i
t
ya
sa
r
g
ume
n
ta
n
dr
e
t
u
r
nst
h
epr
opos
i
t
i
oni
te
x
pr
e
s
s
e
s(
Mc
Grath 1997b, p. 74). According to
McGrath, theories of utterance and belief truth can be accounted for in terms of the theory of sentence truth.
Details of this will not be discussed in the following. However, there are some complications of this account.
According to McGrath, weak deflationism inflates sentence, utterance, and belief truths while keeping
propositional truths deflated. That is, the first three need an inflation of the theory of meaning to ensure the
EXP function is doing its work properly. Putting aside these complications, however, there is a serious flaw
in this account, which will be discussed shortly.
7
This will be discussed in Chapter Five.
101
that (PMI) has to either be a generalisation governed by substitution quantifications or go
i
nf
i
ni
t
ec
a
s
ebyc
a
s
e
,f
ori
tc
ont
a
i
nsbot
hna
mepos
i
t
i
ons
,t
ha
ti
s
,t
hepa
i
rof‘
<p>’a
nd
‘
<q>’
,a
nds
e
nt
e
nc
epos
i
t
i
ons
,t
ha
ti
s
,t
hepa
i
rof‘
p’a
nd‘
q’
.ButMc
Gr
a
t
hr
e
j
e
c
t
st
hei
de
a
of formulating the finite theory in terms of substitution quantifications. So it is, after all,
inescapable that the finite theory has to go infinite.
For instance, in explaining the capacity of his finite theory in accounting for the general
fact regarding truth that, for all propositions P, Q, if P entails Q and P is true, then Q is
true, McGrath gives us the following argument. Three further principles are needed. That
is,
(P1) For all propositions P, Q, if P entails Q, then P materially implies Q;
and
(P2) For all propositions P, Q, CONJ(<P materially implies Q >, P) entails Q;
and
(P3) If CONJ(<p>, <q>) entails <r>, then if p and q, then r.8
The argument runs as follows:
1. For all P, Q, CONJ(<P entails Q >, <P is true>) entails
CONJ(<P materially implies Q >, <P is true>)
2. For all P, Tr(P) is necessarily equivalent to P
Assm., (P1)
Assm., Weak Defl.
3. For all P, Q, CONJ(<P entails Q >, <P is true>) entails
CONJ(<P materially implies Q >, P)
1, 2
4. For all P, Q, CONJ(<P entails Q >, <P is true>) entails Q
5. For all P, Q, CONJ(<P entails Q >, <P is true>) entails <Q is true>
8
(
P3)i
sac
on
s
e
qu
e
n
c
eofSos
a
’
s(
PE)
,a
c
c
or
di
n
gt
oMc
Gr
a
t
h
.Pl
e
a
s
es
e
ef
oot
n
ot
e5.
102
3, (P2)
2, 4
6. For all P, Q, if P entails Q and P is true, then Q is true
5, (P3)
The problem comes from the dubious (P3), which has the exact problem of (PMI). It is
obvious that in (P1) and (P2) we have objectual universal quantifiers and not in (P3). So
wi
t
hi
n(
P3)t
he‘
p’
,‘
q’
,a
nd‘
r’n
o
ti
na
ng
l
ebr
a
c
ke
t
sa
r
es
e
nt
e
nc
e
sr
a
t
he
rt
ha
npr
opos
i
t
i
ons
.
Therefore, the quantifier occurring in 6 has to be a substitution one. Similar mistakes
appear in every argument provided by McGrath while utilising (PMI) or principles in a
similar fashion. In a footnote, McGrath indicates that Horwich goes for a principle similar
to (PMI) in proving that minimalism can account for some general facts regarding truth.9
What McGrath fails to appreciate is that Horwich consistently goes infinite in explicating
minimalism. Most importantly, Horwich actually does not use a principle similar to (PMI).
It is nothing but a typographical error.
Howe
v
e
r
,Kova
c
h’
sobs
e
r
va
t
i
oni
snotne
wst
oMc
Gr
a
t
h.I
nhi
sLonger Notes of“
We
a
k
De
f
l
a
t
i
oni
s
m”
,numbe
r2t
obee
xa
c
t
,Mc
Gr
a
t
hr
e
f
e
r
st
oDa
vi
ds
onwhowr
i
t
e
si
n“
The
Fol
l
yofTr
y
i
ngt
oDe
f
i
neTr
ut
h”a
sf
ol
l
ows
:
Why, though, does Horwich not try generalizing his schema by quantifying over
propositions? The answer should be: because then we would have to view ordinary
sentences as singular terms referring to propositions, not as expressing propositions. (p.
273)
Da
vi
ds
on’
sc
l
a
i
m,a
c
c
or
di
ngt
oMc
Gr
a
t
h,i
spe
r
ha
psj
us
tt
ha
tHor
wi
c
h’
ss
c
he
ma(
E)i
snot
possible to generalise without utilizing sentential variables—that is, the eligible
g
e
ne
r
a
l
i
s
a
t
i
onof(
E)i
s“
Fora
l
lp, <p> is true if and only if p”
.Mc
Gr
a
t
hbe
l
i
e
ve
st
ha
tt
hi
s
claim is falsified by his finite theory of propositional truth.
Mc
Gr
a
t
h’
sbe
l
i
e
fi
s
,a
c
c
or
di
ngt
oKova
c
h,i
l
l
-founde
d.Fort
hi
sMc
Gr
a
t
ha
r
g
ue
si
n“
Re
pl
y
9
Please cf.t
h
es
e
c
on
ds
e
c
t
i
onoft
h
ef
ol
l
owi
ngc
h
a
pt
e
rf
orHor
wi
c
h’
sa
r
g
ume
n
t
.
103
t
oKova
c
h”(
Mc
Gr
a
t
h1997a) that (PMI) can either be taken as inferential principles or as
providing support for an unstated generalisation. (PMI) can be read as inferential
principles permitting, for instance, the inference that is allowed from formula of the form
“
<p> materially implies <q>”t
ot
hec
or
r
e
s
pondi
ngf
or
mul
a“
I
fp, then q”(
p.582)
.Or
,
alternatively, (PMI) can be read, for instance, in the case that true conjunctions have true
conjuncts, as providing support for the following generalisation.
(G) For all P, Q, if <CONJ(P, Q) is true> materially implies <P is true>, then if CONJ(P,
Q) is true, then P is true. (ibid.)
The supposed clarification being accomplished by reading (PMI) as inferential principles
or providing support to an unstated generalisation does not throw light on any prospect of
clarifying (PMI). Reading (PMI) as inferential principles has exactly the same problem
mentioned above, namely, appealing implicitly to substitution quantifications. In Between
Deflationism and Correspondence Theory (McGrath 2000), McGrath explains what he
means by reading (PMI) as a principle of inference.10 In terms of (PMI), as an inferential
pr
i
nc
i
pl
e
,onec
a
ni
nf
e
r“
I
fHe
s
pe
r
usi
sapl
a
ne
t
,t
he
nt
he
r
ei
sapl
a
ne
t
”f
r
om “
The
pr
opos
i
t
i
ont
ha
tHe
s
pe
r
usi
sapl
a
ne
te
nt
a
i
l
st
hepr
opos
i
t
i
ont
ha
tt
he
r
ei
sapl
a
ne
t
”
(McGrath 2000, p. 31). But this falls short of its explanatory purpose. To avoid the
utilisation of substitution quantifications in (PMI), one has to go case by case to include a
corresponding inferential principle for each inference.11 On the other hand, the only
sensible way to read (G) without any involvement of substitution quantifications, it seems,
is that, for all P, Q, if <CONJ(P, Q) is true> materially implies <P is true>, then
IF(Tr(CONJ(P, Q)), Tr(P)).12 But this reading is still about schematic sentences and is
10
Mc
Gr
a
t
ha
c
t
u
a
l
l
yu
s
e
sSos
a
’
s(
PEI
)i
nh
i
se
x
pl
a
n
a
t
i
on
.Bu
tt
h
epoi
n
ti
st
h
es
a
me
.
I
ts
e
e
mst
h
a
t(
PMI
)u
n
de
rt
h
i
sc
on
s
i
de
r
a
t
i
onboi
l
sdownt
oHor
wi
c
h’
sc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
mofs
u
bs
t
i
t
u
t
i
on
quantifications. Please cf. Horwich 1998b, pp. 25-26.
12
‘
I
F’i
sa
l
s
oapr
opos
i
t
i
on
a
lf
un
c
t
i
onf
or‘
i
f
-t
h
e
n’
.
11
104
t
ot
a
l
l
ydi
f
f
e
r
e
ntf
r
om (
PMI
)
.
Ac
c
or
di
ngt
oMc
Gr
a
t
h’
snot
a
t
i
on,‘
<p>’me
a
nsapr
opos
i
t
i
on
i
n(
PMI
)a
nd‘
p’doe
snot
.Ot
he
r
wi
s
e‘
<p>’s
houl
dbet
a
ke
na
s‘
<<p>>’
,i
f‘
p’me
a
nsa
pr
opos
i
t
i
onr
a
t
he
rt
ha
nas
e
nt
e
nc
e
,but‘
<<p>>’doe
snote
ve
nma
kes
e
ns
e
.I
ft
hi
si
sa
c
or
r
e
c
ti
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
onof(
PMI
)
,t
he
n“
i
fs
nowi
swhi
t
et
he
ng
r
a
s
si
sgr
e
e
n”s
houl
df
ol
l
ow
f
r
om“
<Snowi
swhi
t
e
>ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
l
yi
mpl
i
e
s<Gr
a
s
si
sg
r
e
e
n>”
.Si
mi
l
a
r
l
y
,“
i
f<s
nowi
s
whi
t
e
>i
st
r
ue
,t
he
ns
nowi
swhi
t
e
”f
ol
l
owsf
r
om “
<<Snowi
swhi
t
e
>i
st
r
ue
>ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
l
y
i
mpl
i
e
s<s
nowi
swhi
t
e
>”
.But‘
s
nowi
swhi
t
e
’a
nd‘
gr
a
s
si
sg
r
e
e
n’noti
na
ng
l
ebr
a
c
ke
t
s
are sentences. In order to derive instances from (FTP), (PMI) has to utilise substitution
quantifications to do the generalising work.
After showing that the minimal theory is in no position to go finite, it is time to move on.
It is clear that minimalism and disquotationalism diverge in virtue of appealing to
different truth bearers. Horwich rejects the idea of taking sentence types of a given
l
a
ng
ua
g
ea
st
r
ut
hbe
a
r
e
r
s
,ont
heba
s
i
st
ha
tt
hes
e
nt
e
nc
et
y
peofEng
l
i
s
h,s
a
y
,“
Ia
m
13
hung
r
y
”i
st
r
ueononeoc
c
a
s
i
onbutf
a
l
s
eona
not
he
r
.
It is the content of a sentence type
that is true or false. Curiously enough he does not rest his criticism on the usual grounds
that the notion of a language is elusive, or that the relation between a sentence type and its
content is contingent. As indicated in the second chapter, the disquotational schema
within the additional truth language is the necessary device to disquote a given sentence
type of an interpreted language to perform semantic ascent. Thus the two sentences are
the same sentence with exactly the same empirical content. An explanation for how we
can do this is required, but it is not reasonable to simply assume that the sentence in
13
Horwich does not use an indexical instance to make this point. But the instance he uses to indicate that it
is the content that is true or false, is ex
pr
e
s
s
e
dbyaQu
i
n
e
a
ne
t
e
r
n
a
l
i
s
e
ds
e
n
t
e
n
c
et
y
pe“
Os
c
a
rwa
sh
ung
r
ya
t
mi
dda
yon1J
a
n
u
a
r
y1988”(
Hor
wi
c
h1998b, p. 16). The problem of indexicality, it seems, is at least one of
the reasons for him to have reservations about taking sentence types as truth bearers.
105
quotation marks and the sentence disquoted have different empirical contents. The reason
that Horwich does not fall for this line of criticism probably has something to do with a
similar consideration.14 For it is also indispensable for him to identify what a particular
proposition is, in terms of an interpretation of the sentence type of a given language
expressing it. It just does not do to say that a linguistic expression expresses a particular
pr
opos
i
t
i
on,bya
ddi
ng“
t
hepr
op
o
s
i
t
i
ont
ha
t
”i
nf
r
ontofi
t
.Howe
ve
r
,Hor
wi
c
h’
sc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
m
doe
snots
e
e
mf
a
i
rbe
c
a
us
ei
nde
xi
c
a
l
i
t
yi
se
ve
r
y
body
’
spr
obl
e
m.
Perhaps it does not have to be fair anyway. Intuitively speaking, if there is an appropriate
theory of proposition, minimalism does seem to be preferable to disquotationalism. It has
two advantages over disquotationalism. First, minimalism can provide a more general
concept of truth; one applicable to linguistic items (regardless even of the language they
are in) that express one and the same proposition. Second, the expressibility problem
explicated in Chapter Two seems to be solved if the primary truth bearers are propositions.
Apparently, all instances of the generalising proposition can be derived from it, and vice
versa. At least, this was held at one time by Horwich, in Horwich 1998b.15 Of course in
the present case, this theory of proposition has to be completely independent from any
involvement of the concept of truth. Otherwise it is circular. But, on the other hand, we
should not forget that the virtue of disquotationalism is its absolute separation from any
theory of meaning. In other words, given an interpretation of all sentences of a given
14
When explaining how to take utterances as truth bearers (Horwich 1998b, p. 100-101), Horwich uses the
device of star marks to indicate that *I am hungry*, say, is a sentence type. He further derives a schema
(Du),
(Du) (u *p*
)→ (
u is true iff p)
,wh
e
r
e‘
u’i
sa
nu
t
t
e
r
a
n
c
e
,t
h
ef
i
r
s
t‘
p’qu
ot
e
dbys
t
a
rma
r
k
si
sa
s
e
n
t
e
n
c
et
y
pe
,a
n
dt
h
es
e
c
on
d‘
p’i
sas
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
,
f
r
omt
h
edi
s
qu
ot
a
t
i
on
a
ls
c
h
e
maofs
e
n
t
e
n
c
et
y
pe
s
.Het
h
e
nc
or
r
e
c
t
l
yc
l
a
i
mst
h
a
twha
ti
sputi
npl
a
c
eof‘
p’i
s
given a uniform interpretation.
15
Please cf. the second section of Chapter Five.
106
language, the concept of truth is fully characterised by a disquotational theory. Even
Hor
wi
c
h’
st
he
or
yoft
r
ut
hha
st
oa
ppe
a
lt
oa
ni
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
onofas
e
tofs
e
nt
e
nc
et
y
pe
sofa
language to interlink which sentence type with which proposition. So it seems that
minimalism and disquotationalism have their distinctive and different virtues with respect
to how they treat the relation between sentence types and propositions expressed by them.
Thusonec
a
nonl
ys
a
yt
ha
t
,i
fHo
r
wi
c
h’
spoi
ntofvi
e
w in Horwich 1998b holds, the
advantage of taking propositions as primary truth bearers is its reconciliation with the
expressibility of infinite conjunctions or disjunctions in terms of the truth predicate.
However, it will be shown in Chapter Five that this is incorrect.
A peculiar feature of minimalism follows from taking propositions as the truth bearers.
Thoug
hmi
ni
ma
l
i
s
mi
si
n
s
pi
r
e
dbyTa
r
s
ki
’
st
r
ut
hpa
r
a
di
g
m,t
he
r
ei
snos
uc
hahi
e
r
a
r
c
hyof
languages similar to the case of disquotationalism, that is constituted at each stage by the
target languages and the truth languages. Since every instance of the equivalence schema
i
sa
l
s
oapr
opos
i
t
i
on,e
a
c
hi
ns
t
a
nc
ec
a
na
l
s
ot
a
ket
hepl
a
c
eof‘
p’i
n(
E)a
ndf
or
maf
ur
t
he
r
axiom of the minimal theory of truth. This process goes on and on and on. This actually
makes sense, for there are all kinds of natural languages but no language of propositions.
Ta
r
s
ki
’
st
r
e
a
t
me
ntoft
hel
i
a
rpa
r
a
d
ox,howe
ve
r
,i
snota
va
i
l
a
bl
et
oHor
wi
c
h.Hor
wi
c
hd
oe
s
not provide any solution to the Liar in Truth (1998b). But he certainly does not accept
Ta
r
s
ki
’
ss
ol
ut
i
on,f
ort
hi
s“
s
ma
c
k
sofove
r
ki
l
l
”(
p.41)
.Ma
nyi
ns
t
a
nc
e
sof‘
p’i
n(
E)a
r
e
wi
t
ht
het
r
ut
hpr
e
di
c
a
t
e
.Fori
ns
t
a
nc
e
,e
ve
r
yi
ns
t
a
nc
eof(
E)c
a
nr
e
pl
a
c
e‘
p’a
ndf
or
m
another axiom of the minimal theory. This actually creates a pretty serious problem for
him.16 Discussion of this will be reserved for the next chapter.
16
I
tc
a
u
s
e
sat
e
ns
i
onbe
t
we
e
nHor
wi
c
h’
ss
ol
u
t
i
ont
ot
h
eg
e
n
e
r
a
l
i
s
a
t
i
onpr
obl
e
mc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
e
dbyma
nyot
h
e
r
s
,
f
ori
n
s
t
a
n
c
e
,
An
i
lGu
pt
ai
n“
Mi
n
i
ma
l
i
s
m”a
n
d“
ACr
i
t
i
qu
eofDe
f
l
a
t
i
on
i
s
m”
,and his solution to the Liar.
107
Although minimalism does not depend for its characterisation and analysis of the concept
of truth on a tenable theory of proposition; it is not compatible with just any theory of
proposition. For minimalism to be philosophically interesting, Horwich has to
successfully provide a theory of proposition that is without any involvement of the
concept of truth whatsoever. Or else one might incline to prefer disquotationalism to
minimalism.
Horwich does have a response to this. He endorses the idea of meaning as use. Among
others, Horwich counts Quine among the advocates of the use theory of meaning, though
reluctantly so. The predominant difference between their views is that they reach entirely
oppos
e
dc
onc
l
us
i
ons
.Ba
s
e
donhi
sa
na
l
y
s
i
soft
hei
nf
or
ma
nt
s
’di
s
pos
i
t
i
onst
ol
i
ng
ui
s
t
i
c
behaviours under certain occasions, Quine establishes the thesis of indeterminacy of
translation/interpretation according to which to seek a theory of proposition is simply out
of the question. On the contrary, Horwich holds a use-theoretic account of word meaning
and then argues that a proposition expressed by a sentence can be analysed purely in
terms of the meanings of its sentential constituents and the way of combining them. It is
not just that the use-theoretic account is independent of the concept of truth, but the
analysis of compositionality—that is, the ways of combining the meanings of the
sentential constituents—is also free from any complication caused by the concept of truth.
More, Horwich claims that his account of compositionality is deflationary. It is
compatible with any theory of meaning. His use-theoretic account of word meaning and
his account of compositionality will be analysed and criticised respectively in the third
and fourth sections. But first let us come to see, in the following section, how Horwich
108
c
a
nqu
e
l
lQui
ne
’
squa
l
ms
.
2.
Que
l
l
i
ngQui
ne
’
sQual
mso
rQue
l
l
e
db
yQui
ne
’
s Qualms?
I
nor
de
rt
oc
l
a
r
i
f
yHor
wi
c
h’
si
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
onoft
het
he
s
i
sofi
nde
t
e
r
mi
na
c
yoft
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
o
n,i
t
is necessary to make plain the central idea of his use-theoretic account of word meaning.
The account, according to Horwich, is inspired by Wittgenstein’
st
houg
htt
ha
tt
he
meaning of a word is constituted by its use, namely, from the regularity governing the
deployment, or, in other words, its overall use, in terms of the sentences in which it
appears (Horwich 1998a, p. 3 and p. 6).17 Put it in another way, the meaning constituting
property of a word stems from the acceptance property A(x) that gives the circumstances
in which certain specified sentences containing it are accepted (ibid. p.45).18 Further, it is
not just that any regularity governing our acceptance of all the sentences containing a
given word will do: it also has to be explanatorily basic.
Tos
ur
mountQui
ne
’
sba
r
r
i
e
r
,Ho
r
wi
c
hf
i
r
s
tdi
s
t
i
ngui
s
he
sf
i
vedi
f
f
e
r
e
ntf
or
msofs
c
e
pt
i
c
a
l
vi
e
wsc
onc
e
r
ni
ngme
a
ni
ng
,na
me
l
y(
Hor
wi
c
h’
sc
a
ps
)
,MEANI
NGHOLI
SM, MEANING
INDETERMINACY, MEANING INTERDEPENDENCE, MEANING DISTRIBUTION,
and INDETERMINACY OF EVERYDAY PROPERTY.19 MEANING HOLISM does not
c
ons
t
i
t
ut
eama
j
orpa
r
tofQui
ne
’
st
he
s
i
s
,a
ndt
hel
a
s
tvi
e
wme
nt
i
one
di
snott
he
17
I
ti
sn
otc
l
e
a
rwh
a
t‘
ov
e
r
a
l
lus
e
’me
a
ns
.I
nc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
i
ngwha
th
ec
a
l
l
sMEANI
NGHOLI
SM,Hor
wi
c
h
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
e
st
h
i
st
h
e
s
i
sa
ss
a
y
i
n
gt
h
a
t
,“
t
h
eme
a
n
i
ngofat
e
r
mde
pe
n
dsonevery single aspect of its overall
use”(
Hor
wi
c
h1998a, p. 61; my italics)
.La
t
e
ri
nhi
ss
umma
r
yoft
h
i
spos
i
t
i
on
,h
es
a
y
s
,“
t
h
eme
a
n
i
n
gofa
word depends on its overall us
e
”(
i
bi
d.
,
p.6
5)
.
Th
e
r
es
e
e
mst
obeadi
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
ebe
t
we
e
n‘
e
v
e
r
ys
i
n
g
l
ea
s
pe
c
t
ofi
t
sov
e
r
a
l
lu
s
e
’a
n
d‘
i
t
sov
e
r
a
l
lu
s
e
’
.
Th
ef
or
me
rs
e
e
mst
obes
u
gg
e
s
t
i
ngt
h
a
te
v
e
r
ys
pe
a
ke
r
’
smood,
i
n
t
e
n
t
i
on
,orpe
r
s
on
a
lh
i
s
t
or
yi
si
n
c
l
u
de
di
nt
h
ee
l
a
bor
a
t
i
onofag
i
v
e
nwor
d’
sme
a
n
i
ng
.
Whe
r
e
a
st
h
el
a
t
t
e
r
doe
sn
ots
e
e
mv
e
r
ydi
f
f
e
r
e
n
tf
r
omHor
wi
c
h’
sownf
or
mu
l
a
t
i
onofh
i
sus
e
-theoretic account, due to the
e
qu
i
v
oc
a
l
i
t
yof‘
de
pe
n
don
’
.Howe
v
e
r
,wes
h
ou
l
dov
e
r
l
ookt
h
i
sn
owa
n
dr
e
t
u
r
nt
oi
tl
a
t
e
r
.
18
There are many distinct features of this account, such as non-revisionism. But that is not in need of
clarification in this chapter.
19
The name of the last view does not come from Horwich. He does not give this view a name.
109
indeterminacy Quine has in mind. So what concerns me here is the second, third, and
fourth.20
MEANI
NGI
NDETERMI
NACY,a
c
c
or
di
ngt
oHor
wi
c
h’
sf
or
mul
a
t
i
on,i
st
hef
ol
l
owi
ng
thesis:
[T]here may be no objective fact of the matter as to whether a given property of a
word is, or is not, part of what constitutes the meaning of that word. For example,
there is no objective fact as to whether a given acceptance property is explanatorily
basic. (Horwich 1998a, p. 61)
The thesis of MEANING INTERDEPENDENCE can best be explicated by giving an
example of Horwich—for a given pair of words, αand β, what constitutes the meanings
of those words is a non-conjunctive relational fact, Rαβ, according to which the
meaning-constituting properties of αand βare (y)Rxy and (x)Rxy respectively (ibid.).
Apparently, αor βhaving its meaning, depends on the other to mean what it means as
c
ha
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
e
da
bove
.
Thi
si
se
s
pe
c
i
a
l
l
yi
mpor
t
a
ntt
oHor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ountofwor
dme
a
ni
ng
,
for it is vital for a word to have a certain meaning-constituting property, that other words
in the sentences containing it have their own meanings.
MEANING DISTRIBUTION on the other hand is most essential to my discussion of
Hor
wi
c
h’
sQQQa
c
c
ountbe
c
a
us
ei
nt
e
r
msofhi
si
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
on,Qui
ne
’
squa
l
msma
i
nl
y
result from this thesis. It is useful to explain MEANING DISTRIBUTION by means of
20
Although the last view will not be discussed hereafter, I would like to point out one minor inadvertency
ofHor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ou
n
t
.I
NDETERMI
NACYOFEVERYDAYPROPERTY,a
c
c
o
r
di
n
gt
ohi
m,i
sabr
e
e
di
n
g
ground for philosophical paradoxes. This is because certain predicates are normally used within some
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
ddoma
i
n
.“
[
I
]
fi
twe
r
ee
x
t
e
n
de
dbe
y
on
dt
h
a
tdoma
i
n,i
twou
l
dc
onf
l
i
c
twi
t
hot
h
e
rus
er
e
g
u
l
a
r
i
t
i
e
s
.
Philosophical paradoxes often originate in thi
swa
y
.
”(
Hor
wi
c
h1998a, p. 64) In a footnote of this point,
Horwich raises the Liar as an instance—that is, our inclination to accept every instance of the equivalence
schema occurs in normal contexts that preclude propositions involving the concept of truth. But according
to the minimal theory of truth every instance of the equivalence schema can be substituted into the schema
to form a further axiom. So the problem of the Liar could not possibly be about this point. This is probably
just a slip anyway.
110
the above instance—namely, the meaning-constituting relational fact, Rxy, is symmetric
so that Rxy = Ryx. In the present case, αand βonly have a joint meaning-constituting
property. It follows that some pairs or clusters of words might not have a
meaning-constituting property of their own (ibid. p. 62). Horwich then claims that, it
seems to him, this is what Quine argues in Chapter Two of Word and Object and
“
Ont
ol
og
i
c
a
lRe
l
a
t
i
vi
t
y
”
.Hef
ur
t
he
rc
onc
l
ude
st
ha
tt
he
r
ei
sa
not
he
ra
l
t
e
r
na
t
i
vedr
a
wnby
MEANING DISTRIBUTION according to which the idea of word meaning is not
unde
r
mi
ne
dbyQui
ne
’
sa
r
g
ume
nt
s
.
Thi
si
s
,howe
ve
r
,r
e
a
l
l
yas
ur
prising reading of Word
and Object chapter two.
In Chapter Nine of Meaning,“
Qu
e
l
l
i
ngQui
ne
’
sQua
l
ms
”
,Hor
wi
c
hpr
oc
e
e
dswi
t
hhi
s
c
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
monQui
ne
’
ss
c
e
pt
i
c
a
lvi
e
wr
e
ga
r
di
ngme
a
ni
ng
.
Ac
c
or
di
ngt
ohi
si
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
on
,
Quine argues that translating a remote language is not to rely our evaluation of competing
translation manuals on their equating terms of a translated language with those of
translating languages on the basis of their having the same meaning. Rather, it is the
capacity of various manuals to preserve assertability that distinguishes adequate manuals
from inadequate ones. In other words, it is the pragmatic consideration that makes the
demarcation. And there are no grounds to tell which is correct and which is not, as far as
they all conform to pr
a
gma
t
i
cc
ons
i
de
r
a
t
i
ons
.Hor
wi
c
he
xt
e
ndshi
sf
or
mul
a
t
i
onofQu
i
ne
’
s
analysis a bit further. First, according to the pragmatic point of translation, any translation
ma
nua
li
sa
de
qua
t
ei
fi
tpr
e
s
e
r
ve
sa
l
lt
hei
nf
or
ma
nt
s
’di
s
pos
i
t
i
onst
oa
s
s
e
nta
nddi
s
s
e
nt
.
Second, based on the first point, it can be argued that there are many non-equivalent but
nevertheless adequate translation manuals by means of which the same term of the
translated language is mapped onto different non-synonymous terms of the translating
111
language. Third, Quine thereby rests his arguments on the conclusion that there are no
such things as meaning entities (pp. 197-198).
I
nor
de
rt
oa
r
g
uea
g
a
i
ns
tQui
ne
’
squa
l
ms
,Hor
wi
c
hs
t
a
r
t
swi
t
ht
hei
nf
e
r
e
nc
ef
r
omt
he
second step to the third. In what sense, that is, can we say that there are no meaning
entities by showing that there are multiple non-equivalent but adequate translation
manuals? For the sake of carrying out his criticism, Horwich believes that he has
s
uc
c
e
s
s
f
ul
l
yr
e
f
or
mul
a
t
e
dQui
ne
’
smos
timportant argument to include the following three
premises (cf. Horwich 1998a, pp. 198-199).
(I) Two manuals with regard to their respective translations between a remote language L
and English are both adequate but are incompatible with each other in the sense that
according to one of them the translation of a foreign word v i
s‘
e’a
nda
c
c
or
di
ngt
ot
he
ot
h
e
ri
ti
s‘
e*’
.‘
e’a
nd‘
e*’a
r
enotc
o-referential for English speakers.
(II) If a word has a meaning then an adequate translation of it must have the same
meaning.
(III) If two English (context-insensitive) referring expressions have the same meaning
then speakers of English regard them as co-referential.
According to these premises, it is easy to derive the conclusion that no words have a
meaning. For, in terms of (I) and (II)
,‘
e’a
nd‘
e*’ha
vet
hes
a
meme
a
ni
nga
nd,c
ombi
ni
ng
this with (III)
,‘
e’a
nd‘
e*’s
houl
dbec
o-referential for speakers of English. But according
to (I)
,‘
e’a
nd‘
e*’a
r
enotc
o-referential. Therefore v does not have a meaning.
Hor
wi
c
h’
sc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
mha
st
woma
j
orpa
r
t
s
,a
ga
i
ns
t(
I) and (II) respectively. He first argues
that, even if (I) is granted, (II) is untenable. For the pragmatic consideration of adequate
112
translation manuals only ensures that each one of them is useful or justified. Although the
amount of adequate manuals could be many, only one of them is true and thus preserves
meaning (Horwich 1998a, p. 199). Modifying (II) into (II’
)
,t
ha
ti
fawor
dha
sar
e
f
e
r
e
n
t
,
then an adequate translation of it must have the same referent, nevertheless does not help.
Horwich has a much stronger standpoint than I do on the disquotational schema of
r
e
f
e
r
e
nc
e
.Forhi
m,t
ha
tt
het
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
ngt
e
r
ms
,‘
e’a
nd‘
e*’
,r
e
f
e
rdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
l
yt
oe and
e* respectively is perfectly determinate. It does not follow that v can be regarded as
referring to both e and e* because they are not co-referential. So (II’
)ha
st
ober
e
j
e
c
t
e
d
too.
Horwich then turns to criticise the first premise. In terms of proxy function, which I
discussed in the third chapter, he thinks that Quine provides us unlimited instances of
translations of words. Let f be a 1-1 function that takes each physical object into its
‘
c
os
mi
cc
ompl
e
me
nt
’
.Fore
a
c
hna
me‘
a’
,t
he
r
ei
sac
or
r
e
s
pondi
ngs
i
ng
ul
a
rt
e
r
m‘
a*’s
uc
h
that
a* = f(a),
and for each primitive predic
a
t
e‘
G’
,a
na
ddi
t
i
ona
lpr
e
di
c
a
t
e‘
G*’s
uc
ht
ha
t
{x}{G*[f(x)
]↔ G(x)},
a
nds
i
mi
l
a
r
l
yf
orr
e
l
a
t
i
ona
lpr
e
di
c
a
t
e
s
.I
tf
ol
l
owst
ha
t
,f
ore
a
c
ha
t
omi
cs
e
nt
e
nc
e‘
G(a)
’
,
G(a)↔ G*(a*)
.
Anda
nye
xt
e
ns
i
ona
ls
e
nt
e
nc
e‘
p’i
st
he
r
e
bye
qui
va
l
e
ntt
ot
hes
e
nt
e
nc
e
21
‘
p*’
.
Fors
pe
a
ke
r
soft
hes
a
mel
a
ng
ua
g
e
,‘
p’a
nd‘
p*’a
r
ec
o-assertable. Suppose that
D(x1, x2…)i
st
het
ot
a
l
i
t
yofa
s
s
e
r
t
a
bi
l
i
t
yf
a
c
t
sf
oras
pe
a
ke
r
’
sdi
s
pos
i
t
i
onst
oa
s
s
e
nta
nd
dissent, D(p1, p2…)i
se
q
ui
va
l
e
ntt
oD(p1*, p2*…)
.
Wi
t
ha
na
ddi
t
i
ona
la
s
s
umpt
i
on(
A)
:
21
If
ol
l
owHor
wi
c
h’
sf
or
mul
a
t
i
on
.
113
(A) Any manual of translation that preserves assertability is adequate,
one can suppose that, for a language H, which has sentences h1, h2…a
nds
oon,a
nda
language J, which has sentences j1, j2…a
nds
oon,
ama
nua
lt
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
ngf
r
om H to J is
adequate according to (A) as far as it maps h1 onto j1, h2 onto j2,…,a
nds
oon.I
f(
A)i
s
correct, then (I) can be derived from (A) and the consideration regarding proxy function.
In other words, given any manual M and a suitable proxy function, one can always
produce another manual M’that is as adequate as M but gives referentially different
words as the translations of words in the translated language.
(A) is untenable, according to Horwich. Assertability preservation is too narrow a
requirement for adequate translation manuals. If the pragmatic value of a translation
manual M is to help us communicate smoothly with our foreign informant in the way that
we substitute what we would have said with the fellow speakers of our language with the
corresponding foreign utterances in terms of M, then this manual does not assure us that
we will always produce correct predictions of what the informant will say under certain
c
i
r
c
ums
t
a
nc
e
s
.Mor
ei
mpor
t
a
nt
l
y
,wec
a
nnotpr
e
di
c
tt
hei
nf
or
ma
nt
’
sinferential
behaviours.22 Therefore, the collapse of premise (I) is the consequence of the rejection of
(A). Horwich then continues to construct what he thinks is a more reasonable account of
translation, based on his use-theoretic account of word meaning.
Thef
i
r
s
ti
mpr
e
s
s
i
onofHor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ountofQui
ne
’
squa
l
ms
,i
st
hequa
l
mt
ha
tt
he
s
ea
r
e
r
e
a
l
l
ynotQui
ne
’
squa
l
ms
.Hor
wi
c
h’
sr
e
f
or
mul
a
t
i
oni
sa
c
t
ua
l
l
ynot a reformulation of
Qui
ne
’
sa
r
g
ume
nt
.
Thi
sr
e
f
or
mul
a
t
i
on,ormor
ea
c
c
ur
a
t
e
l
yt
hi
sf
or
mul
a
t
i
on,c
ome
sf
rom
22
Please cf. Horwich 1998a, pp. 202-206.
114
two claims of Quine—namely, reference is inscrutable, and adequate translation manuals
a
r
ec
ompa
t
i
bl
ewi
t
ht
het
ot
a
l
i
t
yo
ft
hei
nf
or
ma
nt
s
’l
i
ng
ui
s
t
i
cdi
s
pos
i
t
i
onsofa
s
s
e
nta
nd
dissent. But these two claims do not jointly together form one argument. Further, to
reformulate the alleged argument of Quine residing in Word and Object in terms of the
consideration regarding proxy function is not chronologically correct. For the idea of
proxy function does not even appear in Word and Object. In addition, Horwich does not
s
e
e
mt
ounde
r
s
t
a
ndt
hei
de
aofpr
o
xyf
unc
t
i
onpr
ope
r
l
y
.
The
r
e
byhi
sc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
m ofQui
n
e
’
s
f
a
i
l
ur
et
opr
e
di
c
tt
hef
or
e
i
g
ni
nf
or
ma
nt
’
si
nf
e
r
e
nt
i
a
lbe
ha
vi
our
si
smi
s
l
e
a
di
ng
.Mor
e
ove
r
,
it is dubious that Quine only takes assertability preservation as the one and only
qualification of adequate translation manuals. Let us consider these points one by one.
Hor
wi
c
h’
sf
or
mul
a
t
i
oni
sc
onf
us
e
d.Qui
ner
a
i
s
e
st
hereductio argument with regard to the
inscrutability of reference at the beginning of section 12, Synonymy of Terms, of the
second chapter of Word and Object. To make this argument plain I need to first introduce
the definition of stimulus meaning. The definition of stimulus meaning comes from
Qui
ne
’
ss
pe
c
ul
a
t
i
onont
hel
e
a
r
ni
ngpr
oc
e
s
sofahomel
a
nguage and the radical translation
of a remote language—the stimulus meaning of a given utterance is the ordered pair of
affirmative and negative stimulus meanings.23 The affirmative stimulus meaning of a
given sentence is the class of all stimulations, for a given speaker, which would prompt
his assent to the sentence, and the negative stimulus meaning is the class of all the
stimulations that would prompt his dissent from it.24 So a translated sentence and a
23
Hor
wi
c
h’
sus
e
-theoretic account of word meaning heavily relies on the idea that to identify the
meaning-constituting property of a word, is to find the acceptance property A(x) according to which the
circumstances in which certain specified sentences containing the word are accepted are given. I assume
that he does not have a strong opinion against the concept of stimulus meaning. At least it is not a serious
problem in his formulati
onofQu
i
n
e
’
sa
r
gume
n
t
.
24
Th
ewor
d‘
woul
d’i
su
s
e
dt
oe
n
a
bl
et
h
ede
f
i
n
i
t
i
ont
oi
n
c
l
u
dea
l
lpos
s
i
bl
ev
e
r
ba
ldi
s
pos
i
t
i
on
soft
h
e
115
translating one are stimulus synonymous if and only if they have the same stimulus
meaning.25 The reductio argument is intended to show that, even if the stimulus
s
y
nony
mousr
e
l
a
t
i
onbe
t
we
e
nt
hei
nf
or
ma
nt
’
sone
-wor
ds
e
nt
e
nc
e“
Ga
va
ga
i
”a
ndour
translating one-wor
ds
e
nt
e
nc
e“
Ra
bbi
t
”i
sgr
a
nt
e
d,‘
ga
va
g
a
i
’a
nd‘
r
a
bbi
t
’a
st
e
r
msa
r
enot
thereby intuitively synonymous.26 The argument runs as follows:
1. Stimulus synonymy between one-word sentences can guarantee the intuitive
synonymous relation of the corresponding two terms. (the reductio)
2. I
f“
Ga
va
g
a
i
”a
nd“
Ra
bbi
t
”a
r
es
t
i
mul
uss
y
nony
mous
,t
he
n‘
ga
va
ga
i
’a
nd‘
r
a
bbi
t
’a
r
e
intuitively synonymous.
3. I
f‘
g
a
va
g
a
i
’a
nd‘
r
a
bbi
t
’a
r
ei
nt
ui
t
i
ve
l
ys
y
nony
mous
,t
he
nt
he
ya
r
ec
o-referential.
4. I
ti
spos
s
i
bl
et
oma
i
nt
a
i
nt
hes
t
i
mul
uss
y
nony
mousr
e
l
a
t
i
onof“
Ga
va
ga
i
”a
nd“
Ra
bbi
t
”
while t
hee
xt
e
ns
i
onof‘
ga
va
g
a
i
’i
sva
r
i
e
df
r
om t
her
e
f
e
r
e
ntof‘
r
a
bbi
t
’
.
5. Therefore, stimulus synonymy between one-word sentences cannot guarantee the
intuitive synonymous relation of the corresponding terms.
Let me elaborate this point a bit further. Quine eventually arrives at a definition of
stimulus synonymy of terms, in terms of the definition of stimulus analytic sentences. The
definition of stimulus analytic sentences is as follows: sentences are intrasubjective or
intersubjective stimulus analytic respectively if and only if a speaker or all speakers of a
speech community would assent to it respectively, when given any stimulation.27 Thus
s
pe
a
k
e
r
’
sa
s
s
e
n
t
i
n
gt
o,ordi
s
s
e
n
t
i
n
gf
r
om,t
h
eg
i
v
e
ns
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
.
Th
e
r
ei
s
,ofc
ou
r
s
e
,af
l
a
v
ourof
counterfactuals in this explication and Quine is famous on denying that counterfactual conditionals have
any philosophical significance. However, this does not deprive him of legitimately employing such a
grammatical usage of the subjunctive. Quine makes it clear in the following passag
e
:“
i
t
sus
e[
Th
a
ti
s
,t
h
e
u
s
eof‘
woul
d’
]h
e
r
ei
sn
owor
s
et
h
a
ni
t
su
s
ewhe
nwee
x
pl
a
i
n
s‘
xi
ss
ol
u
bl
ei
nwa
t
e
r
’a
sme
a
n
i
ngt
h
a
tx
wou
l
ddi
s
s
ol
v
ei
fi
twe
r
ei
nwa
t
e
r
”(
Qu
i
n
e1960,p.
33)
.
25
This is not quite right. Some socially widespread collateral information might cause some sort of
problem. Since this does not affect my elaboration, it is dropped for the sake of argumentation.
26
I
ti
sn
otobv
i
ou
sh
owt
oc
ount“
Ga
v
a
g
a
i
”a
saon
e
-word sentence. But, again, for the argument sake, this
issue is temporarily dropped.
27
For Quine, stimulus analyticity comes in degrees. For a speech community within which all members
116
t
wog
e
ne
r
a
lt
e
r
ms‘
F’a
nd‘
G’a
r
es
t
i
mul
uss
y
nony
mousf
oras
pe
a
ke
rorf
ors
pe
a
ke
r
sof
the same speech community respect
i
ve
l
yi
fa
ndonl
yi
f“
Al
lFs are Gs
,a
ndvi
c
eve
r
s
a
”i
s
stimulus analytic to her or to them respectively. This also extends to cover singular
terms—t
wos
i
ng
ul
a
rt
e
r
ms‘
a’a
nd‘
b’a
r
es
t
i
mul
uss
y
nony
mousf
oras
pe
a
ke
rorf
or
speakers of the same speech communi
t
yr
e
s
pe
c
t
i
ve
l
yi
fa
ndonl
yi
f“
a = b”i
ss
t
i
mul
us
analytic to her or to them respectively. However, the concepts of stimulus synonymy of
sentences, stimulus synonymy of terms, and stimulus analyticity, are not the candidates
for reconstructing their intuitive counterparts (Quine 1960, p. 66). It is clear, then, that
premise (II)ofHor
wi
c
h’
sf
or
mul
a
t
i
oni
sa
ni
nc
or
r
e
c
ti
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
onofQui
ne
’
st
he
or
y
.
Quine never rests the adequacy of a translation manual on conferring the same meaning
of the translating word to the translated one. They are only held to be stimulus
synonymous.
It is noteworthy that what is crucial in the above argument is not the inscrutability of the
reference regarding the translating words in different manuals. Instead, it is the referent
of the translated wor
d‘
ga
va
g
a
i
’t
ha
ti
si
ns
c
r
ut
a
bl
ei
nt
e
r
msoft
hes
t
i
mul
usme
a
ni
ngof
“
Ga
va
ga
i
”
.
Thes
t
i
mul
uss
y
nony
mousr
e
l
a
t
i
onbe
t
we
e
n‘
ga
va
g
a
i
’a
nd‘
r
a
bbi
t
’a
st
e
r
ms
also does not pin down the reference of the former term. Further, the reference of
‘
ga
va
g
a
i
’de
pe
ndsont
hei
ma
g
i
ne
df
i
e
l
dl
i
ng
ui
s
t
’
sa
na
l
y
t
i
chy
pot
he
s
i
s
,bywhi
c
ht
he
translation business of her is guided in the very first place. Part of the reason for
introducing the argument of the inscrutability of reference is to be a preface of the
discussion of analytic hypotheses. In discussing the phenomenon of the inscrutability of
r
e
f
e
r
e
nc
e
,Qui
neur
g
e
sust
ha
tt
h
es
t
i
mul
usme
a
ni
n
gof“
Ga
va
g
a
i
”doe
snoti
de
nt
i
f
yt
he
have certain specialised knowledge, there is a set of sentences that are stimulus analytic to those members
but not to those that are not a member of that community.
117
r
e
f
e
r
e
nc
eof‘
ga
va
ga
i
’a
sr
a
bbi
t
s
,unde
t
a
c
he
dr
a
bbi
tparts, or stages of rabbits. The reason
is that what a gavagai is, involves quantitative but not qualitative identity. And
quantitative identity is not just about the specification of the identity predicate, but it is
also about the specification of the whole syntactic device, such as the singular and the
plural, the copula, and the articles and pronouns, and so on. It is only possible to identify
‘
ga
va
g
a
i
’a
sr
e
f
e
r
r
i
ngt
oar
a
bbi
tr
a
t
he
rt
ha
nunde
t
a
c
he
dr
a
bbi
tpa
r
t
sors
t
a
ge
sofar
a
bbi
t
,
when the translation of certain syntactic device is determined. For instance, if the
i
nf
or
ma
nt
’
ss
e
nt
e
nc
er
e
ga
r
di
ngi
de
nt
i
t
yi
st
r
a
ns
l
a
t
e
da
s“
Is this the same rabbit as that?
”
28
t
he
n‘
ga
va
ga
i
’i
smor
el
i
ke
l
yt
obet
r
a
ns
l
a
t
e
da
sr
e
f
e
r
r
i
ngt
or
a
bbi
t
s
.
On the other hand,
‘
ga
va
g
a
i
’c
a
na
l
s
obet
r
a
ns
l
a
t
e
da
sr
e
f
e
r
r
i
ngt
ounde
t
a
c
he
dr
a
bbi
tpa
r
t
s
.Fori
ns
t
a
nc
e
,we
t
r
a
ns
l
a
t
et
hes
a
mei
nf
or
ma
nt
’
ss
e
nt
e
nc
ea
s“
Are these the same undetached rabbit parts as
those?
”Butt
he
s
ec
ons
i
de
r
a
t
i
onsh
a
venot
hi
ngt
odowi
t
ht
hei
nt
ui
t
i
veme
a
ni
ng
(
s) of
‘
ga
va
g
a
i
’a
nd‘
r
a
bbi
t
’
.Ofc
our
s
e
,
t
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
ng‘
ga
va
g
a
i
’a
sr
e
f
e
r
r
i
ngt
or
a
bbi
t
s
,unde
t
a
c
he
d
rabbit parts, or rabbit stages is not entirely indeterminate in terms of empirical inquiry.
For instance, if our linguist queries the indigenous informant on whether or not the
gavagai is the same one of yesterday, in a sentence of the translated language of course,
a
ndi
fouri
nf
or
ma
nt
’
sdi
s
pos
i
t
i
oni
st
oa
s
s
e
ntt
oi
t
,
t
he
na
tl
e
a
s
tourf
i
e
l
dl
i
ng
ui
s
tc
a
n
knowf
ors
ur
et
ha
t‘
g
a
va
g
a
i
’doe
snotr
e
f
e
rt
or
a
bbi
tstages. For rabbit stages have their
unique position in a space-time continuum. The point is rather that asking questions
regarding reference can only make sense after the related syntactic device is determined.
Again, premise (II) or the modi
f
i
e
dve
r
s
i
onoft
hea
r
g
ume
nti
snotQui
ne
’
s
.
The
r
ei
sonemor
et
hi
ngIwoul
dl
i
ket
os
a
ya
boutt
hes
e
c
ondpr
e
mi
s
eofHor
wi
c
h’
s
28
The underlinings indicate the related syntactic device. The same applies to the second sentence with
underlined words.
118
formulation. To say that, based on the thesis of the indeterminacy of translation, Quine
attempts to refuse the abstract entities of meaning is a bit overstated. What Quine offered
usf
r
om “
TwoDog
ma
sofEmpi
r
i
c
i
s
m”t
hr
oug
ht
oWord and Object, is the sceptical view
that there is no methodologically and epistemologically consistent way to account for the
concept of meaning and the existence of meaning entities. If there is no consistent way to
provide any tenable account regarding meaning, then this concept is the least thing we
should care about while doing empirical semantics, much less the existence of meaning
entities. In other words, to argue against meaning entities metaphysically is not what
concerns Quine.
As indicated three paragraphs back, the idea of a proxy function does not appear in Word
and Object. The argument of the inscrutability of reference is later promoted by many
commentators as one of the most important arguments supporting the thesis of translation
indeterminacy. But the point made originally in the second chapter of Word and Object is
to be the curtain raiser of the considerations of analytic hypotheses. In order to tear down
the alleged argument of Quine, however, it is essential for Horwich to formulate it in
t
e
r
msoft
hei
de
aofapr
oxyf
unc
t
i
on.
Ac
c
or
di
ngt
oHor
wi
c
h’
si
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
onoft
hi
si
de
a
,a
suitable proxy function that preserves truths of the original theory/language maps each
name, each singular term, each general term, and all kinds of predicates onto their
corresponding counterparts of the background theory/language. He criticises the idea of a
proxy function, as the basis of the indeterminacy of translation, by saying,
Th
u
s
,i
na
ppr
opr
i
a
t
ec
i
r
c
ums
t
a
n
c
e
sIt
h
i
nka
n
ds
a
y“
Th
a
ti
sar
a
bbi
t
”
;bu
tIwi
l
ln
ott
h
i
n
k
“
Th
ec
os
mi
cc
ompl
e
me
n
toft
h
a
ti
st
h
ec
os
mi
cc
ompl
e
me
ntofar
a
bbi
t
”
—even though I
might be disposed to work it out and assent it if queried. Consequently, if we use such facts
about actual usage, together with a translation scheme, to generate expectations about what
foreigners will say under similar circumstances, then only one of the various
119
assertibility-preserving schemes will be right. (Horwich 1998a, p. 205)
But this is a fairly strange interpretation of the idea of a proxy function. In Word and
Object,ag
i
ve
nt
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
onma
nu
a
lma
ppi
ng‘
g
a
va
g
a
i
’ont
o‘
r
a
bbi
t
’doe
snotba
s
et
hi
s
mapping on their being stimulus synonymous as terms. It is actually because we
premeditate to translate the syntactic device of the remote language in a corresponding
wa
y
.I
fwedi
dt
hi
sdi
f
f
e
r
e
nt
l
y
,t
he
n‘
g
a
va
g
a
i
’mi
ghtbema
ppe
dont
o,s
a
y
,‘
unde
t
a
c
he
d
r
a
bbi
tpa
r
t
s
’
.Pr
oxyf
unc
t
i
onswi
t
hr
e
ga
r
dt
or
e
l
a
t
i
vi
s
ation of ontology are another matter,
ahi
g
h
l
yr
e
l
a
t
e
donepe
r
ha
ps
.I
ti
snons
e
ns
et
os
a
yt
ha
t‘
r
a
bbi
t
’r
e
f
e
r
st
or
a
bbi
t
si
na
n
absolute sense. It can only be asked, relative to a background theory T, to what does the
t
e
r
m‘
r
a
bbi
t
’oft
heobj
e
c
tt
he
or
yr
e
f
e
r
?I
nde
e
d,wewi
l
lnott
hi
nka
nds
a
y“
The cosmic
complement of that i
st
hec
os
mi
cc
ompl
e
me
ntofar
a
bbi
t
”i
fwet
hi
nka
nds
a
y
,i
n
a
ppr
opr
i
a
t
ec
i
r
c
ums
t
a
nc
e
s
,“
That i
sar
a
bbi
t
”
.
Wewi
l
lr
a
t
he
rt
hi
nka
nds
a
y“
That is the
cosmic complement of a rabbit (relative to a background theory T)
.
”As
ui
t
a
bl
epr
oxy
function maps the universe of the object theory onto the universe of the background
theory. Although the background theory contains new predicates of each of the
corresponding old ones, the proxy function at hand is not designed for giving a mapping
of them.
According to the above characterisation, even the stimulus synonymous relation of
‘
ga
va
g
a
i
’a
nd‘
r
a
bbi
t
’a
st
e
r
ms
,f
orabi
l
i
ng
ua
lorabi
l
i
ng
ua
lc
ommuni
t
y
,doe
snotf
i
xt
he
i
r
reference, for the stimulus meaning does not fix the reference of the given term or terms.
Re
me
mbe
rt
ha
tt
hede
f
i
ni
t
i
onofs
t
i
mul
uss
y
nony
myoft
e
r
msi
s
:“
Al
lFs are Gs, and vice
ve
r
s
a
”i
ss
t
i
mul
usa
na
l
y
t
i
c
,“
‘
Al
lg
a
va
g
a
i
sa
r
es
t
a
ge
sofr
a
bbi
t
s
,a
ndvi
c
eve
r
s
a
’i
ss
t
i
mul
us
analytic”i
sa
sg
ooda
s“
‘
Al
lg
a
va
g
a
i
sa
r
er
a
bbi
t
s
,a
ndvi
c
eve
r
s
a
’i
ss
t
i
mul
usa
na
l
y
t
i
c
”f
or
120
the sake of defining their stimulus synonymy.
Then, why does Horwich choose to criticise the idea of proxy functions as his major
launching pad? Why does he interpret this idea in this way? My best guess is that it is to
dowi
t
hhi
st
he
or
yofr
e
f
e
r
e
nc
e
.
Ana
l
og
ous
l
yt
omyi
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
onofQui
ne
’
st
he
or
yof
reference in Chapter Three according to which the disquotational schema of reference is
i
ndi
s
pe
ns
a
bl
et
oQui
ne
’
st
he
ory, the disquotational schema of reference is essential to
Hor
wi
c
h’
st
he
or
yt
oo.
Thedi
f
f
e
r
e
nc
ei
st
ha
tHor
wi
c
hc
ons
i
de
r
st
ha
tt
hedi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
schema of reference and all its instances provide a genuine reference scheme. More
precisely, his theory of reference is that nothing more lies behind the trivial instances of
the disquotational schema of reference, (R). The disquotational schema of reference (R)
is:
(R) Tokens of *n* refer, if at all, to n,
where the star quotation marks indicate that the expression-type in quote is
de-ambiguised to avoid the multiple referential relation of ambiguous
expression-types (Horwich 1998a, p. 119).
He further derives a conditional schema (RT) for foreign terms:
(RT) *n* is the correct translation of w → (
x)(w refers to x iff x = n).29
The reason Horwich believes that there is one and only one correct translation manual is
revealed in the last sentence of our quotation two pages back, namely:
Consequently, if we use such facts about actual usage, together with a translation scheme,
to generate expectations about what foreigners will say under similar circumstances, then
only one of the various assertibility-preserving schemes will be right. (Horwich 1998a, p.
205 my italics)
29
(RT)i
sa
c
c
e
pt
a
bl
es
ol
on
ga
swec
h
a
ng
et
h
ewor
d‘
c
or
r
e
c
t
’t
o‘
a
de
qu
a
t
e
’a
n
da
dd“
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
et
oama
nu
a
lM”
after bot
ht
h
ef
i
r
s
ta
ppe
a
r
a
n
c
eof‘
w’a
n
dt
h
el
a
s
ta
ppe
a
r
a
n
c
eof‘
n’
.
121
In other words, if presumably a list of all possible translation manuals in terms of suitable
proxy functions is given, only one of them is correct because it genuinely matches what
foreigners have in mind. But the idea of a proxy function is also applicable to home
languages—that is, foreigners can also permute the universe of their language onto, say,
itself. Considering his interpretation of the idea of a proxy function, Horwich seems to
pick the wrong target. He should criticise the thesis of ontological relativity instead of the
thesis of translation indeterminacy. For holding true both the disquotational schema of
reference, in an absolute sense, and the thesis of ontological relativity is inconsistent.
Hor
wi
c
hha
snotf
i
ni
s
he
dhi
sque
l
l
i
ngofQui
ne
’
squa
l
msy
e
t
.Hef
ur
t
he
rc
l
a
i
ms that the
preservation of assertability is not a suitable criterion of the adequacy of translation
manuals. Some, but of course not the real c
or
r
e
c
tone
,wi
l
lf
a
i
lt
opr
e
di
c
tt
hef
or
e
i
g
ne
r
’
s
inferential behaviour. Regarding the case addressed in our quoted words, Horwich
continues to say,
For we infer h*[
Th
a
ti
s
,“
Th
ec
os
mi
cc
ompl
e
me
n
toft
h
a
ti
st
h
ec
os
mi
cc
ompl
e
me
n
tofa
r
a
bbi
t
.
”
]f
r
omh [
Th
a
ti
s
,“
Th
a
ti
sar
a
bbi
t
.
”
]
,n
ott
h
eot
h
e
rwa
yr
ou
n
d.
Wef
i
r
s
tobs
e
r
v
e(
or
i
ns
omeot
h
e
rwa
ydi
s
c
ov
e
r
)t
h
a
t“
Th
a
ti
sar
a
bbi
t
”i
st
r
u
e
,a
n
dt
h
e
n
,g
i
v
e
nt
h
ede
f
i
n
i
t
i
onof
h* in terms of h,wer
e
a
s
ont
ha
t“
Th
ec
os
mi
cc
ompl
e
me
n
tofthat is the cosmic complement
ofar
a
bbi
t
”mu
s
ta
l
s
obet
r
u
e
.Mor
e
ov
e
r
,t
h
ef
a
c
tt
h
a
twer
e
a
s
oni
nt
h
i
swa
yi
sabe
h
a
vi
ou
r
a
l
fact about us—a fact about our behaviour with respect to h and h*. Consequently a fully
adequate translation manual should preserve such behavioural relations, and not merely
dispositions to assent and dissent. (Horwich 1998a, p. 206)
This is the strongest reason why Horwich conceives of being assertability preserving as
not sufficient to identify the one and only adequate translation manual. I suspect this is
t
her
e
a
s
onwhy
,a
c
c
or
di
ngt
ohi
sc
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
on,hea
t
t
r
i
but
e
sQui
ne
’
squa
l
mst
o
MEANING DISTRIBUTION. If, in termsofas
ui
t
a
bl
epr
oxyf
unc
t
i
on,‘
r
a
bbi
t
’unde
ra
particular interpretation I1 of a language L c
a
nbema
ppe
dont
o‘
t
hec
os
mi
cc
ompl
e
me
n
t
122
ofar
a
bbi
t
’unde
ra
not
he
ri
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
onI2 oft
hes
a
mel
a
ng
ua
g
e
,a
nd‘
t
hec
os
mi
c
c
ompl
e
me
ntofar
a
bbi
t
’unde
rI1 can bema
ppe
dont
o‘
r
a
bbi
t
’unde
rI2, then there is a
phe
nome
nonofMEANI
NGDI
STRI
BUTI
ONbe
t
we
e
n‘
r
a
bbi
t
’a
nd‘
t
hec
os
mi
c
c
ompl
e
me
ntofar
a
bbi
t
’wi
t
hr
e
s
pe
c
tt
ot
ha
tpr
oxyf
unc
t
i
on.
Ac
c
or
di
ngt
ohi
s
use-theoretic account of word meaning, however, the predicat
e‘
t
hec
os
mi
cc
ompl
e
me
nt
ofar
a
bbi
t
’i
sac
ompl
e
xonewhos
eme
a
ni
ngi
nt
ur
nha
st
obec
ons
t
r
uc
t
e
di
nt
e
r
msoft
he
me
a
ni
ngoft
hes
i
mpl
epr
e
di
c
a
t
e‘
r
a
bbi
t
’
.Het
he
r
e
f
or
ec
onc
l
ude
st
ha
tt
hephe
nome
nonof
MEANING DISTRIBUTION is nothing but an illusion. Inte
r
pr
e
t
i
ngQui
ne
’
squa
l
msa
s
MEANING DISTRIBUTION, however, is really an illusion. Considering the idea of a
proxy function, Horwich seems to go backwards in constructing the view of MEANING
DISTRIBUTION. In the light of his disquotational schema of referenc
e
,‘
r
a
bbi
t
’r
e
f
e
r
st
o
r
a
bbi
ta
nd‘
t
hec
os
mi
cc
ompl
e
me
ntofar
a
bbi
t
’r
e
f
e
r
st
ot
hec
os
mi
cc
ompl
e
me
ntofa
r
a
bbi
t
.
Theme
a
ni
ng
sof‘
r
a
bbi
t
’a
nd‘
t
hec
os
mi
cc
ompl
e
me
ntofar
a
bbi
t
’a
r
ene
e
de
dt
o
make sure that these two instances of the disquotational schema come out right. Hence, it
seems that their meanings also have a mapping relation similar to the one between the
r
e
f
e
r
e
ntof‘
r
a
bbi
t
’a
ndt
her
e
f
e
r
e
ntof‘
t
hec
os
mi
cc
ompl
e
me
ntofar
a
bbi
t
’i
nt
e
r
msofa
suitable proxy function. This, however, is not what Quine has in mind.
St
i
l
l
,Iha
vet
oc
l
a
r
i
f
yHor
wi
c
h’
squa
l
msove
rt
hea
de
qua
c
yc
r
i
t
e
r
i
onoft
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
on
manuals. Right after the cited words in the last paragraph, Horwich continues to argue,
[A fully adequate translation manual] should translate h into a sentence of J from which
J-speakers infer the sentence into which it translates h*. That is, since we infer h* from
h, and adequate translation, T, should be such that J-speakers infer T(h*) from T(h). But
suppose that T(h*) = j* and T(h) = j, whereas T*(h*) = j and T*(h) = j*; and suppose
that J-speakers infer j* from j. Then T* will not correctly predict the inferential
r
e
l
a
t
i
on
s
,e
v
e
nt
h
oug
hi
tma
ys
a
t
i
s
f
yQu
i
n
e
’
sa
de
qu
a
c
yc
on
di
t
i
on(
A)
,pr
e
s
e
r
v
i
nga
l
lt
h
e
123
assertibility facts. (Horwich 1998a, p. 206)
The
r
ea
r
et
wopr
obl
e
msofHor
wi
c
h’
sa
r
g
ume
nt
.Fi
r
s
t
,t
hei
nt
a
ng
i
bl
epa
r
tofHor
wi
c
h’
s
argument is why the inference within our speculation regarding translation business also
t
a
ke
spa
r
ti
nouri
nf
or
ma
nt
’
smi
nd
?Whe
nQui
nec
l
a
i
mst
ha
tt
her
e
f
e
r
e
nc
eofat
e
r
m‘
n’of
a remote language is inscrutable in translation, it is the translator who finds there to be no
e
vi
de
nc
et
os
uppor
the
rt
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
onoft
hewor
d‘
n’a
sr
e
f
e
r
r
i
ngt
om or m*. It is we who
are doing the translating. We want to know which translation manual, T or T*, is correct
or adequate in the light of this sort of speculation. It is we who are puzzled, not our
informant. There is no such a parallel of inferential behaviours between our informant and
us while doing translation. This confusion, it seemst
ome
,c
ome
sf
r
om Hor
wi
c
h’
st
a
ki
ng
the disquotational schema of reference in an absolute sense. Without recognising this, his
criticism is at best misleading, if not mistaken.
Thes
e
c
ondpr
obl
e
mi
st
ha
tHor
wi
c
h’
sa
r
g
ume
nts
howst
ha
theg
e
t
st
hewhol
ei
dea of the
indeterminacy thesis wrong. In the case of radical translation, Quine shows that in
translating a remote language, the field linguist tries to establish semantic facts of the
t
r
a
ns
l
a
t
e
dl
a
ng
ua
ge
.Howe
ve
r
,Qui
ne
’
st
he
s
i
si
st
ha
t
,e
ve
ni
fwege
tt
he totality of
assertability conditions of our informants, the translation manual is not fixed. What we
are not doing in translating a remote language is to translate its semantic theory. In terms
of the linguistic practice of our informants, if there are semantic facts to be established,
then we can form a general semantic theory. If the field linguist already has difficulties to
fix the reference scheme of the translated language, the inference given by Horwich is to
make the determination of translation more impossible. True, if the proxy function
argument is valid, then reference is inscrutable and the ontology of a given language or a
124
given theory has to be relativised to be comprehended. Hence translation of another
language is indeterminate. However, the indeterminacy thesis does not hinge its
significance on the validity of the proxy function argument. The notion of proxy function
is used to make a point regarding semantical reasoning. Therefore, to actually infer h
from h* or to infer h* from h is irrelevant, is incidental.
In addition, it is hard to see, under a proper understanding of the idea of a proxy function,
why we cannot do it the other way round and infer h from h*?I
nde
e
d,i
nEng
l
i
s
h‘
r
a
b
bi
t
’
i
ss
e
ma
nt
i
c
a
l
l
ys
i
mpl
e
rt
ha
n‘
t
hec
os
mi
cc
ompl
e
me
ntofar
a
bbi
t
’
,butwhyone
a
r
t
hdowe
think that we are authorised to confer this semantic feature to other languages? What sort
of evidence do we have to support our assumption that it is an adequate characterisation
of this semantic feature of a remot
el
a
ng
ua
g
e
?Thi
si
swha
tQui
ne
’
squa
l
msa
r
ea
bout
.I
na
normal vein, the field linguist might arrive at such a manual. But this is because of the
projection by her, from something similar to our semantical considerations. In the vein of
philosophical theorisation, this projection does not prove anything. It seems to me that
what Quine has reservations about—that is, do certain semantic and synthetic features of
our language coincide with other languages?—turns out to be a presupposition of
Hor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ount.30
Moreover, does Quine really accept the claim that the only criterion of the adequacy of
translation manuals is assertability preservation? There are two clarifications to make.
First, translation of a remote language is an empirical enterprise. Our imagined field
linguist has nothing more than normal induction and scientific methods to help her form a
30
Please see the following two sections.
125
translation manual or manuals. She does not have any evidence other than the observed
occasions, under which indigenous utterances are produced, and the assent/dissent
di
s
pos
i
t
i
onsofhe
ri
nf
or
ma
nt
st
oc
e
r
t
a
i
nque
r
y
i
ngi
ndi
g
e
nousut
t
e
r
a
nc
e
s
.Hor
wi
c
h’
s
qualms over the licensing of correct expectations and inferential behaviours from
adequate translation manuals are only a matter of empirical inquiry. If our field linguist is
competent, she will make right queries. For our field linguist, the totality of her
i
nf
or
ma
nt
s
’l
i
ng
ui
s
t
i
cdi
s
pos
i
t
i
onst
oa
s
s
e
nta
nddi
s
s
e
nt
,a
ndt
hec
or
r
e
s
pondi
ngobs
e
r
ve
d
occasions, are the sole depository of empirical evidence. And the translation manual she
f
or
msi
snotonl
yg
e
ne
r
a
t
e
df
r
omhe
rs
t
udyofhe
ri
nf
or
ma
nt
s
’l
i
ng
ui
s
t
i
cdi
s
pos
i
t
i
ons
,but
a
l
s
of
r
om he
rc
onj
e
c
t
ur
eofhowt
os
e
g
me
ntt
hei
ndi
g
e
nousi
nf
or
ma
nt
s
’ut
t
e
r
a
nc
e
si
n
terms of her analytic hypotheses, by which the translation business is guided in the very
first place. Second, assertability preservation is not the only criterion for adequate
translation manuals. An adequate manual has to preserve truth. Although Quine does not
explore much of this point in Word and Object, he later agrees with Davidson that this is
necessary.31 In addition, it is possible for some indigenous stimulus analytic sentences to
be translated into ours that are not stimulus analytic. The instance given by Quine is our
translation of a community-wide be
l
i
e
fof“
Al
lr
a
bbi
t
sa
r
eme
nr
e
i
nc
a
r
na
t
e
”
,whi
c
hi
snot
stimulus analytic in English (ibid. p. 69). This consideration is certainly about truth
preserving. The process of translating consists, no doubt, in confusions and
misunderstanding, but this is the signature of empirical inquiry and is no more than what
we are caught by with respect to normal inductive method. There will always be conflicts,
if the inferences of the indigenous informants are misplayed. It is part of the field
l
i
ng
ui
s
t
’
st
a
s
kt
os
or
tt
he
s
et
hi
ng
sout
.
Wi
t
hr
e
g
a
r
dt
ot
het
ot
a
l
i
t
yofhe
ri
nf
or
ma
nt
s
’
31
Th
i
sc
e
r
t
a
i
n
l
yc
a
u
s
e
sapr
obl
e
mt
oQu
i
n
e
’
st
h
e
or
yoft
r
u
t
h
.Iwi
l
ldi
s
c
u
s
st
h
i
si
nt
h
ef
i
n
a
ls
e
c
t
i
onof
Chapter Five.
126
linguistic dispositions, our field linguist does not have the luxury to hope for any
evidence beyond this.
The common disturbance in translation, however, does not reside in the problem of
pr
e
s
e
r
vi
ngi
nf
or
ma
nt
s
’i
nf
e
r
e
nc
e
s
,s
i
nc
et
hemi
s
unde
r
s
t
a
ndi
ngofot
he
r
s
’l
ogi
c
a
lr
e
a
s
oni
ng
is easily located. The difficulty of translation involves ordinary beliefs, such as in the case
of rabbits, men, and reincarnation. Consider folk Chinese religious beliefs as an example.
The following are some popular Chinese superstitions: good gods always defend their
disciples from attack by evil spirits, disease and disease-like symptoms are indications of
demonic possessions, and good gods effect their power through their mortal mediums to
repulse demonic attacks. In particular, superstitious Chinese believe that drinking a cup of
water mixed with the ashes of Chinese incense sticks dedicated to good gods can cure
diseases. It is clear that these beliefs put together explain why superstitious Chinese hold
that it is true that ash-water has magical potency. To organise and formulate an inference
from these superstitious beliefs in terms of her translations of them is not difficult for our
field linguist. What is difficult is to first translate these beliefs themselves, because they
are devoid of reasonable scientific justifications and because they are so different from
wha
tt
hef
i
e
l
dl
i
ng
ui
s
tbe
l
i
e
ve
s
.
Thi
se
xa
mpl
ede
mons
t
r
a
t
e
showi
na
de
qua
t
eHor
wi
c
h’
s
recognition of the translation business is. For he thinks that the one and only adequate
translation manual is always able to generate expectations regarding how the foreigner
wi
l
lr
e
s
pond.Hea
l
s
ot
hi
nkst
ha
ts
uc
hama
nua
lwoul
dl
i
c
e
ns
eus“
t
oha
vee
xa
c
t
l
yt
he
expectations we would have had if we were dealing with members of our own linguistic
community—modul
ot
hes
ubs
t
i
t
ut
i
onoft
hec
or
r
e
s
pondi
ngf
or
e
i
g
ns
e
nt
e
nc
ef
orourown”
(Horwich 1998a, p. 205). What will members of the English speaking community
127
respond to with respect to the translating sentences of the beliefs above characterised, if
they do not hold them true? The expectations between how our informants will respond to
a query and how our fellow speakers will respond to the translating sentence of the
queried one are not always the same. An adequate translation manual, according to
Hor
wi
c
h’
se
l
a
bor
a
t
i
on,pr
oba
bl
yj
us
ta
mount
st
oag
ui
de
bookofda
i
l
yc
onve
r
s
a
t
i
ons
,a
nd
not even a very good one. How to keep the balance between holding our analytic
hypotheses, conforming to the totality of linguistic dispositions of indigenous informants,
and preserving all truths held by them is the major task of the field linguist. And it is for
this reason that the translation business is pragmatic.
Hor
wi
c
ht
hi
nkst
ha
tQui
ne
’
sargument at best shows the indeterminacy of word meaning,
but not sentence meaning (Horwich 1998a, p. 200). But it is apparent that this is not the
case. The concept of stimulus synonymy is only an ersatz of its intuitive counterpart.
Qui
ne
’
st
he
s
i
sofi
ndeterminacy of translation shows us that searching an empirical
a
c
c
ountofi
nt
ui
t
i
veme
a
ni
ngofwor
dsa
nds
e
nt
e
nc
e
si
si
nva
i
n.Hor
wi
c
h’
sc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
m of
Qui
ne
’
squa
l
msdoe
snotf
a
i
lbe
c
a
us
eofi
t
si
nc
ons
i
s
t
e
nc
ybuti
t
si
na
c
c
ur
a
c
y
.Hor
wi
c
hd
i
d
not quell Quine’
squa
l
ms
,buthi
sa
c
c
ountofme
a
ni
ngi
sve
r
yl
i
ke
l
yt
obeque
l
l
e
dby
Qui
ne
’
squa
l
ms
.
3.
OnHo
r
wi
c
h’
sUs
e
-Theoretic Account of Word Meaning
Hor
wi
c
h’
st
he
or
yofme
a
ni
ngc
ont
a
i
nsma
nya
s
pe
c
t
s
,s
uc
ha
st
her
e
l
a
t
i
onsbe
t
we
e
nhi
s
account of meaning and the concepts of truth, reference, and normativity, which will not
be the main focus in the following two sections. In order for a full account of proposition
to be given, Horwich provides his use-theoretic account of word meaning and then
128
develops his account of compositionality, which explains how the constituents of a
sentence combine together. My major task in the two consecutive sections is to analyse
them respectively.
Hor
wi
c
h’
smos
ti
mpor
t
a
ntf
or
mul
a
t
i
onofag
i
ve
nwor
d’
sme
a
ni
ngi
sg
i
ve
nbyt
he
following:
(M) The meaning of a word, w, is constituted by a use property, u(x), according to which
the overall use of w is governed/best explained by an explanatorily basic regularity,
where an acceptance property A(x) possessed by w gives the circumstances in which
certain specified sentences containing it are accepted (cf. Horwich 1998a, p. 3, p. 6, p.
7, and p. 45).32
Many things within (M) are in need of clarification, but some will be set aside for the
following section, such as the idea of a Fregean proposition. At issue here are, first, the
relations between the use properties, regularities, and the acceptance properties. Second,
what does it mean to say that one property is constituted by the other? And finally, how
can we make sense of (M)? I will start with the second one.
From Truth to Meaning, Horwich rejects the idea of a reductive analysis of semantic
not
i
onss
uc
ha
s
,i
nt
hepr
e
s
e
ntc
a
s
e
,“
x means F”i
sr
e
duc
t
i
ve
l
ya
na
l
y
s
a
bl
ei
nt
e
r
msofa
relation T such that T(x, f). The reason for adopting a form of reductive analysis normally,
is that it preserves logical form shared by both the reduced property and the one to which
the former reduces (Horwich 1998a,p.
22)
.I
nt
hea
bovec
a
s
eof‘
x means F’
,t
hec
ommon
logical form is the relational schema Rxy. Horwich c
a
l
l
st
hi
st
he“
Cons
t
i
t
ut
i
onFa
l
l
a
c
y
”
32
For Horwich, the meaning of a predicate is a concept—t
h
a
ti
s
,t
h
eme
a
n
i
ngof‘
r
e
d’i
st
h
ec
on
c
e
ptRED.
The illustration of this reasoning is left out because it is not relevant to my discussion below.
129
(ibid. p. 25). According to Horwich, it is always possible to reduce a superficial relational
property to a monadic underlying property.33 It is clear then, that what Horwich rejects is
not a reduction from one property to another, but that this reduction has to preserve the
logical form of the reduced property. Further, in the philosophical vein, to say that one
property is reduced to the other implies that they are identical. But this is not what
Horwich has in mind. Rather, that a property P constitutes anther property Q is what
makes Q reduce to P. The instance given by Horwich is that being water reduces to being
made of H2O. That is, first, they apply to the same thing and, second, the facts about
being water are best explained by that being water and being made of H2O apply to the
same thing.
AsSc
hi
f
f
e
ri
ndi
c
a
t
e
si
n“
Hor
wi
c
honMe
a
ni
ng”(
Sc
hi
f
f
e
r2000)
,t
hi
si
snotqui
t
er
i
g
htf
or
the constitution relation between meaning properties and use properties.34 For what has
t
obee
xpl
a
i
ne
di
ns
uc
hac
ons
t
i
t
ut
i
onr
e
l
a
t
i
ona
r
enotf
a
c
t
sa
boutawor
d’
sme
a
ni
ng
property, but facts about the use of words that have that meaning property (p. 531). In
other words, what has to be explained are facts about the acceptance of those sentences
containing the word. Here I come to explicate the relations between the use properties,
regularities, and the acceptance properties. Normally one will go for the property that is
indispensable for the explanation of these facts to be the meaning-constituting property.
That is, normally, the acceptance property A(x) possessed by a word w should be what the
meaning property of w reduces to. This is, however, not the case according to Horwich.
33
The three italic wor
dsof‘
r
e
du
c
e
’wi
t
h
i
nt
h
i
spa
r
a
g
r
a
phi
n
di
c
a
t
ewh
a
tHor
wi
c
hh
as in mind when he talks
of a reduction. However, as Schiffer argues, Horwich does not provide us an acceptable explanation of why
the reduction should not happen the other way round.
34
In discussing the instance raised in the last paragraph, Schiffer says that, for properties and , 
constitutes if (a) and apply to the same things, and (b) facts about is explained by (a) (p. 530).
Pr
o
ba
bl
ybe
c
a
us
eHor
wi
c
hus
e
s‘
r
e
du
c
e
’a
n
dh
eu
s
e
s‘
c
on
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
’
,h
emi
s
pl
a
c
e
s‘
’f
or‘
’i
n(
b)
.
130
He says:
[F]or each word, w, there is a regularity of the form [:] All uses of w stem from its
possession of acceptance property A(x), where A(x) gives the circumstances in which
certain specified sentences containing w are accepted. (Horwich 1998a, p.45)
It is clear that what constitutes meaning properties is not the acceptance properties but the
use properties, according to which certain regularities are given in the form depicted in
the quoted words. There is good reason for such a detour. It is possible for a word, v, to
have the conjunctive (acceptance) proper
t
y‘
A(x) and B(x)
’s
ot
ha
twea
r
ec
ompe
l
l
e
dt
o
wrongly admit the synonymous relation between w and v (ibid. p. 58, footnote 5).
According to Schiffer, this is not exactly correct. It is not that w and v would be
synonymous, but v would mean both A(x) and B(x) (Schiffer 2000, p.531). And this is not
what we want to have. Moreover, Horwich claims that it follows from his theory that it is
not possible to explain why a given meaning property reduces to the acceptance property
to which it happens to reduce. Schiffer agrees with him on this point, because one cannot
deduce that a word has the meaning property it does, from premises including that the
word has the particular acceptance property that it does (ibid. p. 534). Otherwise, a word,
v, with a conjunctive acceptance property is confused with another word, w, which has
one of the conjuncts as its acceptance property.
After we have sorted these things out, we can move to the third issue, namely, how to
make sense of (M). The first entangled part is the ideat
ha
tawor
d’
soverall use can be
g
ove
r
ne
dbyar
e
g
ul
a
r
i
t
y
,e
xpl
a
na
t
or
i
l
yba
s
i
cornot
.Sc
hi
f
f
e
r
’
se
xa
mpl
ei
st
ha
tas
opr
a
no
mi
g
htwa
r
m uphe
rvoc
a
lc
hor
dsbys
i
ng
i
ng‘
os
s
e
ous
’t
e
nt
i
me
si
ns
uc
c
e
s
s
i
on(
Sc
hi
f
f
e
r
2000,p.531)
.
Thi
sus
eof‘
os
s
e
ous
’i
s
,a
ndshould, without doubt not be governed by a
r
e
g
ul
a
r
i
t
ya
c
c
or
di
ngt
owhi
c
h,s
a
y
,t
her
e
s
toft
hewor
d’
sus
ei
sg
ove
r
ne
d.
AsSc
hi
f
f
e
r
131
indicates, this is not a genuine difficulty for Horwich. When he talks about the overall use
of a word, Horwich is talking about the overall use of a word that is explained by the
acceptance ofs
e
nt
e
nc
e
sc
ont
a
i
ni
ngt
hewor
d.
Wha
t
,t
he
n,wi
l
lc
ounta
sape
r
s
on’
s
a
c
c
e
pt
a
nc
eofs
e
nt
e
nc
e
st
ha
tc
on
t
a
i
nt
hewor
d?Ac
c
or
di
ngt
oHor
wi
c
h,i
ti
sape
r
s
on’
s
uttering the sentences containing a given word assertively to herself that counts as her
private acceptances of those sentences (Horwich 1998a, p. 94).
But this account does not really solve the problem. In a metaphysical sense, what
Horwich elaborates is that it is impossible for two words, w and v, to be exactly alike
except that they do not have the same meaning property. That the word w or v has a
meaning property, m(x), is a consequence of its having a use property, u(x). On the other
hand, it is also metaphysically impossible for w and v to be exactly alike except they have
different use properties. A word having its use property is the consequence of its having a
certain meaning property. In the light of this consideration, the meaning property of a
word is metaphysically indistinguishable to its use property. That is to say, a word w has
m(x) if and only if it has u(x).35 However, in an epistemological sense, the regularity
governing the overall use of a given word is determined by its use in empirical inquiries,
not the other way round. For, if it is the other way round, then we should rather reduce
use properties to meaning properties. This amounts to saying that the overall use of a
word is guided by its having certain meaning property. In other words, the meaning
property of a given word w, acts like a norm that constrains the use of it. And this is what
35
Based on this feature, Horwich reduces the meaning property of a given word to its use property. This is
with a shred of doubt though. As Schiffer indicates, metaphysical equivalence is a two-way street. But to
reduce one to the other presupposes that there is an asymmetry between them. Horwich does not offer us a
reasonable account with regard to this (Schiffer 2000, p. 535).
132
Horwich does not accept.36 Therefore, the problem is how to account for alien uses? It
will not do if they are dismissed as incorrect use by the regularity. For an alien use might
as well be explained by some other regularity. If the use of a word is incorrect according
to a regularity of its use, then alien uses of a word are correct in the sense that they are
also governed by a regularity according to which most uses of that word are also
explained. It is trivial to say that, given a regularity of the overall use a word, some uses
are correct if they are governed by the regularity and some uses are not if they are not
governed by it. The question we asked is rather to request a justification of the distinction
between what is granted to go into the use fact of a word and what is not. This leads us to
the elaboration of two further questions of (M) regarding the notions of explanatory
basicness and best explanation. And my suspicion is that these two do not contribute to
the full determination of use properties and thus meaning properties of words, as Horwich
wishes them to do.
Horwich sometimes varies the content of (M) by saying that what is governed by the
regularity is the basic use of a given word. In distinguishing his account from MEANING
HOLI
SM,whi
c
he
mbr
a
c
e
se
ve
r
ya
s
pe
c
tofawor
d’
sove
r
a
l
lus
e
,hec
l
a
i
mst
ha
tnot every
use of a given word is included in the construction of explanatorily basic use regularity.
Some use facts of a word constitute the use of a given word and some other facts do not,
and what makes the distinction is the difference between explanatorily basic use
properties and the rest (Horwich 1998a, p. 60). He so explains,
In other words, the way to pick out the particular use property of a word that comprises
wha
twec
a
l
l“
t
h
eus
e
”i
st
of
i
n
dt
h
eus
epr
ope
r
t
yt
h
a
tpr
ov
i
de
sthe best explanation of all
the others. (ibid., my italics)
36
Cf. the first, the second, the third, the eighth, and the tenth chapters of Meaning.
133
37
Fort
hes
a
keofc
l
a
r
i
t
y
,‘
t
heus
e
’f
r
om nowoni
ss
pe
c
i
f
i
e
da
s‘
t
heba
s
i
cus
e
’
.
What
concerns his account of word meaning then, is to first construct the explanatorily basic
r
e
g
ul
a
r
i
t
yofag
i
ve
nwor
d’
sbasic us
e
.Howe
ve
r
,i
ti
si
mpl
i
e
dbyHor
wi
c
h’
si
l
l
us
t
r
a
t
i
on
above that there are other regularities capable of accounting for the basic use of a given
word. The only difference between these regularities is the capacity of delivering the best
explanation of the not basic use of the word. His example of this use distinction invokes
t
hewor
d‘
pl
a
ne
t
’
.Ourdi
s
pos
i
t
i
ont
oa
c
c
e
pt“
The
r
ea
r
eni
nepl
a
ne
t
s
,
”s
oHor
wi
c
he
xpl
a
i
ns
,
does not constitute the use—that is, the basic use—of‘
pl
a
ne
t
’
,whe
r
e
a
sourdi
s
pos
i
t
i
o
nt
o
a
c
c
e
pt“
Pl
a
ne
t
sor
bi
ts
t
a
r
s
”i
spl
a
us
i
bl
yt
hec
ons
t
i
t
ue
ntofthe use (ibid. pp. 59-60). He
continues to elaborate this point by saying that, within the range of use of a given word,
there is indeed some sort of distinction, one that is similar to the analytic/synthetic
di
s
t
i
n
c
t
i
on.
Thef
a
c
tt
ha
twes
ome
t
i
me
sa
c
knowl
e
dg
et
ha
tt
he
r
ei
sac
ha
ngeofawor
d’
s
meaning is due to the fac
tt
ha
tt
hewor
d’
se
xpl
a
na
t
or
i
l
yba
s
i
cus
epr
ope
r
t
y
,bywhi
c
ht
he
basic use of it is explained, changes (ibid.).
This, however, strikes me as very implausible. The distinction between the basic use of
t
hewor
d‘
pl
a
ne
t
’a
ndt
heot
he
rpa
r
tofi
t
sus
ei
saconsequence of the scientific theory
he
l
dt
r
uea
tapa
r
t
i
c
ul
a
rt
i
me
.
Wh
a
tg
oe
si
nt
ot
heme
a
ni
ngof‘
pl
a
ne
t
’i
spur
e
l
ya
contingent fact of scientific inquiry. In terms of Ptolemaic astronomy, all stars and planets
orbit earth in one way or the other. It certainly follows that a different explanatorily basic
r
e
g
ul
a
r
i
t
yg
ove
r
nst
heba
s
i
cus
eoft
hewor
d‘
pl
a
ne
t
’
.
The
r
ei
snouni
f
i
e
dwa
yt
o
distinguish the basic use of each word from what is not basic. This is probably all right.
37
Hor
wi
c
h’
sdi
s
t
i
n
c
t
i
onbe
t
we
e
nthe use, or in other words, the basic use, and not basic use of a word is not
a
n
a
l
og
oust
ot
h
ei
n
t
u
i
t
i
v
edi
s
t
i
n
c
t
i
onbe
t
we
e
n‘
l
i
t
e
r
a
lus
e
’a
nd‘
e
x
t
e
n
de
du
s
e
’
.Mu
c
he
x
t
e
nde
du
s
ei
se
i
t
h
e
r
based on the shape or pronunciations of a word, or is a deliberate misuse of it. In either case, the extended
use is not explained by the literal use.
134
The genuine problem is that this is really impractical.38 The only three examples Horwich
offers to elaborate his account are not helpful—t
ha
ti
s
,‘
a
nd’
,‘
r
e
d’
,and ‘
t
r
ue
’
.
The
a
c
c
e
pt
a
nc
epr
ope
r
t
yoft
hewor
d‘
a
nd’i
sa
sf
ol
l
ows
:
(
AND)Thea
c
c
e
pt
a
nc
epr
ope
r
t
yt
ha
tg
ove
r
nsas
pe
a
ke
r
’
sove
r
a
l
lus
eof“
a
nd”i
s(
r
oug
hl
y
)
hi
st
e
nde
nc
yt
oa
c
c
e
pt“
p and q”i
fa
ndonl
yi
fhea
c
c
e
pt
sbot
h“
p”a
nd“
q”
.
(Horwich 1998a, p. 45)
But can (AND) account for uses similar to the italic ‘
a
nd’t
wos
e
nt
e
nc
e
sba
c
k
?We
l
l
,i
t
can account for the italic ‘
a
nd’t
hr
ee sentences back, but not always for other sentences
containing this word. (AND) is about the acceptance property of the logical connective
‘
a
nd’i
nor
di
na
r
yEng
l
i
s
h.
Thi
sc
onne
c
t
i
ve
,howe
ve
r
,i
sa
l
s
ous
e
da
sac
onne
c
t
i
vet
o
connect two or more grammatical subjects or objects in ordinary English. I do not think
t
ha
te
ve
r
ys
e
nt
e
nc
ec
ont
a
i
ni
ngt
hewor
d‘
a
nd’us
e
di
nt
hi
ss
e
ns
e
,s
uc
ha
s“
Rome
oa
nd
J
ul
i
e
ta
r
el
ove
r
s
,
”ort
hel
a
s
t‘
a
nd
’i
n(
AND)
,c
a
nbebest explained in terms of (AND). In
most cases, it just transfers a two or more places primitive predicate into a complex
compound of sentences.
This brings us to ponder what it means to say that the explanatorily basic use property is
about the basic use of a given word. What makes certain use the basic use of a word, w, is
certainly not in terms of whether or not the use property, ub(x), governing that certain use
is explanatorily basic.39 This is utterly circular. For what makes ub(x) explanatorily basic
is its capacity to best explain the rest of w’
sus
e
.Soub(x) depends for its feature of
explanatory basicness, on a previous distinction between the basic and not basic use of w.
38
For instance, who can give the distinction between what sorts of dispositions of accepting sentences
c
on
t
a
i
n
i
ngt
h
ewor
d‘
t
a
bl
e
’a
r
ea
bou
tt
h
eba
s
i
cus
eofi
ta
n
dwhi
c
ha
r
en
ot
?Ca
nf
u
r
n
i
t
u
r
ede
s
i
gn
e
r
sor
manufacturers?
39
Th
et
i
ny‘
b’i
n‘
ub(x)
’i
n
di
c
a
t
e
st
h
a
ti
ti
se
x
pl
a
n
a
t
or
i
l
yba
s
i
cwi
t
hr
e
g
a
r
dt
ot
h
eba
s
i
cu
s
eofw. The same
a
ppl
i
e
st
ot
h
et
i
ny‘
b’i
nt
h
en
e
x
tpa
r
a
g
r
a
ph
.
135
Following the discussion so far, (M) is derived from three more fundamental principles,
(Ub), (Mb), and (BP). They are:
(Ub) The range of use of a word, w, is divided into two categories, basic and not basic,
which in turn are decided by a non-intentional way, sk(x)40;
(Mb) The basic use of a word, w, is governed by an explanatorily basic use property,
ub(x), according to which the basic use of w is governed by an explanatorily basic
regularity, rb(x), where an acceptance property Ab(x) possessed by w gives the
circumstances in which some specified sentences containing it are accepted;
(BP)
If the not basic use of a word, w, are best explained by the explanatorily basic use
property, ub(x), then (M).
(Mb) is least problematic among the three. (Ub), which is about the distinction between
the basic and not basic use of a given word, and (BP), which is about the idea of best
explanation, are in need of clarification.
Whi
l
ei
l
l
us
t
r
a
t
i
nghi
si
de
aofi
mpl
i
c
i
tunde
r
s
t
a
ndi
ng
,Hor
wi
c
hbor
r
owsPut
na
m’
si
de
aof
‘
t
hedi
vi
s
i
onofl
i
ng
ui
s
t
i
cl
a
bour
’t
oe
xpl
a
i
nwhyt
her
e
g
ul
a
r
i
t
i
e
sofe
xpe
r
t
s
,wi
t
hdi
f
f
e
r
e
nt
specialised knowledge, are the paradigm samples of the regularities of the use of all kinds
of words. But there seems to be another reason for appealing to this idea. The distinction
between the basic and not basic use of a given word also has to appeal to an expert who is
specialised in the relevant field. For, in many cases, laymen can hardly tell the difference
be
t
we
e
nt
heba
s
i
ca
ndnotba
s
i
cus
eofawor
d,s
a
y
,‘
pos
t
-mode
r
n’
.
The
r
e
f
or
e
,i
ts
e
e
ms
r
e
a
s
on
a
bl
et
os
a
yt
ha
tt
hedi
s
t
i
nc
t
i
onbe
t
we
e
nawor
d’
sba
s
i
ca
ndnotba
s
i
cus
ei
sde
c
i
d
e
d
40
Th
ewor
ds‘
n
on-intentional way, sk(x)
’wi
l
lbef
u
r
t
h
e
re
x
pl
i
c
a
t
e
dl
a
t
e
r
.
136
by an expe
r
t
’
ss
pe
c
i
a
l
i
s
e
dknowl
e
dge
,sk(x). Although Horwich does not consider this, it
seems that it is a necessary component of his theory. These two roles played by experts in
Hor
wi
c
h’
sus
e
-theoretic account, will be analysed in the following.
As Schiffer ar
g
ue
s
,Put
na
m’
si
de
adoe
snotf
ul
l
ye
xpl
a
i
nwhyt
her
e
g
ul
a
r
i
t
i
e
sg
ove
r
ni
ng
the overall use of a word given by different experts, would eventually boil down to the
s
a
met
hi
ng(
Sc
hi
f
f
e
r2000,p.534)
.Hor
wi
c
h’
sr
e
s
pons
et
ot
hi
smos
tg
e
ne
r
a
lc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
mi
s
that what suits us is not every regularity but the explanatorily basic one
.Sos
omee
xpe
r
t
s
’
regularities are either best explained in terms of the explanatorily basic one or dismissed
in terms of the consideration within the specialised field. This explanation, however,
generates two further questions. For Horwich, if there is no objective fact regarding which
is more explanatorily basic than the other, then this is the case of what he calls
MEANING INDETERMINACY. This indicates that Horwich does not intend to explain
away this situation in terms of some canons of scientific method, such as simplicity,
explanatory power, or conservativeness. This seems right, because these canons are used
on a pragmatic basis to evaluate rival theories rather than the embodied regularities. The
real worry comes from the idea of best explanation. As indicated above, there is no
constraint for finding only one regularity being capable of explaining the basic part of a
wor
d’
sus
e
.Butonl
yoneoft
he
mc
a
nbe
s
te
xpl
a
i
nt
henotba
s
i
cuse of the word,
according to Horwich. And if there are two equally good regularities, it will be a case of
MEANI
NGI
NDETERMI
NACY.
Thus
,i
nwha
ts
e
ns
edoe
s‘
be
s
te
xpl
a
na
t
i
on’wor
ka
sa
criterion to somehow fix the regularity or, in some cases, regularities to be explanatorily
basic in the above characterisation? It seems to me that which explanation is the best,
depends on our explanatory purpose(s). One explanation probably has its value as making
137
the whole explanatory business simple, and the other may have its value as making it easy
to comprehend. If what makes a regularity explanatorily basic results from a pragmatic
consideration, then there will always be another regularity that is equally explanatorily
basic in accordance with a different pragmatic consideration. If this view is correct, then
for a word, w, there are many use properties that can explain, if not best explain, the
overall use of w.
Eve
ni
fHor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ountc
oul
ds
uc
c
e
s
s
f
ul
l
ypi
c
koutt
hee
xpl
a
na
t
or
i
l
yba
s
i
cr
e
g
ul
a
r
i
t
y
or regularities by its or their capacity of best explaining the not basic use of a given word,
it would have another problem. That is, the distinction between the basic and not basic
use of a word is problematic. I have argued at length that this distinction itself is in need
ofc
l
a
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
on,a
ndt
hebe
s
tg
ue
s
s
,i
ts
e
e
ms
,i
st
oi
nvokee
xpe
r
t
s
’s
pe
c
i
a
l
i
s
e
dknowl
e
dge
,
sk(x), to make the distinction. Horwich does not provide us a general account of what is to
c
ounta
sa
ne
xpe
r
t
.
Thi
si
soneofSc
hi
f
f
e
r
’
si
mpor
t
a
ntc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
msofHor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ountof
word meaning (Schiffer 2000, p. 532). It is dubious for such an account anyway. It is not
problem-proof, though, if such an account is given. For it seems very unlikely for this
account to discriminate in favour of some experts butnott
heot
he
r
s
.
Af
t
e
ra
l
l
,“
t
he
di
vi
s
i
o
nofl
i
ng
ui
s
tl
a
bour
”i
snot“
t
hedi
vi
s
i
onofl
i
ng
ui
s
t
i
cl
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
or
”
,pr
ohi
bi
t
i
ngs
ome
s
pe
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
i
cus
eofawor
di
nt
e
r
msofs
omeot
he
re
xpe
r
t
s
’opi
ni
on.
Ana
s
t
r
ol
og
i
c
a
le
xpe
r
t
,
for instance, might make a very different distinction between the basic and not basic use
oft
hewor
d‘
pl
a
ne
t
’f
r
om a
na
s
t
r
onomi
c
a
le
xpe
r
t
.“
The
r
ea
r
eni
nepl
a
ne
t
s
”s
e
e
mst
obea
s
i
g
ni
f
i
c
a
ntus
ef
a
c
tr
e
g
a
r
di
nga
s
t
r
ol
ogy
.I
tc
e
r
t
a
i
nl
yf
ol
l
owsf
r
omHor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ountt
ha
t
they have very different explanatorily basic regularities governing the overall use of the
wor
d‘
p
l
a
ne
t
’
.
Andi
ti
snota
na
dvi
s
a
bl
el
i
neofa
r
g
ume
nt
,a
ga
i
ns
tt
hea
bovec
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
m,t
o
138
c
l
a
i
mt
ha
tt
hea
s
t
r
ol
og
i
c
a
lr
e
g
ul
a
r
i
t
yg
ove
r
ni
ngt
heba
s
i
cus
eoft
hewor
d“
pl
a
ne
t
”i
sn
ot
able to best explain, or even explain the rest of the use of it, especially the use fact
regarding astronomy. For the same applies to the astronomical regularity. This is much
worse than the cases of MEANING INDETERMINACY. The claim that there is a set of
regularities, which combined together govern the overall use of a given word, seems to
make sense. It is very unlikely, even in terms of commonsense, that there is a single
regularity to be constructed to account for the overall use of a word. People probably
switch the use property in different contexts, such as the use property of the word
“
pl
a
ne
t
”i
na
na
s
t
r
ol
og
i
c
a
lc
ont
e
xta
ndt
heot
he
ronei
na
na
s
t
r
onomi
c
a
lc
ont
e
xt
.
How to make sense of (M)? The criticism boils down to the following. First, an account
of providing best explanation of something in terms of something else has to be given.
Without this, (M) is not justified because which regularity is capable of providing best
explanation to the not basic use of a word is very likely to depend on our explanatory
purpose(s). Second, a general account of what counts as an expert has to be given.
Wi
t
houtt
h
i
sa
c
c
ount
,i
nvoki
ng“
t
hedi
vi
s
i
onofl
i
ng
ui
s
t
i
cl
a
bour
”i
snotc
ompl
e
t
e
.
Thi
r
d,
e
ve
ni
ft
hes
e
c
ondf
e
a
t
ur
ei
sf
ul
f
i
l
l
e
d,Hor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ounti
ss
t
i
l
lnots
uc
c
e
ssful. For there
seems to be no way to reconcile different opinions from different specialised fields
regarding what the basic use of a given word is. If these questions are not answered, the
whol
ee
nt
e
r
pr
i
s
eofHor
wi
c
h’
se
xpl
a
na
t
i
onofwor
dme
a
ni
ngc
ol
l
a
pses. The reason is that,
following his reasoning, either there is no way to decide which meaning property and use
property are the meaning property and use property of a given word, or there seems to be
no way to decide to which use property the meaning prope
r
t
ys
houl
dr
e
duc
e
.Hor
wi
c
h’
s
account seems to create its own version of indeterminacy of meaning.
139
The
r
ei
sonel
a
s
tpoi
ntIwa
ntt
oma
ker
e
ga
r
di
nghowt
oma
kes
e
ns
eof(
M)
.Hor
wi
c
h’
s
elaboration of what is an acceptance property is less than clear. According to (M), an
acceptance property, A(x), gives the circumstances in which certain specified sentences
containing the word, w,a
r
ea
c
c
e
pt
e
d.
Wha
tdoe
s‘
c
i
r
c
ums
t
a
nc
e
s
’me
a
n?I
nhi
si
ns
t
a
nc
eof
t
hewor
d“
pl
a
ne
t
”
,“
Pl
a
ne
t
sor
bi
ts
t
a
r
s
”i
saus
ef
a
c
tt
ha
tconstitutes the basic use of that
word. But in what circumstance does one accept this sentence? It is highly unlikely that
what it means is the necessary theoretical facts for accepting this sentence, for Horwich
emphasises that the explanatorily basic regularity along with other necessary apparatus
can best explain the overall use of a given word. So circumstances should be something
other than theoretical facts. It is not clear, then, in what circumstance does one accept
“
Pl
a
ne
t
sor
bi
ts
t
a
r
s
.
”Ac
c
or
di
ngt
oQui
ne
’
sdi
s
t
i
nc
t
i
onbe
t
we
e
noc
c
a
s
i
ona
nds
t
a
ndi
ng
sentences, which depends on how close the sentences are with their stimulus meanings,
most theoretical sentences are standing sentences and thus do not have particular
circumstances for their acceptance.41 Therefore, one of the genuine difficulties of
Hor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ounti
showt
oa
c
c
o
untf
ort
hea
c
c
e
pt
a
nc
epr
ope
r
t
i
e
soft
he
or
e
t
i
c
a
lt
e
r
ms
.
The
r
ea
r
eot
he
rmor
es
e
ve
r
edi
f
f
i
c
ul
t
i
e
sf
orHor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ountonamor
ege
ne
r
a
lba
s
i
s
.
Ac
c
or
di
ngt
oHor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ount
,
the meaning of almost every word is determinate at a
particular time period of the evolving stages of a given language, except the cases of
MEANI
NGI
NDETERMI
NACY.
Thi
si
sduet
ot
hef
a
c
tt
ha
thea
ppe
a
l
st
oe
xpe
r
t
s
’
opinions with regard to the explanatorily basic use property of every word, and these
experts exist only relative to a particular time period. However, there is always hidden
41
Thepa
r
t
i
a
lr
e
a
s
onf
orQu
i
n
e
’
sc
on
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
n
gat
e
c
h
ni
c
a
lde
f
i
n
i
t
i
onofs
t
i
mul
u
sme
a
ni
ngi
st
os
pe
c
i
f
yt
h
e
circumstances in which certain sentences are queried.
140
indeterminacy at the evolving stages of a given language, according to Ken Akiba (2002),
as I indicated in Chapter Three.42 A hidden indeterminacy by definition is not a manifest
indeterminacy of a given language, such as vagueness, relative to a particular time
period.43 The hidden indeterminacy is also objective—that is, it is not decidable in terms
of our awareness of it. Thei
ns
t
a
n
c
eg
i
ve
nbyAki
bai
st
her
e
l
a
t
i
ona
lpr
e
di
c
a
t
e
,‘
he
a
vi
e
r
t
ha
n’
,r
e
l
a
t
i
vet
oapr
e
-Newtonian language. There is a hidden indeterminacy of the use of
‘
he
a
v
i
e
rt
ha
n’i
napr
e
-Newtonian language—t
ha
ti
s
,i
ti
si
nde
t
e
r
mi
na
t
ebe
t
we
e
n‘
mor
e
we
i
g
ht
yt
ha
n’a
nd‘
mor
ema
s
s
i
vet
ha
n’f
r
om t
hepos
t
-Newtonian viewpoint (p. 225). The
be
s
tr
e
p
l
yIc
a
nc
omeupwi
t
hi
nt
e
r
msofHor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ounti
st
ha
tt
heus
epr
ope
r
t
ya
nd
he
nc
et
heme
a
ni
ngpr
ope
r
t
yof‘
h
e
a
vi
e
rt
ha
n’i
napr
e
-Newtonian language are
determinate accordingt
ot
hee
xpe
r
tore
xpe
r
t
s
’opi
ni
ona
tt
ha
tpa
r
t
i
c
ul
a
rt
i
mepe
r
i
od.
Later in a post-Newtonian language, the use property and the meaning property of it
simply changed. So the best way to answer this question is to appeal to a change of
meaning as a result of empirical inquiry in general, or scientific inquiry in particular. My
intention here is not to evaluate this objection, but to question the envisaged way of
replying to it.
I
nc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
i
ngHor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ount
,Sc
hi
f
f
e
rr
a
i
s
e
save
r
yg
oodobj
e
c
t
i
on.
Tha
tis, if the
a
mbi
t
i
onofHor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ounti
st
oe
xpl
a
i
nt
hepublic or communicative linguistic
behaviours of speakers of a particular language, then it will flagrantly fail (Schiffer 2000,
p. 535). I would like to further elaborate a related point regrading Hor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ounto
f
42
Ak
i
badoe
sn
otr
a
i
s
et
h
i
squ
e
s
t
i
onf
orHor
wi
c
h’
st
h
e
or
yofme
a
ni
ngbu
tf
orde
f
l
a
t
i
oni
s
tt
he
or
i
e
sof truth
and reference in general. But it is suitable to make the point here.
43
Ak
i
bae
mph
a
s
i
s
e
st
h
a
tt
h
i
sha
sn
ot
hi
ngt
h
i
ngt
odowi
t
hQui
n
e
’
st
h
e
s
i
sofi
n
de
t
e
r
mi
n
a
c
yoft
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
on
because the case he raises is only concerning a single language. But for Quine indeterminacy even happens
in the home language. Horwich agrees with Quine that the matter of meaning is at the end of the day about
translation. What he does not agree with is that there is any indeterminacy with regard to this subject matter.
141
what he calls implicit understanding.
On the one hand, Horwich claims that, even if a sophisticated scientific inquiry is
r
e
qui
r
e
di
nor
de
rt
or
e
a
c
ht
hec
onc
l
us
i
ont
ha
tt
hewor
d‘
dog
’ha
sac
e
r
t
a
i
ne
xpl
a
na
t
or
i
l
y
basic use property, u(x)
,pe
opl
es
t
i
l
lunde
r
s
t
a
nd‘
dog
’pe
r
f
e
c
t
l
ywe
l
l(
Hor
wi
c
h1998a, p.
16). On the other hand, he also claims that, when a member of a linguistic community has
only a minimal understanding of‘
dog’
,notaf
ul
lori
nc
ompl
e
t
eknowl
e
dg
eofi
t
,t
he
communal language meaning, namely, u(x), may be correctly attributed to him (ibid., pp.
17-18)
.Forpopul
a
rwor
dss
uc
ha
s‘
dog
’
,‘
r
e
d’
,a
nde
ve
n‘
a
r
t
hr
i
t
i
s
’
,t
hi
smi
g
htwor
k.For
s
ophi
s
t
i
c
a
t
e
dwor
dss
uc
ha
s‘
s
up
e
r
ve
ne
’i
n“
p supervenes on q if and only if p
metaphysically necessitates q,
”i
ti
sdubi
ous
.I
na
ddi
t
i
on,Hor
wi
c
h’
se
xpl
a
na
t
i
onoft
he
distinction between full, incomplete, and minimal understanding of a word is in terms of
t
hede
g
r
e
eofs
i
mi
l
a
r
i
t
ybe
t
we
e
nwha
ti
tme
a
nsi
none
’
si
di
ol
e
c
ta
ndwha
ti
tme
a
nsi
nt
he
communal language. And this degree of similarity in turn is constituted by the degree of
similarity between the explanatorily basic use property (ibid., p. 18). This is really
puzzling. First of all, there does not seem to be any possibility of constructing a general
technical criterion by which a speaker would be qualified as capable of understanding
each word of the communal language. Secondly, it is difficult to see how the degree of
similarity between the explanatorily basic use property of a word for a speaker, and the
one for a community, has anything to do with the attribution of the communal language
meaning of that word to the speaker. Here is an analogy. Suppose that someone bases his
understanding of the rules of soccer on his understanding of the rules of Celtic football.
How do we make sense of the attribution of the communal language meaning of the rules
of playing soccer to him, in terms of the degree of similarity between his understanding of
142
Celtic football and his understanding of soccer? Further, since Horwich claims that words
of different languages have the same meaning as far as they have the same use property,
the degree of similarity of the use property is also applicable between a foreign word and
awor
dofmot
he
rt
ong
ue
.
Ta
keQu
i
ne
’
sf
a
mous‘
ga
va
g
a
i
’a
sa
ni
ns
t
a
nc
e
.Eng
l
i
s
hs
pe
a
ke
r
s
do not have a corresponding word for it, because it is accepted in certain specified
sentences containing it, when a particular kind of insect appears. A new English word, say,
‘
r
a
bbi
t
-f
l
y
’
,i
spr
oba
bl
yi
nvented for this reason. So English speakers have two use
pr
ope
r
t
i
e
sr
e
g
a
r
di
ng‘
r
a
bbi
t
’a
nd‘
r
a
bbi
t
-f
l
y
’
.Le
tusf
ur
t
he
rs
uppos
et
ha
tt
he
r
ei
snos
uc
ha
distinction between rabbits and rabbit-flies in the remote language. How do we make
sense of the degree ofs
i
mi
l
a
r
i
t
yb
e
t
we
e
na
nEng
l
i
s
hs
pe
a
ke
r
’
sus
epr
ope
r
t
i
e
sofbot
h
44
wor
dsa
ndouri
ndi
g
e
nousi
nf
or
ma
nt
’
sus
epr
ope
r
t
yof‘
g
a
va
ga
i
’
?
Finally, if we want to
make sense of why people can have public communication, then the degree of
dissimilarity between speake
r
s
’us
epr
ope
r
t
i
e
sa
ndt
hes
o-called communal use property
of every word should also be taken into account. In many cases, what is difficult to
explain is why and how people can understand each other while having different use
properties of many words.
An additional point about the change of meaning in public languages should be addressed.
An instance regarding two four-word Chinese idioms can illustrate this well—namely,
45
“
Mor
ni
ng-three-evening-f
our
”a
nd“
Mor
ni
ng
-Chin-evening-Chu”
.
These are used
indifferently by most Chinese nowadays, but they actually had a very different meaning in
the old days. Let us use p and q r
e
s
pe
c
t
i
ve
l
ya
ss
hor
t
ha
nd.Wha
t‘
p’s
a
y
sc
onc
e
r
nst
r
i
c
ke
r
y
.
44
Having the synonymous relation between words of different languages depend on possessing the same
use property is highly dubious. The discussion of this is reserved to the following section.
45
It is hard to find the exact translations of them, so they are written in the fashion of combining the four
corresponding English words with dashes.
143
It comes from a story. A person has three monkeys and he feeds them four chestnuts every
morning and evening; due to his poverty he decides to reduce the amount of chestnuts; he
tells the three monkeys that, from now on, they will only have three chestnuts for
br
e
a
k
f
a
s
ta
ndf
ourf
ordi
nne
r
.
Themonke
y
s
’pr
ot
e
s
toft
hi
sde
c
i
s
i
onf
or
c
e
s him to try
something different. He tells the three monkeys that, from now on, they will have four for
breakfast and three for dinner. The monkeys happily accept this new offer, feeling that
their bargain works because the amount of chestnuts for breakfast increases. So this story
is saying that the three monkeys are tricked by their master because of their
simple-mi
nde
dne
s
s
.
Wha
t‘
q’s
a
y
si
sa
c
t
ua
l
l
ya
boutpe
opl
ebe
i
ngi
nc
ons
t
a
nti
na
l
lki
nd
sof
relationships. It comes from a story with regard to a small country that is sandwiched
between two powerful and opposing countries, Chin and Chu. In the morning the
messenger of Chin was received in audience by the King of the small country, and the
Ki
nga
c
c
e
de
dt
oChi
n’
spr
opos
a
lo
fa
l
l
i
a
nc
e
.La
t
e
ri
nt
hee
ve
ni
ngthe messenger of Chu
wa
sr
e
c
e
i
ve
di
na
udi
e
nc
ea
ndt
heKi
ngc
ha
nge
dhi
smi
ndt
oa
c
c
e
det
oChu’
spr
opos
a
lo
f
alliance. The original meaning of this idiom is about double-mindedness and it is
extended to mean the inconstancy occurs in all kinds of relationships
.
Ther
e
a
s
ont
ha
t‘
p’
i
sus
e
di
ndi
f
f
e
r
e
nt
l
ywi
t
h‘
q’t
oda
yi
sma
i
nl
ybe
c
a
us
et
hef
i
r
s
ta
ndt
het
hi
r
dwor
dsoft
he
m
are the same—t
ha
ti
s
,‘
mor
ni
ng
’a
nd‘
e
ve
ni
ng’
—a
ndma
nype
opl
emi
s
t
a
ket
he‘
t
hr
e
e
’a
nd
‘
f
our
’i
n‘
p’a
s“
wi
t
ht
hr
e
eorf
ourwome
norme
n”
.I
t could be argued, however, that the
change of meaning might be caused by many reasons. This is just one of the cases. But
a
c
c
or
di
ngt
oHor
wi
c
h,wes
ome
t
i
me
sa
c
knowl
e
dget
ha
tt
he
r
ei
sac
ha
ng
eofawor
d’
s
meaning that is due to the fact that t
hewor
d’
se
x
planatorily basic use property changes
(Horwich 1998a, pp.59-60). Contrary to the last point I made, the change of meaning in
this particular instance does not result from the change of the similarity between the use
144
property of the mass majority and the use property of the experts. It rather results from the
dissimilarity between them.
Ie
ndt
hi
ss
e
c
t
i
onwi
t
hadi
s
c
us
s
i
onr
e
ga
r
di
ngHor
wi
c
h’
sobj
e
c
t
i
ont
oKr
i
pke
’
ss
c
e
pt
i
c
a
l
pa
r
a
d
oxbe
c
a
us
eHor
wi
c
h’
sr
e
pl
yt
ot
hepa
r
a
doxs
e
e
mst
os
ugge
s
tt
hedownf
a
l
lofhi
sown
theory of meaning. The sceptical paradox applies to dispositionalism in general, insofar as
it is claimed that the reference of linguistic expressions is not determined by our
dispositions to linguist behaviours. One major instance given by Kripke is the
i
ndi
f
f
e
r
e
nc
eoft
heus
ef
a
c
tof‘
pl
us
’ofourl
i
ng
ui
s
t
i
cc
ommuni
t
ya
nd‘
quus
’ofa
n
imaginary community. The divergence between the two, by definition, is about their
extensions, when numbers are ungraspably huge, so huge that none of us can talk about
t
he
m,a
nda
tt
hi
spoi
ntt
h
et
r
i
pl
e
sofnumbe
r
st
owhi
c
h‘
quus
’a
ppl
i
e
sa
r
es
l
i
g
ht
l
ydi
f
f
e
r
e
nt
t
ot
ha
tof‘
pl
us
’
.Hor
wi
c
h’
sobj
e
c
t
i
ont
ot
hi
si
ma
g
i
na
r
yc
a
s
ei
si
t
sque
s
t
i
onbe
gg
i
ngna
t
ur
e
.
He argues in the following way:
For to insist, without argument, on there being such a possibility is simply to beg the
question against the use theory of meaning. What does seem intuitively right is that there
are possible complex expressions—de
f
i
n
a
bl
ei
nt
e
r
msof‘
pl
u
s
’
—whose extensions
di
v
e
r
g
ef
r
omt
h
a
tof‘
pl
us
’i
nt
h
eslight way imagined. But no complex
expression—since it will inevitably bear certain use relations to its constituents—can
have exactly the same use as a primitive expression. Therefore, in order to construct his
counter example to the use theory, Kripke must assume in addition that there could be a
primitive t
e
r
m(
onapa
rwi
t
h‘
pl
u
s
’
)t
h
a
ti
sc
oe
x
t
e
n
s
i
v
ewi
t
hon
eoft
h
os
epos
s
i
bl
e
complex expressions, and that, if there were such a primitive, its use (including
dispositions concerning the divergent cases)wou
l
dbei
de
n
t
i
c
a
lt
oou
ru
s
eof‘
pl
u
s
’
.
(Horwich 1998a, p. 223)
Al
e
xa
nde
rMi
l
l
e
rc
or
r
e
c
t
l
ya
ddr
e
s
s
e
sapr
ot
e
s
tt
ot
hi
sa
r
g
ume
nt
,t
ha
t‘
quus
’i
s
semantically complex but not syntactically complex, and hence has no constituents to
which it might have use r
e
l
a
t
i
ons(
Mi
l
l
e
r2000)
.Hec
ont
i
nue
st
oa
r
g
ue
,us
i
ngGoodma
n’
s
145
f
a
mousi
ns
t
a
nc
eof‘
bl
e
e
n/
g
r
ue
’
,t
ha
te
ve
ni
fHor
wi
c
h’
spoi
nti
sr
i
g
ht
,t
hec
a
s
eof
‘
bl
ue
/
gr
e
e
n’a
nd‘
bl
e
e
n/
g
r
ue
’s
t
i
l
la
ppl
i
e
s(
i
bi
d.pp.167-168). For, in terms of the
46
f
or
mul
a
t
i
onof‘
bl
e
e
n’a
nd‘
gr
ue
’
,t
hef
ourpr
e
di
c
a
t
e
sa
r
emut
ua
l
l
yde
f
i
na
bl
ei
npa
i
r
s
.
Thewor
d‘
bl
e
e
n’i
snots
e
ma
nt
i
c
a
l
l
ymor
ec
ompl
e
xt
ha
n‘
bl
ue
’i
s
.
Howe
v
e
r
,Hor
wi
c
h’
sque
s
t
i
onbe
gg
i
nga
r
g
ume
ntdoe
snots
e
e
mt
obee
xa
c
t
l
ywha
tMi
l
l
e
r
thinks it is. After the words cited above, Horwich says:
But it is plausible to suppose that a foreign word could acquire such an extension only
e
i
t
h
e
ri
twe
r
ede
f
i
n
e
di
nt
e
r
msofs
omewor
dme
a
n
i
ngt
h
es
a
mea
s‘
pl
us
’
,ori
twe
r
e
applied in some definite way to certain triples that, given our limitations, are beyond our
de
f
i
n
i
t
er
a
n
g
eofa
ppl
i
c
a
t
i
onof‘
pl
u
s
’
;a
n
di
nn
e
i
t
h
e
roft
h
e
s
ec
a
s
e
swou
l
di
tbec
or
r
e
c
tt
o
say that the use of the foreign word is exactly l
i
k
eou
ru
s
eof‘
pl
us
’
.(
i
bi
d.
)
Thel
i
neofHor
wi
c
h’
sde
f
e
nc
ei
ss
i
mi
l
a
rt
ot
heonehea
dopt
st
oa
r
g
uea
ga
i
ns
tQui
ne
’
s
proxy function in the case of indeterminacy of translation. The basic idea there is that we
i
nf
e
r‘
t
hec
os
mi
cc
ompl
e
me
ntofar
a
bbi
t
’f
r
om ‘
ar
a
bbi
t
’be
c
a
us
et
hef
or
me
ri
sac
ompl
e
x
term bearing some use relations to the latter. The exact reason is of course unknown, but
Horwich somehow seems to confuse these two very different argumentations as being
onea
n
dt
hes
a
me
.I
nhi
sa
r
g
ume
nta
ga
i
ns
tpr
oxyf
unc
t
i
on,t
hel
i
nei
sc
l
e
a
rt
ha
t‘
t
he
c
os
mi
cc
ompl
e
me
ntofar
a
bbi
t
’i
si
ndeed semantically and synthetically complex. In the
c
a
s
eo
f‘
pl
us
’a
nd‘
quus
’
,t
he
r
ei
snor
e
a
s
onwha
t
s
oe
ve
rt
ot
hi
nkt
ha
t‘
quus
’i
sa
s
y
nt
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
l
yc
ompl
e
xe
xpr
e
s
s
i
on
.
Bute
xc
e
ptt
hi
ss
l
i
p,Hor
wi
c
h’
spoi
nti
sdi
f
f
e
r
e
ntf
r
om
that made by Miller. Horwich see
mst
oa
r
g
uet
ha
t‘
quus
’a
nd‘
bl
e
e
n’
,bet
he
ys
y
nt
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
complex or not, are constructed from the actual pr
e
di
c
a
t
e
s‘
pl
us
’a
nd‘
bl
ue
’
.
Al
t
houg
hi
n
t
hec
a
s
eof‘
bl
ue
/
g
r
e
e
n’a
nd‘
bl
e
e
n
/
g
r
ue
’t
he
ya
r
emut
ua
l
l
yde
f
i
na
bl
e
,t
hepa
i
rof
46
That is, X is grue iff x is green at or before a certain time t or blue after t.
X is bleen iff x is blue at or before a certain time t or green after t.
X is blue iff x is bleen at or before a certain time t or grue after t.
X is green iff x is grue at or before a certain time t or bleen after t.
146
‘
bl
e
e
n
/
g
r
ue
’i
sc
ons
t
r
uc
t
e
df
r
omt
hepa
i
rof‘
bl
ue
/
gr
e
e
n’
,nott
heot
he
rwa
yr
ound.I
not
he
r
wor
ds
,unl
e
s
swef
i
r
s
tc
ons
t
r
uc
t‘
bl
e
e
n/
g
r
ue
’f
r
om t
hea
c
t
ua
lpr
e
di
c
a
t
e
s‘
bl
ue
/
g
r
e
e
n’
,t
he
r
e
is no way and no need to define the latter in terms of the former. Creating some eccentric
predicates in the light of the actual ones does not confer the former the same use relations
between the latter and the rest of our linguistic enterprise. The idea behind this defence, it
seems, is that the eccentric predicates lack the interconnections of use facts of the
complicated reticular structure of our linguistic enterprise within which the actual
predicates, names, singular and general terms are nodes of the structure. However, by the
same token, why should the same or very similar reticular structure of use relations of
onel
a
ng
ua
g
ea
ppl
yt
oa
not
he
rve
r
ydi
f
f
e
r
e
ntl
a
ng
ua
ge
?I
not
he
rwor
ds
,Hor
wi
c
h’
se
nt
i
r
e
use-theoretic account of meaning depends for its plausibility on some contingent use facts
of a language, in the present case, English. Different languages share the total contingent
use facts of English. This is hardly acceptable. It will be shown in the following section
t
ha
tt
hi
si
smor
ea
ppa
r
e
nti
nHor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ountofc
ompos
i
t
i
ona
l
i
t
y
.
4. Inflating Compositionality
According to Horwich, to unde
r
s
t
a
ndone
’
sownc
ompl
e
xe
xpr
e
s
s
i
ons
,oneonl
yne
e
ds
one
’
sunde
r
s
t
a
ndi
ngoft
he
i
rpa
r
t
sa
ndhowt
he
ya
r
ec
ombi
ne
d.Mor
es
pe
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y
,a
sf
a
ra
s
one has figured out how a sentence is constructed from primitive constituents and
providing that one knows the meanings of those constituents, one automatically qualifies
as understanding the sentence (Horwich 1998a, p. 155). Nothing else is needed for this
sort of implicit unde
r
s
t
a
ndi
ng
.
Thi
si
st
heg
e
ne
r
a
li
de
aofHor
wi
c
h’
svi
e
won
compositionality. So in providing an account of word meaning and the knowledge of how
words composed in complex expressions, the meanings of complex expressions are
147
revealed. Two things are noteworthy. First, since this understanding is implicit, how
constituents of complex expressions combine, in terms of his principle of
compositionality, does not involve process of any kind. Second, recollections of the
meanings of words (complex expressions being themselves an inference or within one),
the pragmatic contexts of complex expressions, and what the world is like, are not related
i
nonewa
yora
not
he
rt
oone
’
sa
u
t
oma
t
i
cunde
r
s
t
a
ndi
ngofc
ompl
e
xe
xpr
e
s
s
i
ons
.
The
ya
r
e
entirely irrelevant. Furthermore, Horwich claims that his principle of compositionality
deserves to be called deflationary. By this he is saying that the principle of
compositionality is compatible with all kinds of theories of word meaning. So the subject
oft
hi
ss
e
c
t
i
onboi
l
sdownt
ot
hef
ol
l
owi
ngs
e
ve
r
a
li
s
s
ue
s
.Fi
r
s
t
,wha
ti
sHor
wi
c
h’
s
principle of compositionality and what is it deflationary about? Second, is this principle
able to explain the use fact regarding complex expressions? Finally, does it make sense to
say different languages somehow share the same set of synthetic features?
Hor
wi
c
h’
spr
i
nc
i
pl
eofc
ompos
i
t
i
o
na
l
i
ty can be put as follows:
(PC) A synthetically complex expression has its meaning as determined by the
meanings of its constituents and, together with, the manner they combine.
Thef
i
r
s
tt
a
s
ki
st
oe
xpl
a
i
nwha
tt
hemodeofc
ombi
na
t
i
oni
s
.
Tous
eHor
wi
c
h’
sfavourite
e
xa
mpl
e“
Dog
sba
r
k”a
ndhi
sc
a
pi
t
a
l
i
s
i
ngwa
yofs
pe
c
i
f
y
i
ngt
heme
a
ni
ng
-constituting
pr
ope
r
t
yt
oe
xpl
a
i
nt
ha
tt
heme
a
n
i
ngof“
Dog
sba
r
k”
,x, results from putting terms whose
meanings are DOG and BARK, in that order, into a schema whose meaning is NS V
(Horwich 1998a, p. 156).47 Since the meaning-constituting properties of words reduce to
47
For notational reasons, the meanings of schemata are not just capitalised but is also italici
s
e
d,a
n
dt
h
e‘
S’
on the other hand is not italicised in order to indicate the plural ending. This somehow foreshows the
difficulty of his account.
148
their use properties, all capitalised words can also be replaced by use properties. The most
i
mpor
t
a
ntpa
r
toft
hi
sf
or
mul
a
t
i
oni
sc
e
r
t
a
i
nl
ya
boutt
hes
c
he
ma“
ns v”and its meaning, or
rather its having meaning.48 The general idea behind this specification of the meaning of
a complex expression is what Horwich calls the Fregean Principle. That is,
(FP) The meaning of the result of applying combinatorial procedure P to a sequence
of primitives = The result of applying combinatorial procedure P to a sequence
of primitives. (ibid. p. 180)
Horwich continues to explain (FP) in a footnote:
Note that a combinatorial procedure, P, acts on any sequence of functions and
objects…Th
e
r
e
f
or
eP can perfectly well act both on a sequence of words (including
schemata) and on the sequence of their meanings. (ibid.)
This is really a peculiar explanatory strategy. And it is not Fregean. John Collins in
“
Hor
wi
c
h’
sSc
he
ma
t
aMe
e
tSyntactic Structures”(
Col
l
i
ns2003)obj
e
c
t
st
ha
t
,nor
ma
l
l
y
,
one does not assign semantic values to schemata because schemata are abstract
descriptions of classes of phrases made from schematic symbols describing classes of
words.49 It is the phrases or words they desc
r
i
beha
veme
a
ni
ng
s
.“
[
I
]
ti
snott
hes
c
he
ma
t
a
t
ha
tc
ompos
e
swor
dme
a
ni
ng
s
,
”Col
l
i
nsc
ont
i
nue
s
,“
[
but
]i
ti
st
heme
a
ni
ng
st
he
ms
e
l
ve
s
,
a
si
twe
r
e
,t
ha
tc
ompos
e
,a
xi
om s
c
he
ma
t
ame
r
e
l
yde
s
c
r
i
bet
hi
s
.
”(
Col
l
i
ns2003,p.427)
This is quite right. However, let me bypass this problem and continue my analysis.
Even if the above-mentioned problem is put aside, in what sense can one say that (PC) is
deflationary? The most important claim regarding the deflationary nature of (PC) is of
course its compatibility with all kinds of theories of word meaning. Given that a
48
Cf
.t
h
el
a
s
tn
ot
e
.
Th
es
a
menot
a
t
i
ona
ppl
i
e
st
o“
ns v”
.
Fori
n
s
t
a
n
c
e
,on
edoe
sn
ots
a
yt
h
a
tt
h
ee
qu
i
v
a
l
e
n
c
es
c
h
e
ma“
Th
epr
opos
i
t
i
onthat p is true if and only if
p”i
st
r
u
ebu
tt
h
a
ti
t
si
n
s
t
a
n
c
e
sa
r
e
.
49
149
Da
vi
ds
oni
a
nt
r
ut
hc
ondi
t
i
ona
la
c
c
ounti
st
hema
j
orr
i
va
lofHor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ount
sofwo
r
d
meaning and the principle of compositionality, and a Davidsonian account falls short of
an inflation of the theory of t
r
ut
h,a
c
c
or
di
ngt
oHor
wi
c
h,a
na
c
c
ountl
i
keHor
wi
c
h’
swi
t
h
no such inflation is hence deflationary. This seems to be the implicit reasoning of
Horwich. However, this is only correct when a Davidsonian account defines
compositionality in terms of satisfacti
on.I
ft
hi
si
st
hec
a
s
e
,t
he
nHor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ounti
si
n
this sense deflationary. But it is not. On the contrary, that such a Davidsonian account
does not employ schemata, much less conferring meanings to them, is a virtue of it.
Jerry Fodor and Ernie Lepore are two strident critics of the claim of the compatibility
between the deflationary nature of (PC) and all kinds of theories of word meaning.
Among various arguments they made together or separately, two are discussed in the
following. The first one is about principle of uniformity:
(PU) The semantic values of phrasal expressions of syntactic category c are
constituted in the same way as the semantic values of those of its lexical parts of
category c.50
(PU) and (PC) jointly imply that the stereotype theory of word meaning is false. (PC)
says that the meanings of complex expressions are constructed from their constituents.
(PU) says that the meaning of any phrasal expression is constituted in the same way as its
constituents are. Take a stereotype theory as a
ni
ns
t
a
nc
e
,t
heme
a
ni
ngof‘
pe
tf
i
s
h’
,s
a
y
,
a
c
c
or
di
ngt
o(
PU)i
sa
l
s
oas
t
e
r
e
o
t
y
pe
.
Thes
t
e
r
e
ot
y
peof‘
pe
tf
i
s
h’
,howe
ve
r
,i
snot
51
c
ons
t
i
t
ut
e
dbyt
hes
t
e
r
e
ot
y
pe
sof‘
pe
t
’a
nd‘
f
i
s
h’
.
So if (PC) and (PU) both hold, any
50
Th
i
sf
or
mu
l
a
t
i
oni
sPh
i
l
i
pRobbi
n
s
’
si
n“
Wh
a
tCompos
i
t
i
ona
l
i
t
ySt
i
l
lCa
nDo”(
p.3
30)
.
Th
i
si
sbe
c
a
u
s
et
h
es
t
e
r
e
ot
y
pea
s
s
oc
i
a
t
e
dwi
t
ht
h
eph
r
a
s
e‘
pe
tf
i
s
h’h
a
ss
omef
e
a
t
u
r
e
st
h
a
ta
r
en
otf
e
atures
oft
h
es
t
e
r
e
ot
y
pea
s
s
oc
i
a
t
e
dwi
t
ht
h
ewor
d‘
pe
t
’ort
h
es
t
e
r
e
ot
y
pea
s
s
oc
i
a
t
e
dwi
t
ht
h
ewor
d‘
f
i
s
h’
.For
i
n
s
t
a
n
c
e
,l
i
v
i
n
gi
nah
omea
qua
r
i
umi
sn
otaf
e
a
t
u
r
eoft
h
es
t
e
r
e
ot
y
pea
s
s
oc
i
a
t
e
dwi
t
h‘
f
i
s
h
’or‘
pe
t
’
.
51
150
stereotype theory is false. Therefore, (PC) is not compatible with all kinds of theories of
wor
dme
a
ni
ng
.
Thi
si
sa
l
s
oPhi
l
i
pRobb
i
ns
’
ss
t
r
ongde
f
l
a
t
i
oni
s
mpos
i
t
i
on,a
c
c
or
di
ngt
o
which (PC) together with other widely-accepted semantic principles such as (PU) do not
set constrains on the nature of word meanings.
Hor
wi
c
h’
sr
e
pl
yi
se
a
s
yt
oa
nt
i
c
i
pa
t
e
.Her
e
j
e
c
t
s(
PU)out
r
i
g
ht
.(
PU)a
nd(
PC)a
r
es
i
mpl
y
i
nc
ompa
t
i
bl
ewi
t
he
a
c
hot
he
ri
nHor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ount
.I
n“
De
f
l
a
t
i
ngCompos
i
t
i
ona
l
i
t
y
”
(Horwich 2001), this is pretty much his response. Horwich hardly explains why (PU) is
wrong, except to say that we should resist the impulse to accept (PU) (ibid., p.380). But
this is not an answer at all, especially when (PU) seems to be intuitively correct. If
Horwich is right, then it is difficult to explain why t
he
r
ei
sac
onc
e
ptof‘
hor
s
e
’butno
c
onc
e
ptof‘
whi
t
ehor
s
e
’
.
Horwich provides another reply: the meaning of the phrase ‘
pe
tf
i
s
h’s
houl
dbet
her
e
s
ul
t
ofs
ubs
t
i
t
ut
i
ngwor
dsme
a
ni
ngwha
t‘
pe
t
’a
nd‘
f
i
s
h’do—in this case, the stereotypes
associated with them respectively—i
nt
oas
c
he
mame
a
ni
ngwha
t‘
a n’doe
s
;t
hephr
a
s
e
itself does not possess anything similar to what its constituents possess (Horwich 2001, p.
380)
.Hor
wi
c
h’
sa
r
g
ume
nti
st
ha
t
,i
fonea
c
c
e
pt
st
ha
tt
heme
a
ni
ngofawor
di
se
ng
e
nde
r
e
d
by its associated stereotype (or inferential role, or recognitional capacity), one does not
have to accept that the meaning of a complex is composed by the properties possessed by
its constituents. He then continues to say that this would be an instance of the
deflationary view of compositionality (ibid.). According to this, given either the
stereotype theory or indeed any theory of word meaning and (PC), (PU) does not hold. I
think Horwich is right on this one, though (PC) alone, it seems, trivially dismisses the
151
stereotype theory as unqualified. For the stereotype theorists simply do not accept the
i
de
at
ha
tt
hes
t
e
r
e
ot
y
pea
s
s
oc
i
a
t
e
dwi
t
h,s
a
y
,‘
pe
tf
i
s
h’i
st
hef
us
i
onoft
hes
t
e
r
e
ot
y
pe
s
52
a
s
s
oc
i
a
t
e
dwi
t
h‘
pe
t
’a
nd‘
f
i
s
h’
.
And this is one of the important reasons for them to
adopt (PU). I seriously doubt that this can be explained the other way round, for the
incompatibility of (PC) and (PU) is straightforward. To form an argument in terms of the
assumption that one who holds (PC) also holds (PU) does not seem to be feasible. In
ot
he
rwor
ds
,t
hea
r
g
ume
ntf
r
om Fodora
ndLe
por
e
,a
ndt
heonef
r
omRobbi
ns
’
ss
t
r
ong
deflationism too, seem to deviate from the right line of argumentation at the very
beginning. The difficulty, it seems, is about (FP). It might be less problematic for the
stereotype theorists to accept both (FP) and (PC) to be applicable to sentences, but with
respect to phrases this is entirely different. Accepting (FP) is equal to accepting that
schemata have meanings. And the meanings of schemata force the stereotypes of words
in a sequence of a phrase to fuse. So the issue here is not that (PC) together with (PU)
imply the falsity of the stereotype theories, but that the stereotype theories are not
compatible with (PC) in the cases of phrases.53 In terms of this fact, the stereotype
theories probably should be rejected outright, for they cannot explain why one can
understand the composite meaning oft
hephr
a
s
e‘
pe
tf
i
s
h’wi
t
houta
nyi
nvol
ve
me
ntoft
he
stereotype of pet fish. It follows, however, that (PC) has little to do with being
deflationary or not, because not every theory of word meanings is compatible with (PC).
The second argument is quite different from the first one. Fodor and Lepore continue to
da
nc
et
oHor
wi
c
h’
st
une
.Butt
hi
st
i
met
hea
r
g
ume
ntis based on the less controversial
52
The problem of this line of argument is implicit in this very sentence. If one agrees with (PC), the
me
a
ni
ngof‘
pe
tf
i
s
h’wi
l
ln
otbeas
t
e
r
e
ot
y
pebu
tac
ons
t
r
u
c
t
i
onpr
ope
r
t
yr
e
s
u
l
t
i
ngf
r
oma
ppl
y
i
ngt
h
e
s
t
e
r
e
ot
y
pe
sa
s
s
oc
i
a
t
e
dwi
t
h‘
pe
t
’a
n
d‘
f
i
s
h’i
n
t
ot
h
es
c
h
e
ma‘
a n’wh
os
eme
a
n
i
n
gi
s“
A N”
.
53
Strangely enough, the italic ‘
ph
r
a
s
e
’e
x
c
e
r
pt
e
df
r
omHor
wi
c
h’
swor
dsa
tt
h
ebe
g
i
nn
i
ngoft
h
i
spa
r
a
g
r
a
ph
i
sa
c
t
u
a
l
l
yr
e
pl
a
c
e
dbyt
h
ewor
d‘
s
e
nt
e
n
c
e
’i
nHor
wi
c
h’
sa
r
t
i
c
l
e
.
152
pa
r
tof(
PC)
’
sa
ppl
y
i
ngt
os
e
nt
e
n
c
e
s
.Iwi
l
lf
ol
l
owHor
wi
c
h’
sf
or
mul
a
t
i
onoft
hi
s
argument:
(1) To understand certain complex expressions indicates the fact that some other complex
expressions built from the same elements are unde
r
s
t
ood.Fori
ns
t
a
nc
e
,“
J
ohn
s
nor
e
s
”
/
“
Fl
ounde
r
ss
wi
m”a
n
d“
J
ohns
wi
ms
”
/
“
Fl
ounde
r
ss
nor
e
”
.(
‘
s
y
s
t
e
ma
t
i
c
i
t
y
’
)
(2) Therefore, the meaning of a word does not depend on the complex expression in
whi
c
hi
ta
ppe
a
r
s
.(
‘
c
ont
e
xt
-i
n
d
e
pe
nde
nc
e
’
)
(3) But the stereotype assoc
i
a
t
e
dwi
t
ht
hewor
d‘
s
wi
m’i
n“
Fl
ounde
r
ss
wi
m”i
snott
he
s
a
mea
st
hes
t
e
r
e
ot
y
pea
s
s
oc
i
a
t
e
dwi
t
ht
ha
twor
di
n“
J
ohns
wi
ms
.
”
(4) The
r
e
f
or
et
heme
a
ni
ngof‘
s
wi
m’i
snote
ng
e
nde
r
e
dbya
na
s
s
oc
i
a
t
e
ds
t
e
r
e
ot
y
pe
.
(Horwich 2001, p. 381, footnote 15)
Horwich summarises his objection to this argument in three points. First, premise (3) has
t
og
o.
Thes
t
e
r
e
ot
y
pea
s
s
oc
i
a
t
e
dwi
t
ht
hewor
d‘
s
wi
m’i
snotva
r
i
e
di
ne
ve
r
ypl
a
c
ei
t
occurs. Second, even if this argument were persuasive it could tell against only the
stereotype theory but not every theory of word meaning in general. Third, this argument
does not depend on compositionality but on context-independence. If the consequence is
to prevent any theory of word meaning from being compatible with (PC), that is because
of context-independence rather than compositionality. Let me discuss these issues in a
reverse order.
Tot
het
hi
r
dpoi
nt
,i
ti
sha
r
dt
os
e
ehowHor
wi
c
h’
sr
e
pl
yc
a
nwor
k.
Thi
si
sbe
c
a
us
e
context-i
nde
pe
nde
nc
es
e
e
mst
obet
hec
ons
e
que
nc
eof(
PC)
.I
fawor
d’
sme
a
ning depends
on the contexts in which it appears, and if (PC) also holds, then the meaning of a
syntactical complex expression and the meanings of its constituents are mutually
153
de
t
e
r
mi
ne
d.
Thi
si
sc
i
r
c
ul
a
ra
ndc
ont
r
a
r
yt
oHor
wi
c
h’
sownvi
e
w.
The
r
e
f
or
e
,
context-independence is the consequence of (PC). The second point is a bit complicated.
On the one hand, Fodor and Lepore argue that (PC) sets constraints on all kinds of
theories of word meaning. On the other hand, this argument is concentrated on the
incompatibility between (PC) and the stereotype theory in particular. It might be all right
for Horwich to object to this argument in terms of its failure of proving that (PC) sets
constraints on all kinds of theories of word meaning. But it is devastating for him to
accept this argument even in a counterfactual sense, for this suggests that he concedes
that (PC) is not deflationary. To the first point, this is the typical reply we expect. But it is
only natural for Horwich to make the claim that the stereotype associated with the word
‘
s
wi
m’i
snotva
r
i
e
di
ne
ve
r
ypl
a
c
ei
toc
c
ur
s
,i
ti
snotf
ort
hes
t
e
r
e
ot
y
pet
he
or
i
s
t
st
oma
ke
such a claim. As a matter of fact, Fodor and Lepore specifically explain what they mean
by saying that the stereotype associated with the wor
d‘
s
wi
m’i
n“
Fl
ounde
r
ss
wi
m”i
snot
t
hes
a
mea
st
hes
t
e
r
e
ot
y
pea
s
s
oc
i
a
t
e
dwi
t
ht
ha
twor
di
n“
J
ohns
wi
ms
”
.
The
ys
a
y
:
[T]he stereotype of people-swimming is much different from the stereotype of
flounder-swimming since the latter, but not the former, adverts to the exercise of fins.
(Fodor and Lepore 2001, p. 365)
Ic
a
nn
ots
e
ehowHor
wi
c
h’
sr
e
pl
yi
sa
c
t
ua
l
l
yr
e
s
pondi
ngt
ot
hi
sc
l
a
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
on.
Thi
si
spr
oba
bl
ynoti
mpor
t
a
nta
ny
wa
y
,i
fwec
ons
i
de
rRobbi
ns
’
sc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
m ofHor
wi
c
h’
s
claim that (PC) is deflationary as correct. According to Robbins, (PC) is not deflationary
even if it is seen as claiming something weaker, something similar to what Robbins calls
weak deflationism—that is, (PC) itself, not together with other semantic principles, is
compatible with all kinds of theories of word meaning. According to Robbins, a
superstrong holistic theory of word meaning, for instance, is not compatible with (PC).
154
By definition, superstrong holism is the view that the meaning of a word in a language is
at least partly constituted by the meanings of other words and phrases in the language,
including phrases of which the word is a constituent (Robbins 2001, p. 333). It is clear
t
ha
ts
upe
r
s
t
r
onghol
i
s
mi
snotc
ompa
t
i
bl
ewi
t
hFodora
ndLe
por
e
’
s
‘
c
ont
e
xt
-i
nde
pe
nde
nc
e
’
.Ofcourse superstrong holism is not plausible, especially to
Hor
wi
c
h.Butt
hi
si
sbe
s
i
det
hepoi
nt
.Ca
nwewe
a
ke
nHor
wi
c
h’
sc
l
a
i
m bys
a
y
i
ngt
ha
t(
PC)
is only compatible with plausible theories of word meaning? I am afraid not. This means
that (PC) indeed sets c
ons
t
r
a
i
nt
sont
he
or
i
e
sofwor
dme
a
ni
ng
.SoHor
wi
c
h’
s(
PC)i
snot
deflationary.
I
twa
sa
l
r
e
a
dya
r
g
ue
di
nt
hedi
s
c
us
s
i
onofFodora
ndLe
por
e
’
sf
i
r
s
ta
r
g
ume
ntt
ha
tt
he
stereotype theories of word meaning are perhaps too implausible themselves to be
compatible with (PC). Superstrong holism, on the other hand, provides us an
i
nc
ont
e
s
t
a
bl
ec
a
s
et
ha
ti
ti
si
t
s
e
l
fi
nc
ompa
t
i
bl
ewi
t
h(
PC)a
c
c
or
di
ngt
oHor
wi
c
h’
sown
view. Horwich is probably so enthusiastic to establish a deflationary semantic enterprise
that he fa
l
l
ss
hor
tofa
ddr
e
s
s
i
ngSc
hi
f
f
e
r
’
sc
omme
ntt
ha
tt
hewor
ds‘
de
f
l
a
t
i
ona
r
y
’a
nd
‘
i
nf
l
a
t
i
ona
r
y
’a
r
emor
ee
mot
i
ver
h
e
t
or
i
ct
ha
nphi
l
os
ophi
c
a
l
l
ys
i
g
ni
f
i
c
a
ntnot
i
ons
.
In addition, the two sample sentences in the argument two paragraphs back are with
different sc
he
ma
t
aa
c
c
or
di
ngt
oHor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ount
.I
ti
s‘
n vs
’f
or“
J
ohns
wi
ms
”a
ndi
ti
s
‘
ns v’f
or“
Fl
ounde
r
ss
wi
m”
.I
ts
e
e
mst
ha
tbot
hs
i
de
st
a
ket
hi
sa
sami
nordi
f
f
e
r
e
nc
e
.But
is it?
Thes
ke
t
c
hi
ne
s
sofHor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ountofs
y
nt
he
t
i
cs
c
he
ma
t
ama
ke
si
tve
r
ydi
f
f
icult to
155
understand (PC). It is so sketchy that every construction property, resulting from applying
the meanings of the constituents of a sentence to a syntactic schema in a specific order, is
unique. It even cannot tell the difference between well-formed s
c
he
ma
t
a
,s
uc
ha
s‘
n vs
’
f
or“
J
ohns
wi
ms
,
”a
ndi
l
l
-f
or
me
done
s
,s
uc
ha
s‘
vs n’f
or“
Swi
msJ
ohn.
”Tobe
g
i
nwi
t
h
,
this account fails to explain why there are structurally synonymous relations between
sentences. Horwich disposes of this sort of question in terms of the fine-grained
characteristic of his account. Structural synonymy, it seems, only makes sense when
considering a coarser-grained account of sentential meanings, according to which the
synonymous relations are explained in terms of their having the same semantic structure
(Horwich 1998a, pp. 163-164). The instance considered by him only concerns the active
and passive, but there are many varieties. For example, how are we able to explain the
s
y
nony
mousr
e
l
a
t
i
onbe
t
we
e
n“
Hor
wi
c
h’
st
he
or
yi
snote
a
s
yt
opr
ove
,
”“
Topr
ove
Hor
wi
c
h’
st
he
or
yi
snote
a
s
y
,
”a
n
d“
I
ti
snote
a
s
yt
opr
oveHor
wi
c
h’
st
he
or
y
”
?Ea
c
hof
t
he
mi
swi
t
hauni
quec
ons
t
r
uc
t
i
o
npr
ope
r
t
y
.Exc
e
ptf
ort
hi
s
,Hor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ounti
sa
l
s
o
not able to explain structural ambiguity. According to Horwi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ount
,e
ve
r
ys
e
nt
e
nc
e
has a unique construction property. If this is not the case, it is because either one or some
words it contains is vague or is ambiguous or has more than one explanatorily basic use
property. Structural ambiguity is left out. Appa
r
e
nt
l
yc
e
r
t
a
i
ns
y
nt
a
c
t
i
cs
c
he
ma
t
as
uc
ha
s‘
a
54
ns and ns v’
,whe
r
e‘
a’me
a
nsa
na
dj
e
c
t
i
vea
nd‘
and’me
a
ns‘
a
nd’
,a
r
ea
mbi
g
uous
.
We
do not know whether or not the second noun is bounded by the adjective. Further, this
account is too sketchy to explain complex syntactic features, such as the plural and
singular, tense, and many others. If the point is to provide an account of compositionality
54
Idon
ote
v
e
nk
n
owh
owt
of
i
l
li
nt
h
ec
on
n
e
c
t
i
v
e‘
a
n
d’e
x
c
e
ptbya
ddi
ng‘
and’t
ot
his schema. This is a
g
e
n
e
r
a
ldi
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
yf
orun
de
r
s
t
a
n
di
ngHor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
oun
t
.Col
l
i
n
sc
or
r
e
c
t
l
yobs
e
r
v
e
st
h
a
tt
h
es
y
mbol‘
be’i
na
s
c
h
e
ma
,s
a
y
,‘
n be a’i
sn
oti
t
s
e
l
fme
a
n
i
ng
l
e
s
s
.
156
to explain ordinary use facts regarding complex expressions, then that every sentence has
a unique construction property does not help.
Fur
t
he
r
,Col
l
i
nsc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
e
sHor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ounta
snotbe
i
nga
bl
et
or
e
c
onc
i
l
ewi
t
ht
he
general view of syntactic theories developed lately. It seems that certain syntactic features
do not associate with syntactic schemata but with words they contain. One instance
Col
l
i
nsg
i
ve
si
st
hedi
f
f
e
r
e
nts
y
nt
a
c
t
i
cf
e
a
t
ur
e
sbe
t
we
e
nt
hewor
d‘
pr
oba
bl
e
’
,whi
c
hon
l
y
t
a
ke
sf
i
ni
t
ec
l
a
us
e
s
,a
ndt
hewor
d‘
l
i
ke
l
y
’
,whi
c
ht
a
ke
sbot
hf
i
ni
t
ea
ndi
nf
i
ni
t
ec
l
a
us
e
s
.
Moreover, these features are not determined by any a priori reason, gleamed from
reflection upon what language must be like or what it is for (Collins 2003, p. 418).
Syntactic schemata do not explain this sort of syntactic feature. If any account of meaning
or linguistic structure is inconsistent with such restrictions, it should be rejected outright
ont
heg
r
oundst
ha
ti
tmi
s
de
s
c
r
i
be
st
hef
a
c
t
s(
i
bi
d.
)
.
AsCol
l
i
nsc
ha
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
e
s
,Hor
wi
c
h’
s
syntactic schemata are flat. It lacks the necessary hierarchical structure imposed on a
collection of words to accommoda
t
et
he
i
rva
r
i
ouss
e
ma
nt
i
cf
e
a
t
ur
e
s
.I
fHor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ount
aims to explain how people can understand complex expressions of a language, such as
English, in terms of their implicit understanding of nothing more than a class of words
and a class of syntactic schemata of that language, then this account fails miserably. On
the one hand, this account fails because of the reasons characterised above. On the other
hand, if the syntactic features of words are absorbed into the range of implicit
understanding of the use properties of words, which is very unlikely to be accepted by
Horwich, then all schemata are redundant.
If the acceptance property of a given word also gives circumstances in which the
157
syntactic features of the word are accepted, then the use property does not just govern the
use of the word but also its syntactic connections to other words. If this is the case, then it
is not that easy to distance the use-theoretic account from MEANING HOLISM. Further,
apparently not every syntactic schema is applicable to every word. Horwich owes us an
explanation of this. In addition, some words of languages such as Chinese, which do not
have a syntactic item as clauses, are not translatable.
Fi
na
l
l
y
,e
ve
ni
fHor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ounti
sc
a
pa
bl
eofc
opi
ngwi
t
ha
l
lt
hese difficulties, the
attempt to construct a general account of proposition fails. In terms of my personal
painful experience, translating more than ten books from English to Chinese, the
syntactic structures of these two languages are very different. The following three points
themselves are only examples. First of all, Quine is right on the point that there is no
place-to-place corresponding between sentences of different languages. There is not even
a guarantee that sentences have similar length. For instance, the Chinese translation of the
55
s
e
nt
e
nc
e“
Pl
a
ne
t
sor
bi
ts
t
a
r
s
”c
ont
a
i
nsa
tl
e
a
s
tt
e
nChi
ne
s
ec
ha
r
a
c
t
e
r
s
.
Second, Chinese
has a very different grammar from English. The following are several examples.
(1) There are no plural endings in Chinese.
(2) There is no such a concept of clauses in Chinese grammar. If someone writes a
sentence containing clauses exactly in an English fashion, it will be corrected.
(3) In English, there is a particular grammatical device to distinguish countable nouns
from uncountable ones
,s
uc
ha
sones
a
y
s‘
ag
l
a
s
sofwa
t
e
r
’i
ns
t
e
a
dof‘
awa
t
e
r
’
.But
55
Ev
e
nQu
i
n
e
’
sc
ons
i
de
r
a
t
i
oni
sv
e
r
yEn
gl
i
s
h
.Fori
n
s
t
a
n
c
e
,youc
a
n
n
ott
e
l
lwh
e
t
h
e
rorn
ot“
Ga
v
a
g
a
i
”i
sa
sentence. This leads to the question of how to segment utterances of a remote language. The reasoning
behind this is that pronunciations of words of English, or Latin phyla in general, contain syllable or
syllables. Words with many syllables consist in many alphabets accordingly. But Chinese words do not have
t
h
e
s
ef
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
.
Ac
c
or
di
ngt
ot
hepr
on
u
n
c
i
a
t
i
onof“
Ga
v
a
g
a
i
”
,i
ti
sa
bou
tt
h
r
e
eCh
i
n
e
s
ec
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
sf
ors
u
r
ei
f
it is Chinese.
158
this does not hold in Chinese. Almost every noun has a particular kind of terms like
‘
g
l
a
s
s
’i
n‘
ag
l
a
s
sofwa
t
e
r
’
.I
ns
t
e
a
dofs
a
y
i
ng‘
at
r
e
e
’
,f
ori
ns
t
a
nc
e
,Chi
ne
s
es
a
y‘
a__
oft
r
e
e
’
.
(4) More importantly, verbs do not have tense variations.56
And this can go on, and on, and on.
Third, similar to English, Chinese relies both on words and phrases to form sentences.
But there is no corresponding relation between a word and the complexes containing it
that can be preserved in an English-Chinese or a Chinese-English direction. The sentence
“
Pl
a
ne
t
sor
bi
ts
t
a
r
s
”i
sa
l
mos
tape
r
f
e
c
te
xa
mpl
ef
ort
hec
ha
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
a
t
i
ona
bove
.For
i
ns
t
a
nc
e
,Chi
ne
s
edonots
a
y‘
apl
a
ne
t
’or‘
ma
nypl
a
ne
t
s
’buts
a
ys
ome
t
hi
ngl
i
ke‘
a__of
pl
a
ne
t
’a
nd‘
ma
ny__ofpl
a
ne
t
’
.
(
Re
me
mbe
r
,nopl
ur
a
le
ndi
ng
s
.
)Mos
ti
mpor
t
a
nt
l
y
,t
he
reason for using at least ten Chinese characters to translate it is simply because the
c
or
r
e
s
pondi
ngwor
dof‘
or
bi
t
’i
nChi
ne
s
ei
sonl
yanoun.Chi
ne
s
edoe
s not have a
c
or
r
e
s
pondi
ngve
r
bt
ot
heEng
l
i
s
hve
r
b‘
or
bi
t
’
.Soweha
vet
ot
r
a
ns
l
a
t
et
hi
st
hr
e
ewor
d
English sentence into something whose English translation is similar to the sentence
“
Pl
a
ne
t
si
nt
he
i
ror
bi
t
smovea
r
ounds
t
a
r
s
.
”Si
nc
et
he
r
ei
snoc
or
r
e
s
pondi
ngve
r
bof‘
or
bi
t
’
in Chinese, inevitably we must use an alternative Chinese verb. This is not enough to
t
r
a
ns
l
a
t
e“
Pl
a
ne
t
sor
bi
ts
t
a
r
s
”be
c
a
us
et
hes
ubs
t
i
t
ut
e
dChi
ne
s
eve
r
bdoe
snotma
kepl
a
i
n
that planets move around stars in their orbits. The transla
t
i
onoft
henoun‘
or
bi
t
’ha
st
of
i
l
l
in to ensure the translation to be correct. In order to explain this deviant case, what sort of
s
y
nt
a
c
t
i
cs
c
he
ma
t
ac
a
nHor
wi
c
hi
nvoke
?Thewor
d‘
or
bi
t
’be
i
ngbot
hanouna
ndave
r
b
in English or being only a noun in Chinese is entirely contingent. I do not see how
56
Therefore, Chinese does not have a corresponding grammatical device as subjunctive conditionals. This
is probably the reason why many Chinese-speaking people have difficulty with understanding
counterfactuals properly.
159
Hor
wi
c
hc
a
ne
xpl
a
i
na
wa
yt
hea
bovepr
obl
e
m oft
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
ng“
Pl
a
ne
t
sor
bi
ts
t
a
r
s
”i
nt
o
Chinese.
Thef
u
n
da
me
nt
a
ldi
f
f
i
c
ul
t
yofHor
wi
c
h’
sus
e
-theoretic account of word meaning and
compositionality is its fine-grained character. According to this account, words of
different languages are synonymous if and only if they have the same use property. The
wor
d‘
c
e
l
i
ba
t
a
i
r
e
’
,f
ori
ns
t
a
nc
e
,i
st
r
a
ns
l
a
t
e
da
s‘
ba
c
he
l
or
’r
a
t
he
rt
ha
n‘
unma
r
r
i
e
dma
n
’
because in terms of the fine-g
r
a
i
ne
dc
ha
r
a
c
t
e
rofHor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ount‘
c
e
l
i
ba
t
a
i
r
e
’a
nd
‘
ba
c
h
e
l
or
’a
r
ebot
hpr
i
mi
t
i
ve
sbut‘
unma
r
r
i
e
dma
n’i
snot(
Hor
wi
c
h1998a, p. 163). We
a
l
r
e
a
dys
a
wt
hi
sl
i
neofr
e
a
s
oni
ngi
nma
nypl
a
c
e
sofHor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ount
.Howe
ve
r
,i
n
Chinese the translating wordsofbot
h‘
ba
c
he
l
or
’a
nd‘
unma
r
r
i
e
dma
n’a
r
ec
ompl
e
x
e
xpr
e
s
s
i
ons
.
Thec
or
r
e
s
pondi
ngChi
ne
s
ephr
a
s
eof‘
ba
c
he
l
or
’i
sac
ombi
na
t
i
onofa
two-wor
dphr
a
s
ewhos
eme
a
ni
ngi
ss
i
mi
l
a
rt
ot
hewor
d‘
s
i
ng
l
e
’i
n‘
as
i
ng
l
el
i
f
e
’a
nda
word whose meaning is similar to ‘
ma
n’
.Se
nt
e
nc
e
sofdi
f
f
e
r
e
ntl
a
ng
ua
ge
sa
r
e
synonymous, according to Horwich, if and only if they result from applying words with
the same use properties in an exact order in a schema shared by those languages. But we
already saw the flaw of this way of thi
nki
ngi
nt
hei
ns
t
a
nc
eof“
Pl
a
ne
t
sor
bi
ts
t
a
r
s
”a
ndi
t
s
Chinese translation. They do not even fit in the same syntactic schema. It is inexplicable
to believe that all contingent facts of English words and sentences are preserved in
foreign languages. The particular semantic and synthetic features of foreign words are
f
i
ne
l
ygr
oundi
nt
ome
a
ni
ng
l
e
s
spi
e
c
e
sbyHor
wi
c
h’
smi
l
l
.Qui
ne
’
squa
l
ms
,c
ha
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
e
d
properly, explain why this failure happens. To look for a word-word corresponding
manual for translation, one has to be clear first what a word is. Unless this is solved, the
so-called fine-grained semantics can hardly begin. But in solving what a word is for a
160
r
e
mot
el
a
ng
ua
ge
,i
tt
ur
nsoutt
ha
tt
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
oni
si
nd
e
t
e
r
mi
na
t
e
.Hor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ountdoe
snot
quell Qui
ne
’
squa
l
msbuti
sque
l
l
e
dbyt
he
m.
Final Remarks
I
nt
hes
e
c
onds
e
c
t
i
onIc
ons
i
de
r
e
dhowQui
ne
’
ss
c
e
pt
i
c
i
s
mt
owa
r
dme
a
ni
ngi
s
mi
s
unde
r
s
t
oodbyHor
wi
c
h.
AsIha
vea
r
g
ue
di
ns
e
c
t
i
onst
hr
e
ea
ndf
our
,ne
i
t
he
rHor
wi
c
h’
s
use-theoretic account of word meaning nor his account of compositionality can work.
This raises doubt regarding the sensibleness of constructing an account of proposition
without any complication caused by the concept of truth. This further weakens the
rationale of adopting the minimalistic rather than the disquotational approach toward the
deflationary concept of truth.
161
Chapter V
Be
t
we
e
nQui
ne
’
sDi
s
quot
at
i
onal
i
s
m
andHor
wi
c
h’
sMi
ni
mal
i
s
m
Almost every adherent of different deflationary theories of truth, holds that there is some
sort of equivalence relation stronger than material equivalence between the two sides of
all biconditional instances of the disquotational schema.1 This feature of the relation is
essential to the explanation of three major factors regarding the success of a deflationary
theory of truth. The first of these is the functional role of the truth predicate to do the
semantic ascent required to express infinite conjunctions and disjunctions. The second is
the adequacy of the explanatory role in terms of which all facts involving truth are
explained along with other suitable explanatory resources, and the third is the proper
ascription of the truth predicate. Many philosophers locate their criticisms of
disquotationalism in general, including minimalism, in one factor or another. In my
di
s
c
us
s
i
onsoft
he
s
ec
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
msIwi
l
la
l
s
opr
ovi
demye
va
l
ua
t
i
onofQui
ne
’
s
di
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
ma
ndHor
wi
c
h’
smi
ni
ma
l
i
s
m.
This chapter thus consists of four sections.
The first three discuss the three factors for the success of a deflationary theory of truth
me
nt
i
o
ne
da
bove
.
Thef
our
t
hque
s
t
i
onsQui
ne
’
sa
t
t
i
t
udet
owa
r
dsdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
m.
1. The Equivalence Relation and Semantic Ascent
In order correctly to set the explanatory order regarding the equivalence relation and
semantic ascent, I will begin my discussion with the sense equivalence relation.
1
As said in Chapter One, the deflationary theories of truth considered in this dissertation are disquotational
and minimalist theories only.
162
1.1 The sense equivalence relation
Many opponents of disquotationalism claim that the sense equivalence relation holds
be
t
we
e
nt
r
ut
ha
s
c
r
i
pt
i
ons
e
nt
e
nc
e
s
,s
uc
ha
s“
‘
Snowi
swhi
t
e
’i
st
r
ue
”
, and the sentences to
whi
c
ht
het
r
ut
hpr
e
di
c
a
t
ei
sa
s
c
r
i
b
e
d,i
nt
hi
sc
a
s
e“
Snowi
swhi
t
e
”
.
Al
t
hought
hi
ss
e
e
mst
o
be problematic for disquotationalism, it is in fact equally problematic for minimalism as
well. But let us look at disquotationalism first.
Ri
c
ha
r
dSc
ha
nt
zi
n“
HowDe
f
l
a
t
i
o
ni
s
t
sDi
ve
r
gef
r
omTa
r
s
ki
”(
Sc
ha
nt
z2000)ma
ke
st
he
following claim:
The general idea on which [the disquotational account] is based is that a sentence of the
f
or
m‘
si
st
r
u
e
’h
a
st
h
es
a
meme
a
ni
ngort
h
es
a
mecognitive content as the sentence s. (p.
318)
I
nt
hec
a
s
eof“
‘
Snowi
swhi
t
e
’i
st
r
uei
fa
ndonl
yi
fs
nowi
swhi
t
e
,
”hec
i
t
e
sQui
ne
’
s
wor
dsof“
c
a
l
l
i
ngt
hes
e
nt
e
nc
et
r
ue
,wec
a
l
ls
nowwhi
t
e
”i
nPhilosophy of Logic, to
support this reading of disquotationalism. However, Schantz continues to discuss the
functional role of the truth predicate that cancels the effect of semantic ascent, and then to
the expressibility of infinite conjunctions and disjunctions. No explanation is provided as
to why the cited words are taken to support the claim that the sense equivalence relation
hol
dsbe
t
we
e
ni
ns
t
a
nc
e
ss
uc
ha
s“
‘
Snowi
swhi
t
e
’i
st
r
ue
”a
nd“
Snowi
swhi
t
e
”
.I
n“
The
Me
t
a
phy
s
i
c
sofTr
ut
h”
,De
vi
t
ta
l
s
oc
l
a
i
mst
ha
twhe
nt
het
r
ut
ht
e
r
mi
sa
t
t
a
c
he
dt
ot
he
quotation name of a statement, it yields a statement that is equivalent to that statement,
s
uc
ha
st
hec
l
a
s
s
i
ce
qui
va
l
e
nc
er
e
l
a
t
i
onbe
t
we
e
n“
‘
Snowi
swhi
t
e
’i
st
r
ue
”a
nd“
Snowi
s
white (p. 583). If this sort of criticisms concentrates only on the truth ascription of singly
given sentences without further elaboration, then they are based on the redundantist
163
readings of disquotationalism. In fact, some of opponents make this plain. For instance,
Wol
f
g
a
ngKünnei
n“
Di
s
quot
a
t
i
o
na
l
i
s
tConc
e
pt
i
o
nsofTr
ut
h”(
Künne2000)di
s
t
i
ng
ui
s
h
e
s
the disquotationalist redundancy thesis from the disquotationalist abbreviation thesis of
infinite conjunctions and disjunctions.2 And he criticises them separately.3 This line of
criticising disquotationalism, and minimalism as well, is not very promising, for none of
the major supporters of disquotationalism go for the sense equivalence explanation
explicitly.4 Fori
ns
t
a
nc
e
,f
ol
l
owi
ngi
nQui
ne
’
sf
oot
s
t
e
ps
,Ha
r
t
r
yFi
e
l
dr
e
j
e
c
t
st
he
interpersonal and intrapersonal synonymous relations between linguistic expressions in
general.
However, if there is no sensible connection between the redundantist reading and the
abbreviation reading of the disquotational theory of truth, then it is hard to make sense of
either. Of course, the abbreviation reading is partially the consequence of reading
disquotationalism in the cases of singly given sentences in a redundantist way. A more
2
Künne raises an argument inspired by Quine, Argument From Entailment, against the redundantist
r
e
a
di
n
g
.Ba
s
e
donDa
v
i
ds
on’
sobs
e
r
v
a
t
i
oni
n“
Wh
a
ti
sQu
i
n
e
’
sVi
e
wofTr
u
t
h
”t
h
a
tt
h
ei
ns
t
a
n
c
e
softhe
di
s
qu
ot
a
t
i
on
a
ls
c
h
e
maa
r
egu
a
r
a
n
t
e
e
dt
obet
r
u
eon
l
yi
nt
h
eve
r
ys
pe
c
i
a
lc
a
s
e
,n
a
me
l
y
,f
orag
i
v
e
npe
r
s
on’
s
idiolect, Künne reformulates the disquotational schema as
(
D*
)‘
p’i
st
r
u
eas used by me now if and only if p.
“
‘
Sn
owi
swhi
t
e
’a
sus
e
dbymen
owi
st
r
u
e
”h
e
n
c
ee
n
t
a
i
l
s
(
a
)“
Sn
owi
swh
i
t
e
”a
sus
e
dbymen
owi
sme
a
ni
ngf
u
l
,
and
(b) Something is sometimes used by someone.
Howe
v
e
r
,“
Sn
owi
swhi
t
e
”e
n
t
a
i
l
sn
e
i
t
h
e
roft
h
e
m.
In a footnote Künne indicates that Quine does not have very much sympathy for this argument. But I do not
t
h
i
n
kt
h
a
tQu
i
n
eobj
e
c
t
st
oe
i
t
h
e
r(
a
)or(
b)a
sac
on
s
e
qu
e
n
c
eof(
D*
)
,a
tl
e
a
s
tn
ot(
a
)
.I
n“
Me
a
n
i
n
ga
n
d
I
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
”t
h
ea
r
gume
n
ti
n
t
r
odu
c
e
dbyQu
i
n
ei
sa
bou
tt
h
ei
nf
e
r
e
n
c
ef
r
om‘
Fa’or‘
~Fa’t
o(x) (Fx ~Fx).
What Quine objectst
oi
st
h
ea
s
s
umpt
i
ont
h
a
tt
h
eme
a
ni
ngof‘
Fa’e
x
i
s
t
si
f‘
Fa’i
sme
a
ni
ngf
u
l
,bu
th
eh
a
sn
o
ob
j
e
c
t
i
ont
os
ome
t
hi
ngl
i
k
e(
a
)
.
Wh
a
ti
sr
e
j
e
c
t
e
di
st
h
ei
nf
e
r
e
n
c
ef
r
omt
h
eme
a
ni
ngf
ul
n
e
s
sof‘
Fa’t
ot
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
e
n
c
eoft
h
eme
a
n
i
ngof‘
Fa’
.Fu
r
t
h
e
r
,(
b)i
sa
mbi
g
u
ou
s because the very something that is used could be
the sentence itself or the meaning of the sentence. Quine only disagrees with the assumption that the latter
s
ug
g
e
s
t
st
h
ee
x
i
s
t
e
n
c
eoft
h
eme
a
ni
ngof‘
Fa’t
a
k
e
na
sa
ne
n
t
i
t
y
.I
ne
i
t
h
e
rc
a
s
ei
ti
sn
otr
i
gh
tto think that
Qu
i
n
edi
s
a
g
r
e
e
swi
t
hKünn
e
’
sa
r
g
ume
n
t
.For(
a
)i
se
n
ought
odi
s
c
e
r
nt
h
edi
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
ei
nme
a
n
i
ngbe
t
we
e
n
“
‘
Sn
owi
swhi
t
e
’a
sus
e
dbymen
owi
st
r
u
e
”a
n
d“
Sn
owi
swh
i
t
e
”
.
3
Künne leaves out Quine as one of those that go for the sense equivalence explanation.
4
In the following, however, it will be shown that some deflationists are committed to this explanation
implicitly.
164
suited and hence weaker manner is to regard the disquotational truth predicate as
providing the necessary mechanism to express infinite conjunctions and disjunctions,
a
r
g
ua
bl
yi
nva
r
i
ousde
g
r
e
e
s
.Eve
ni
nt
hi
swe
a
ke
rs
e
ns
e
,
Ani
lGupt
a(
“
ACr
i
t
i
queof
De
f
l
a
t
i
oni
s
m”
,Gupt
a1993a) urges us to acknowledge that, in order for the deflationary
truth predicate to express infinite conjunctions and disjunctions, the sense equivalence
relation in the instances of the disquotational schema, and minimalist equivalence schema
a
swe
l
l
,i
se
s
s
e
nt
i
a
l
.Gupt
a
’
sc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
mi
sa
ppl
i
c
a
bl
et
obot
ht
hedi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
ls
c
he
maa
nd
Hor
wi
c
h’
se
qui
va
l
e
nc
es
c
he
ma
.Fort
hes
a
keofs
i
mplicity, I will only consider the
disquotational schema in the following discussion.
Gupta begins his criticism with an example according to which the expressive power of
the truth predicate is manifested. Suppose we wish to affirm all sentences of the form
____ & snow is white.
Our wish to affirm all the instances of this form amounts to affirming the following
infinite conjunction by filling the blank of the form with all sentences:
(1) [Sky is blue & snow is white] & [Chicago is blue & snow is white
]& ….
The disquotational function of the truth predicate makes (1) equivalent to
(
2)[
‘
Skyi
sbl
ue
’i
st
r
ue&s
nowi
swhi
t
e
]&[
‘
Chi
c
a
g
oi
sbl
ue
’i
st
r
ue&s
nowi
swhi
t
e
]
&….
As far as the sentence names are what a universal objectual quantification ranges over,
us
i
ngt
hepr
onomi
na
lva
r
i
a
bl
e‘
x’
,(
2)c
a
nbef
or
mul
a
t
e
da
s
(3) For all sentences x: [x is true & snow is white].
Ba
s
e
dont
hi
ss
e
t
t
i
ng
,Gupt
a
’
sa
r
g
ume
ntg
oe
sa
sf
ol
l
ows
.For(
3)t
oe
xpr
e
s
s(
1)
,(
1)a
nd(
2)
165
need to be equivalent. In order for the truth predicate to play its role in forming
generalisations such as (3), (3) and (1) have to be equivalent too. This is accepted by
almost everybody, as the claim that the truth predicate has the function of expressing
some infinite conjunctions.5 The difference between disquotationalism and
non-disquotationalism lies in how strong the equivalence relation is and whether or not
this is the only function played by the truth predicate. The disquotation function of the
truth predicate makes certain that (1) and (2) come out equivalent. As for the claim made
by the disquotationalist that the truth predicate is only a device of disquotation, the
equivalence relation between (1) and (2) has to be strong enough to justify it. For (1) to be
expressible in terms of (3), the relation between (1) and (2) can be varied from material,
necessary, to sense equivalence. The material and necessary equivalence relations only
yield that T-sentences are true or necessarily true respectively. But substantive truth
theorists have no problem agreeing with the necessary truth of T-sentences. Indeed,
according to Gupta, they have to.6 Only when the relation between (1) and (2) is sense
equivalence, is the claim that the truth predicate is only a device of disquotation and
nothing else justified. Under this strong reading of the equivalence relation, however, the
claim that (3) expresses (1) is plainly false. (3), as a universal statement, and the
conjunction of its instances, namely, (2) do not have the same sense.7 For Gupta, this is
the consequence of confusing what Quine calls the difference between affirming the
universal and affirming all its instances (Gupta, 1993a, p. 63).
Gupt
a
’
sa
r
g
ume
nti
st
wof
ol
d.Ont
heoneha
nd,i
ts
howst
ha
tbot
ht
hedi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
la
nd
5
Infinite disjunctions are also expressible in terms of the same claim. Since the main issue here is about the
expressibility of infinite conjunctions only, the part regarding infinite disjunctions is dropped from now on.
6
Argument for this, please cf. Gupta 1993a, p. 69.
7
Künne raises a similar argument, Argument From Conceptual Overloading. Please cf. Künne 2000, p.
187-188.
166
the minimalist theories of truth can at most explain all the instances of generalisations
regarding truth, but not those generalisations themselves. On the other hand, the meaning
of‘
t
r
ue
’i
snotf
i
xe
dbywha
tHor
wi
c
hc
a
l
l
st
hei
nc
l
i
na
t
i
ont
oa
c
c
e
pt
,wi
t
houte
vi
de
nc
e
,a
ll
the instances of the equivalence schema, for the acceptance of these instances cannot
sufficiently explain the particular use of the truth predicate in truth generalisations.
The main point made by Gupta is the complaint that the disquotational and the
equivalence schemata at most can explain every instance of a given truth generalisation
but not the generalisation itself. Or, in other words, all the instances of a given
generalisation can be derived from these schemata and other auxiliary resources, as long
as these resources are truth-free, but not the generalisation itself. This complaint results
from the fact that, without an infinitary inference rule, how can one explain the use of the
t
r
ut
hpr
e
di
c
a
t
ewi
t
hi
nat
r
ut
hg
e
ne
r
a
l
i
s
a
t
i
on,s
uc
ha
s“
Eve
r
ys
e
nt
e
nc
eoft
hef
or
m‘
p or not
p’i
st
r
ue
”
,i
nt
e
r
msoft
hee
xpl
a
na
t
i
onoft
heus
e
soft
het
r
ut
hpr
e
di
c
a
t
ewi
t
hi
na
l
lofi
t
s
instances? If accepting the sense equivalence reading is not an admissible alternative, then
disquotationalism and minimalism are not capable of explaining all the uses of the truth
predicate. This criticism, on the other hand, does indicate that, as far as the
disquotationalist and the minimalist can find a way to explicate the reasoning of infinitary
inference, the sense equivalence reading and the related problems are dispensable.
However, discussions with regard to the reasoning of infinitary inference are highly
related to the disquotational and the minimal accounts of the adequacy of the explanatory
role of the truth predicate in terms of which all facts involving truth are explained.
The
r
e
f
or
e
,Gupt
a
’
sc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
mi
si
n
s
i
g
ni
f
i
c
a
nt
,i
fi
nt
hef
ol
l
owi
ngs
e
c
t
i
ont
her
e
a
s
oni
ngof
infinitary inference can be explained.
167
However, Gupta does not only raise one argument only. But the discussion of his further
arguments is postponed. Gupta does not contest the claim that instances of the
disquotational schema are necessarily true. According to him this is an inspirational
insight. However, some opponents of disquotationalism and minimalism even disagree
with this claim. For them, disquotationalism and minimalism cannot even make sense of
the necessary equivalence relation of the instances of the disquotational schema or the
equivalence schema. So I turn to this issue first.
1.2 The necessary equivalence relation
We have discussed, in Chapter Two, the criticism made by Marian David that the
i
ns
t
a
nc
e
soft
hedi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
ls
c
he
ma
,s
uc
ha
s“
‘
Snowi
swhi
t
e
’i
st
r
uei
fa
ndonl
yi
f
s
nowi
swhi
t
e
,
”a
r
enotne
c
e
s
s
a
r
yt
r
ut
hs
.Hei
snota
l
onei
nt
hi
sl
i
neof criticism. The
scope of this criticism is different from one opponent to another. For instance, James Van
Cl
e
vei
n“
Minimal Truth Is Realist Truth”(
Cl
e
ve1996,p.869)a
ndPa
s
c
a
lEng
e
li
nTruth
(Engel 2002, p. 47) only ascribe this problem to disquotationalism whose primary truth
bearers are sentences. McGrath, on the other hand, includes minimalism as well (McGrath
1997b, pp. 79-84; McGrath 2000, pp. 35-39).
The basic idea behind this line is that truth depends on meaning. Whether or not an
instance of the disquotational schema holds, depends on the contingent fact of what the
quoted sentence in the instances means. Künne presents an argument according to this
reasoning (Künne 2000, p. 180). Let the sentences
(S) Snow is white
168
and
(
T)“
Snowi
swhi
t
e
”i
s true
embed in a modal context, as consequents in a counterfactual conditional:
(
MS)I
fwea
l
lc
a
met
ous
et
hes
e
nt
e
nc
e“
Snowi
swhi
t
e
”f
ors
a
y
i
ngt
ha
tgr
a
s
si
sr
e
d,i
t
would not be the case that snow is white.
(
MT)I
fwea
l
lc
a
met
ous
et
hes
e
n
t
e
nc
e“
Snowi
swhi
t
e
”f
ors
a
y
i
ngt
ha
tgr
a
s
si
sr
e
d,i
t
would not be the case that “s
nowi
swhi
t
e
”i
st
r
ue
.
(
MT)i
st
r
ue
,but(
MS)i
sf
a
l
s
e
.Kü
nnet
he
na
r
g
ue
st
ha
t
,i
ft
hea
s
c
r
i
pt
i
onoft
r
ut
ht
o“
Snow
i
swhi
t
e
”i
n(
T)we
r
enot
hi
ngmor
et
ha
nt
hea
s
c
r
i
pt
i
onofwhi
t
e
ne
s
s to snow in (S), the
a
ppl
i
c
a
t
i
onoft
hemoda
lope
r
a
t
o
r“
i
twoul
dnotbet
hec
a
s
et
ha
t
”t
o(
S)a
nd(
T)c
oul
dnot
impose the assignment of different truth values to (MS) and (MT) (ibid.).8 Therefore, the
instances of the disquotational schema are contingent. And the contingency of the
disquotational schema is very likely to force people always to confuse (MS) with (MT) or
(MT) with (MS).
Mc
Gr
a
t
ht
hi
nkst
ha
ts
t
r
ongde
f
l
a
t
i
ona
r
yt
he
or
i
e
soft
r
ut
h,s
uc
ha
sHor
wi
c
h’
smi
ni
ma
l
i
s
m,
cannot get away from this attack. Although Horwich employs propositional forms to
construct his minimalism, according to McGrath the instances of the equivalence schema
are embedded in the same muddy field.9 This is correct. When formulating the
equivalence schema, Horwich claims that for every English declarative sentence,‘
p’
,
there is a corresponding equivalent sentence,“
t
hepr
opos
i
t
i
ont
ha
tp i
st
r
ue
”
.I
ti
se
a
s
yt
o
10
s
e
et
ha
t
,wi
t
hal
i
t
t
l
ea
dj
us
t
me
nt
,Künne
’
sa
r
g
ume
nta
l
s
oa
ppl
i
e
st
omi
ni
ma
l
i
s
m.
In
8
Künne raises this argument against the redundantist reading of disquotationalism. But the abbreviation
reading is very likely to be doomed if this is established.
9
Da
v
i
di
n“
Mi
n
i
ma
l
i
s
ma
n
dt
heFa
c
t
sAbou
tTr
u
t
h
”a
l
s
on
ot
e
st
h
i
s
.
10
Precisely because of this reason, McGrath proposes his weak deflationism according to which only the
169
terms of the observation that minimalism eventually has to gravitate to the mud, regarding
propositions as the primary truth bearers does not seem to provide a significant difference
from disquotationalism in dealing with truth ascriptions in the cases of vague, ambiguous,
and indexical contexts. If there is any way to dispose of these problematic cases, it will
not only be available to minimalism.
This line of criticism affects almost all the truth theories of the major deflationary
t
he
or
i
s
t
s
,pe
r
ha
pse
xc
e
ptQui
ne
’
s
.
The
yr
e
s
pondi
noneway or another in order to
maintain the important feature of disquotationalism, that all instances of the
disquotational schema are necessary. Horwich on the other hand does not seem to care too
much about this. Perhaps he takes this as a minor point under which the core of
minimalism is intact. He does consider the instances of the equivalence schema as
necessary though. In a footnote he says that the alternative strategy—the one that he
prefers—is to keep the theory of truth un-modal and simple, and instead to derive the
necessity of the axioms of the minimal theory from a separate theory of necessity. And the
theory proposed by him is that necessary truths are specified by their being explanatorily
fundamental. Establishing this theory, and providing that the minimal theory is
explanatorily basic, it follows that the axioms of it are necessary.11 As David observes in
“
Mi
ni
ma
l
i
s
ma
ndt
heFa
c
t
sa
bou
tTr
ut
h”(
Da
vi
d2000)
,t
hi
st
he
or
yofne
c
e
s
s
i
t
yi
spl
a
i
nl
y
f
a
l
s
e
.
Hes
a
y
s
,“
[
N]
a
t
ur
a
ls
c
i
e
nc
ec
ont
a
i
nse
xpl
a
na
t
or
ily fundamental laws that are not
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
yt
r
ut
hs
”(
p.167)
.Orc
o
n
s
i
de
rGupt
a
’
se
xa
mpl
ei
n“
ACr
i
t
i
queofDe
f
l
a
t
i
oni
s
m”
,
the statement that no chemical reaction will produce caustic soda from saltpetre and
theory of propositional truth is deflationary and other theories of sentence, belief, and utterance truth are
inflationary.
11
Please cf. Horwich 1998b, p. 21 footnote.
170
sulfuric acid is considered as necessary but is still in need of a deeper explanation by
c
he
mi
s
t
r
yofwhyi
thol
ds
.I
ft
hi
ss
t
a
t
e
me
nti
sne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
,t
he
na
c
c
or
di
ngt
oHor
wi
c
h’
s
theory of necessity it is explanatorily fundamental. But this contradicts the fact that
chemistry provides a deeper explanation for it. Now Horwich has to reject the necessity of
this statement, which might cause a cleavage between the intuitive set of necessary truths
and the set of necessary truths according to his theory, and insist that chemistry is
explanatorily fundamental. Eve
nput
t
i
nga
s
i
deDa
vi
d’
sobs
e
r
va
t
i
ont
ha
tt
hi
si
ns
i
s
t
e
nc
ei
s
ill-founded, there is another more serious problem. What is explanatorily fundamental
normally depends on the explanatory purpose. It is hard to believe that there is an
absolute order of explanatory fundamentality relative to practical purposes of explanation.
It follows that Horwich fails to give us any reason to accept that the instances of the
equivalence schema are necessary.
For solving the problem of the modal status, Vann McGee provides a modified
disquotational schema (DSI):
(
DSI
)“
Φ”i
st
r
uei
nmyi
di
ol
e
c
ti
fa
ndonl
yi
fΦ.
He then claims that all instances of (DSI) are necessary. As long as we keep the hidden
indexicals straight, he so explains, we always arrive at (MT) rather than (MS).12 If this is
the end of his explanation, this account is less appealing. For this account leaves
e
ve
r
y
bodyi
nt
heda
r
kwhe
na
c
c
o
u
nt
i
ngf
orot
he
rpe
opl
e
’
sus
eoft
hes
a
megr
oupof
sentences. McGee extends his idiolect disquotationalism to a global one by quelling
Qui
ne
’
squa
l
moft
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
on.Forhi
m,
[
T]
h
ea
c
t
u
a
lf
i
e
l
dl
i
ngu
i
s
tn
e
ve
rf
i
n
dsh
e
r
s
e
l
fi
nt
h
epos
i
t
i
onofQu
i
n
e
’
sr
a
di
c
a
lt
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
or
,
because the field linguist is willing to posit [psychological] hypotheses that Quine wishes to
12
Please cf. McGee 1993, pp. 90-91.
171
disallow to the eff
e
c
tt
h
a
tt
h
en
a
t
i
v
e
’
sc
on
c
e
pt
u
a
ls
y
s
t
e
mi
sbr
oa
dl
ys
i
mi
l
a
rt
oh
e
rown
.
(McGee 1993, p. 99)
McGee claims that the problem of the inscrutability of reference under this consideration
is untenable. There are some differences one cannot mistake between the conceptual roles
f
ort
hewor
d‘
r
a
bbi
t
’a
ndf
ort
hephr
a
s
e‘
unde
t
a
c
he
dr
a
bbi
tpa
r
t
s
’
.Cons
e
que
nt
l
y
,f
ora
n
indigenous informant whose conceptual frame is at all similar to my own, the word
‘
ga
va
g
a
i
’us
e
dbyhe
rmor
ec
l
os
e
l
yr
e
s
e
mbl
e
smyus
eof‘
r
a
bbi
t
’r
a
t
he
rt
ha
n‘
unde
t
a
c
he
d
r
a
bbi
tpa
r
t
s
’
.Iwi
l
lnotc
ons
i
de
rt
hi
se
xpl
a
na
t
i
onmor
ef
ul
l
y
.Howe
ve
r
,l
e
tmepoi
ntou
t
two things. First, there is no dispute that the field linguist is very likely to translate
‘
ga
va
g
a
i
’a
s‘
r
a
bbi
t
’r
a
t
he
rt
ha
n‘
u
nde
t
a
c
he
dr
a
bbi
tpa
r
t
s
’
,a
sIi
ndi
c
a
t
e
di
nt
hepr
e
vi
ous
chapter. There is even no dispute over bringing some psychological hypotheses into
account in the practical vein of translation. What is in dispute is whether or not this
translation is determinate. So it is better not to include psychological hypotheses in
c
ons
i
de
r
i
ngr
a
di
c
a
lt
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
oni
nt
het
he
or
e
t
i
c
a
lve
i
n.Mc
Ge
e
’
sa
c
c
ounts
e
e
mst
omi
s
st
he
point. Second, it is unclear how the relation of resemblance accounts for translation. More
importantly, resemblance is not a transitive relation. Hence, the chance of a tenable
account of the global disquotationalism is slim. The price of accounting for the necessary
status of all instances of the disquotational schema is not low.
Hartry Field gives a somewhat similar analysis in “
De
f
l
a
t
i
oni
s
tVi
e
wsofMe
a
ni
nga
nd
Cont
e
nt
”(
Fi
e
l
d1994)
.
Tha
ti
s
:
[
A]pe
r
s
onc
a
nme
a
n
i
ngf
ul
l
ya
ppl
y“
t
r
u
e
”i
nt
h
epu
r
edi
s
qu
ot
a
t
i
on
a
ls
e
n
s
eon
l
yt
o
utterances that he has some understanding of; and for such an utterance u, the claim that u
is true (true-as-she-understands-it) is cognitively equivalent (for the person) to u itself (as
she understands it).13 (p. 105)
13
There is a qualification according to Field that keeps the two from being fully cognitively equivalent.
This is because the claim that u is true makes an ontological commitment to the utterance u, while the
172
This is what Field calls pure disquotational concept of truth. Further, Field explicates the
notion of cognitive equivalence in a footnote:
[
T]
oc
a
l
lt
wos
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
st
h
a
tape
r
s
onu
n
de
r
s
t
a
n
ds‘
c
ogn
i
t
i
v
e
l
ye
qu
i
v
a
l
e
nt
’f
ort
h
a
tpe
r
s
oni
s
t
os
a
yt
h
a
tt
h
epe
r
s
on’
si
nf
e
r
e
nt
i
a
lpr
oc
e
du
r
e
sl
i
c
e
n
s
eaf
a
i
r
l
ydi
r
e
c
ti
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
ef
r
oma
ny
sentence containing an occurrence of one to the corresponding sentence with an occurrence
of the other substituted for it.14 (p. 106)
According to Field this is certainly not an instance of substitutional quantification. And he
claims that this cognitive equivalence implies that this kind of inferences is empirically
indefeasible and even conceptually so, if semantic paradoxes can be ignored. This
c
og
ni
t
i
vee
qui
va
l
e
nc
ebe
t
we
e
n‘
ui
st
r
ue(
a
sIunde
r
s
t
a
ndi
t
)
’a
ndt
heut
t
e
r
a
nc
eu (as I
unde
r
s
t
a
ndi
t
)g
ua
r
a
nt
e
e
st
ha
t“
u is true iff u”i
sc
onc
e
pt
ua
l
l
yne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
,(
i
fnotl
og
i
c
a
l
l
y
necessary). However, this account owes us a complete explication of the sort of inference
that is appealed to regarding cognitively equivalent sentences, according to which the
notions of truth and truth preserving cannot play any role.
The next issue is how to apply the disquotational truth predicate to sentences that the
speaker does not understand.15 This application is definitely not in a pure disquotational
sense, because pure disquotational truth is by definition not about sentences or utterances
that a given speaker does not understand. The account that allows the truth predicate to
apply to utterances or sentences that one does not understand is therefore called by Field
the extended disquotational theory of truth (1986, p. 59; 1994, p.128). The first way to
explain extended disquotational truth is to take a theory of content into account. A foreign
sentence is true in the extended disquotational sense as far as it is (intrapersonally or even
utterance itself does not. But this is a relatively minor point and will be kept tacit in the following
discussion.
14
There are certainly some qualifications of this explication. But for the sake of simplicity, they will be
ignored.
15
This will be further clarified in the third section.
173
interpersonally) synonymous with a sentence that I understand. The general description of
it is (ED):
(ED) for any foreign sentence s, s is true iff s i
ss
y
nony
mouswi
t
has
e
nt
e
nc
e‘
p’(
t
ha
tI
understand) and p.
The notions of intrapersonal synonymy and interpersonal synonymy, according to Field,
have to be explained in terms of something in which the notion of truth conditions does
notpl
a
ya
nyi
mpor
t
a
ntr
ol
e
.
Ay
e
r
’
sve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
oni
s
mi
sa
mongt
hos
et
he
or
i
e
st
ha
tc
a
n
provide the desired help. In fact, two sentences are interpersonally synonymous according
to verificationism if and only if they have the same set of verification conditions.
However, verificationism is undesirable because of its overly simplified character. This
extended version of disquotational truth is still less preferable, according to Field, even if
the theory of content is more refined. This is because it is probably better not to mix some
semantic elements into the logical aspects of truth (Field 1994, p. 130).
Field then proposes the notion of quasi-disquotational truth to replace extended
disquotational truth in counterfactual circumstances. (For simplicity, I will use subscripts
‘
pd’
a
n
d‘
qd’
t
odi
s
t
i
ng
ui
s
ht
hepur
edi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
lt
r
ut
hpr
e
di
c
a
t
ef
r
omt
he
quasi-disquotational truth predicate.) The definition of quasi-disquotational truth is as
follows:
(QD) ‫ﭐ‬
(S is trueqd i
f
f∑p(
m (m is the meaning of S and @ (m i
st
heme
a
ni
ngof‘
p’
)
)a
nd
p)). (Field 1994, p. 131)
The idea is to invoke not just the notion of synonymy, but the notion of meaning as well,
and to find a un-truth-theoretic way to explain it. It also appeals to an actually operator
‘
@’t
ha
tt
e
mpor
a
r
i
l
yundoe
st
hee
f
f
e
c
t
soft
hemoda
lope
r
a
t
or(
i
bi
d.
)
.Oneoft
hema
i
n
174
reasons why this quasi version is important, is that it is more likely to be our ordinary use
of the truth predicate as maintained by Field. This is because we seem to incline to accept
c
e
r
t
a
i
nc
ount
e
r
f
a
c
t
ua
l
ss
uc
ha
s“
I
fweha
dus
e
d‘
Snowi
swhi
t
e
’di
f
f
e
r
e
nt
l
yi
twoul
dha
ve
ha
dt
het
r
ut
hc
ondi
t
i
onst
ha
tg
r
a
s
si
sr
e
d.
”Andt
oa
voi
dt
hea
c
c
us
a
t
i
ont
ha
tt
heor
di
na
r
y
way ofus
i
ng‘
t
r
ue
’i
snott
hepur
e
l
ydi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
ls
e
ns
e
,weha
vet
oa
ppe
a
lt
os
ome
t
hi
ng
similar to quasi-disquotational truth.
There is another option for explaining the truth ascription to sentences that one does not
understand though, and that is to define the truth of foreign sentences as being true
relative to a correlation of it to one of our sentences. A sentence is true relative to the
correlation if our sentence that is in correlation with it is true in the purely disquotational
sense (Field 1994, p.128)
.Ofc
our
s
e
,Qui
ne
’
st
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
ont
he
or
yi
sa
mongt
hos
et
ha
tc
a
n
explain the correlation between foreign sentences and our own. The feature of this option
is that it is lacking an objective synonymy relation. The correlation, such as a translation
between sentences, is highly context-sensitive so that it does not make sense to talk about
correct or incorrect translations, but good or bad ones. Consequently, the application of
the truth predicate to sentences that I do not understand does not have objectivity either.
This option allows us to give a quasi-disquotational explanation of the counterfactual
(MT). That is,
I
nc
on
s
i
de
r
i
ngc
oun
t
e
r
f
a
c
t
u
a
lc
i
r
c
ums
t
a
n
c
e
su
n
de
rwh
i
c
hweu
s
e
d“
Sn
owi
swhi
t
e
”i
n
certain very different ways, it is reasonable to translate it in such a way that its
disquotational truth conditions relative to the translation are that grass is red. (Field 1994,
p. 133)
Si
nc
eFi
e
l
df
ol
l
owsi
nQui
ne
’
sf
o
o
t
s
t
e
psi
nhol
di
ngas
c
e
pt
i
c
a
lvi
e
wt
owa
r
dt
henot
i
ono
f
175
synonymy, intrapersonal and int
e
r
pe
r
s
ona
l
,i
nt
hePos
t
s
c
r
i
pt(
2001)of“
De
f
l
a
t
i
oni
s
tVi
e
ws
onMe
a
ni
nga
ndCont
e
nt
”
,heg
o
e
sf
ort
hes
e
c
ondopt
i
ona
ndma
ke
ss
omef
ur
t
he
r
refinements to the definition of quasi-disquotational truth:
(Qd) S is trueqd (at a possible world v) iff S is to be translated by a sentence of mine (in
the actual world) that is purely disquotationally true (at v). (2001, p. 152)
Appa
r
e
nt
l
y
,Fi
e
l
d’
sa
c
c
ountus
e
st
hec
onc
e
pt
i
onsofpur
edi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
lt
r
ut
ha
nd
extended disquotational truth to explain the necessary status of all instances of the
disquotational schema, and further uses the conception of quasi-disquotational truth to
make sure that we will always reach something similar to (MT) in counterfactual
circumstances.
According to McGrath, this is not satisfactor
y
.Hepoi
nt
soutt
ha
tFi
e
l
d’
ss
t
r
a
t
e
gyi
st
o
conceive of the relevant modal intuitions as special cases of intuitions about truth in other
languages (McGrath 1997b, p. 82). The language used by our counterfactual selves in the
relevant world is treated as another language, truth in which can thus be explained in the
extended disquotational way as truth in actual other languages (pp. 82-83). The question
McGrath raises is this: the issue is not just whether or not the counterfactual intuitions can
be accounted for by deflationist, but whether she can explain the facts these intuitions
r
e
g
i
s
t
e
r(
p.83)
.
Wene
e
dt
oknowwhyi
nt
hec
ount
e
r
f
a
c
t
ua
li
nt
ui
t
i
on,(
MT)
,“
Snowi
s
whi
t
e
”woul
dha
vet
hedi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
lt
r
ut
hc
ondi
t
i
onsr
e
l
a
t
i
vet
oat
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
ont
ha
tg
r
a
s
sis
red. Why do these objective counterfactual intuitions relate to practical translations?
The
r
ei
ss
t
i
l
la
not
he
rf
e
a
t
ur
eofFi
e
l
d’
sa
c
c
ountt
oc
ons
i
de
r
.
Thee
xt
e
nde
d- and
quasi-di
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
lt
r
ut
hsdonotove
r
s
t
r
i
det
hegi
ve
ns
pe
a
ke
r
’
sownpur
edi
s
quot
a
tional
truth, unless we are given some practical hypotheses such as that the
176
translation/interpretation manuals of people speaking the same language tend to be
convergent. Most importantly, McGee and Field, especially Field, seem to be committed
to the sense equivalence relation implicitly.
Theda
ma
g
ef
r
om a
r
g
ume
nt
ss
i
mi
l
a
rt
oKünne
’
si
snotonl
yt
ode
f
l
a
t
i
ona
r
yt
he
or
i
e
sof
truth. If the instances of the disquotational schema and the equivalence schema are
contingent, then the disquotational schemata of reference and satisfaction are also
doome
d.I
fwea
l
lc
a
met
ous
et
h
es
e
nt
e
nc
e“
Snowi
swhi
t
e
”f
ors
a
y
i
ngt
ha
tg
r
a
s
si
sr
e
d,
t
he
n“
Snowi
swhi
t
e
”woul
dnotha
veha
dt
hedi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
lt
r
ut
hc
ondi
t
i
onst
ha
ts
nowi
s
whi
t
e
.I
nCha
pt
e
rTwoIme
nt
i
one
dHa
l
ba
c
h’
sreply to this sort of argument, which,
a
c
c
or
di
ngt
ohi
st
e
r
mi
nol
ogy
,her
e
f
e
r
st
oa
s‘
Le
vy
’
sa
r
g
ume
nt
’
.
Thema
i
npoi
nti
st
ha
t
,
under this sort of counterfactual reasoning, there are no necessary truths. For instance,
“
Thep
r
i
menumbe
rbe
t
we
e
nf
ou
ra
nds
e
ve
ni
ss
ma
l
l
e
rt
ha
ns
i
x”woul
dha
venotbe
e
n
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
i
l
yt
r
uei
ft
hephr
a
s
e‘
pr
i
menumbe
r
’we
r
eus
e
ddi
f
f
e
r
e
nt
l
y
,a
s
,f
ore
xa
mpl
ei
fi
t
we
r
eus
e
dt
ome
a
nwha
t‘
e
ve
nnumbe
r
’me
a
ns
.
The
r
e
f
or
e
,i
ti
snotj
us
tt
ha
twes
houl
d
follow Field (1994) in emphasising that there are logical uses of the truth predicate that
a
r
ei
mmunef
r
om Le
vy
’
sa
r
g
ume
nt
,butt
ha
tt
he
r
emust be uses of the truth predicate to
which this sort of arguments does not apply (Halbach 1999, p. 173).16 This leads us to the
final discussion of the equivalence relation.
1.3 The material equivalence
Theor
i
g
i
nofdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
mc
ome
sf
r
om Qui
ne
’
si
de
a
sofs
e
ma
nt
i
ca
s
c
e
nta
ndde
s
c
e
nt
.
16
Halbach also gives us a quite different answer to the modal problem in Halbach 2000. Since his main
concern is to provide a solution to the generalisation problem, his solution will be discussed in the
following section.
177
The disquotational schema of truth therefore is supposed to grasp these ideas. The
peculiar feature of semantic ascent and descent, as I discussed in the second section of
Chapter Two, is that the mentioned sentence and the used sentence are exactly the
same—the same sentence with the same empirical content or the same interpretation. It
simply does not make sense to substi
t
ut
et
a
l
kofwhe
t
he
r“
Snowi
swhi
t
e
”i
st
r
uef
ort
a
l
k
ofwhe
t
he
rs
nowi
swhi
t
e
,whe
nt
h
es
e
nt
e
nc
e“
Snowi
swhi
t
e
”i
n“
‘
Snowi
swhi
t
e
’i
st
r
ue
”
is used for saying that grass is red. Therefore, counterfactual reasoning does not directly
apply to the instances of the disquotational schema. Though disquotationalism takes
sentences as the primary truth bearers, this does not amount to its being the case that it is
a degenerate case by which the fundamental feature of semantic ascent and descent
cannot be correctly grasped. Furthermore, this does not suggest that counterfactual
reasoning does not apply to sentences with the truth predicate, but that counterfactual
r
e
a
s
on
i
nga
bouts
e
nt
e
nc
e
swi
t
ht
het
r
ut
hpr
e
di
c
a
t
ei
sde
r
i
va
t
i
ve
.Fori
ns
t
a
nc
e
,Fi
e
l
d’
s
quasi-disquotationalism is derived from pure and extended disquotationalism.17
More precisely, we should understand the disquotational schema in terms of the same
sentence being mentioned and used relative to a language with a fixed interpretation
scheme. This understanding of the disquotational schema is difficult to form in a
s
c
he
ma
t
i
cf
or
mul
a
t
i
on.Mc
Ge
e
’
si
di
ol
e
c
tdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
m,t
ha
t“
Φ”i
st
r
uei
nmyi
di
ol
e
c
t
i
fa
ndonl
yi
fΦ,a
ndFi
e
l
d’
spur
edi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
m,t
ha
t“
u is true
(true-as-she-understands-i
t
)
”i
sc
og
ni
t
i
ve
l
ye
qui
va
l
e
nt(
f
ort
hepe
r
s
on)t
o“
u itself (as she
unde
r
s
t
a
ndsi
t
)
”
,c
a
nnotf
ul
l
yi
l
l
umi
na
t
et
hi
spoi
nt
.
Howe
ve
r
,ba
sed on the proper
understanding of the disquotational schema, the instances of this schema only need to be
17
Whether or not Fiel
d’
squ
a
s
i
-disquotationalism is tenable is not at issue here.
178
held materially equivalent. So we may follow my characterisation in Chapter Two to
formulate the disquotational schema as an axiom schema in a truth theory, within which
all disquotation sentences of the base language sentences are axioms, as follows:
(DQ)‘
p’i
st
r
uei
f
fp,
whe
r
et
hef
i
r
s
t‘
p’i
sr
e
pl
a
c
e
dbya
nys
e
nt
e
nc
eoft
heba
s
el
a
ng
ua
g
ea
ndt
he
s
e
c
ond‘
p’byt
hes
a
mes
e
n
t
e
nc
ewi
t
ht
hes
a
mei
nt
e
r
pretation.
Us
i
ngGupt
a
’
se
xa
mpl
e
,(
3)e
xpr
e
s
s
e
s(
1)be
c
a
us
ea
ppl
y
i
ngt
hedi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
ls
c
he
mat
o
each instance of (3) in terms of the material equivalence reading, cashes out exactly each
corresponding conjunct of (1).18 In Truth, Horwich says the following:
[T]he explanatory basic fact about our use of the truth predicate is our tendency to infer
i
n
s
t
a
n
c
e
sof‘
Th
epr
opos
i
t
i
onthat p i
st
r
u
e
’f
r
omc
or
r
e
s
pon
di
n
gi
n
s
t
a
n
c
e
sof‘
p’
,a
n
dvi
c
e
v
e
r
s
a
,wh
e
n
e
v
e
r(
a
)e
a
c
h‘
p’i
sr
e
pl
a
c
e
dwi
t
ht
ok
e
n
sofa
nEng
l
i
s
hs
e
n
tence, (b) these
tokens are given the same interpretation as one another, (c) under that interpretation they
e
x
pr
e
s
st
h
ec
on
t
e
n
tofas
t
a
t
e
me
nt(
apr
op
os
i
t
i
on
)
,a
n
d(
d)t
h
et
e
r
ms‘
t
h
a
t
’a
n
d
‘
pr
opos
i
t
i
on
’a
r
eg
i
v
e
nt
h
e
i
rEn
g
l
i
s
hme
a
n
i
ng
s
.(
p.126,
t
h
eitalics in (b) are mine)
Therefore, my reasoning regarding how to interpret the disquotational schema of truth is
noti
nc
ompa
t
i
bl
ewi
t
hHor
wi
c
h’
se
xpl
a
na
t
i
onoft
hee
qui
va
l
e
nc
es
c
he
maoft
r
ut
h.
The necessary status, in addition, is not essential to the explication of the expressibility of
infinite conjunctions in terms of the truth predicate. Granted, the material equivalence
relation of the disquotational schema, (DQ), is a bit stronger than the usual one, for the
sentences mentioned and used are restricted to the same sentence with the same
interpretation. This is precisely why Quine takes truth as immanent to home languages,
f
orTa
r
s
ki
’
sT-sentences are not automatically instances of (DQ).19 The expressibility of (1)
18
Ia
mj
u
s
tbor
r
owi
n
gGu
pt
a
’
sownc
a
s
et
os
h
owh
i
smi
s
c
on
c
e
pt
i
on
.
Th
ec
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
mt
h
a
ti
ti
si
n
c
oh
e
r
e
n
tt
o
use (1) to (3) in constructing the argument still holds.
19
This is why I made the claim in the second section of Chapter Two, that the stronger disquotational
pr
ope
r
t
yun
de
rQu
i
n
e
’
sa
c
c
oun
ti
sn
otpr
e
s
e
r
v
e
dun
de
rt
h
er
e
c
u
r
s
i
v
ede
f
i
n
i
t
i
onofs
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
on
.
179
in terms of (3) in the above instance, depends on both the material equivalence relation
and the additional restriction about the sentence mentioned and used in every instance of
(3). However, this restriction does not yield any modal relation to the schema and its
instances. If it should be held that the disquotational schema yields instances with a
necessary status, then it has to be because of other reasons.20
In terms of all the deflationists I discussed so far, only McGrath and Horwich propose the
material equivalence relation for explicating the expressibility of infinite conjunctions
using the truth predicate. In the last chapter we saw that McGrath proposes his finite
theory of propositional truth as that, for all propositions p, p is materially equivalent to
Tr(P). In the postscript of the second edition of Truth, in answering the criticism from
Gupta mainly discussed in 1.1, Horwich replies:
The generalizing function of truth is perfectly well fulfilled as long as instances of the
truth schemata, understood as merely material biconditionals, are accepted.
Bu
tt
h
i
spoi
n
t[
Th
a
ti
s
,Gu
pt
a
’
sc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
moft
h
es
e
n
s
ee
qu
i
v
a
l
e
n
c
er
e
l
a
t
i
onbe
t
we
e
n‘
Th
e
statement that p i
st
r
u
e
’a
n
d‘
p’
]doe
sn
otun
de
r
mi
n
et
h
emi
ni
ma
l
i
s
ts
t
or
ya
bou
tt
h
e
function of truth; for, as just mentioned, that function requires merely that the
generalizations permit us to derive the statements to be generalized—which requires
merely that the truth schemata provide material equivalences.
(Horwich 1998b, p. 124)
By applying the propositional form or, in other words, propositional s
t
r
uc
t
ur
eof‘
<p> is
true iff p’t
ot
hepr
opos
i
t
i
on,s
a
y
,“
<Snowi
swhi
t
e
>”
,t
he
yc
a
ne
ns
ur
et
ha
tt
he
pr
opos
i
t
i
onsonbot
hs
i
de
sof‘
i
fa
ndonl
yi
f
’a
r
ee
xa
c
t
l
yt
hes
a
mepr
opos
i
t
i
ont
ha
ts
nowi
s
white.21 The functions of semantic ascent and descent in turn make sure that the material
20
However, considering for what reason one should consider disquotation sentences as necessary, will not
be discussed..
21
Hor
wi
c
hc
l
e
a
r
l
yma
k
e
st
h
i
spoi
n
ti
n“
ADe
f
e
ns
eofMi
n
i
ma
l
i
s
m”
,p.153.
180
equivalence relation is enough to explicate the expressive function of the truth predicate.22
In considering the case of disquotationalism, requiring that the sentences mentioned and
used in every instance of the disquotational schema are the same sentences relative to a
language with a fixed interpretation scheme is vital to a proper understanding of the
disquotational schema, (DQ). This, on the other hand, also shows that although the
disquotational schema and the equivalence schema are not sense equivalent, they are still
capable of explaining the expressing of infinite conjunctions.23 Whether or not
disquotationalism and minimalism can explain general facts involving truth—that is, the
affirmation of infinite conjunctions—will be discussed in the following section. But it is
clear that so far I cannot find anything giving minimalism the advantage over
disquotationalism.
Thes
e
c
onda
s
pe
c
tofGupt
a
’
sc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
mr
e
s
t
sonHor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ountoft
heme
a
ni
ngof‘
i
s
t
r
ue
’
.I
nMeaning, Hor
wi
c
h’
se
xpl
i
c
a
t
i
onoft
heme
a
ni
ngoft
hewor
d‘
t
r
ue
’i
sa
sf
ol
l
ows
:
(
TRUE)Thea
c
c
e
pt
a
nc
epr
ope
r
t
yg
ove
r
ni
ngourt
ot
a
lus
eoft
hewor
d“
t
r
ue
”i
st
he
i
nc
l
i
na
t
i
ont
oa
c
c
e
pti
ns
t
a
nc
e
soft
hes
c
he
ma‘
t
hepr
opos
i
t
i
onthat p is true if and
only if p’
.(
p.45)
I
naf
o
ot
not
e(
23)of“
ADe
f
e
ns
eo
fMi
ni
ma
l
i
s
m”(
Hor
wi
c
h2001a), Horwich makes it
clear that he distinguishes inclinations from dispositions of accepting instances of the
equivalence schema because of consideration regarding the liar paradox. This, in turn, is
one of the important issues of the coming section. Now, Gupta claims that, for
22
Providing that the reasoning of infinitary inference is well explained by disquotationalism and
minimalism.
23
This is probably one of the reasons why Horwich would like to keep his theory of truth un-modal and
simple.
181
deflationism to dethrone the truth-conditional account of meaning, the instances of the
24
e
qui
va
l
e
nc
es
c
he
maha
vet
oe
xpl
a
i
nt
heme
a
ni
ngors
e
ns
eof‘
t
r
ue
’
.
By this, he means
t
ha
tourunde
r
s
t
a
ndi
ngoft
heme
a
ni
ngof‘
t
r
ue
’de
pe
ndse
nt
i
r
e
l
yonourpr
i
or
understanding of the meaning of all (declarative) sentences of a given language. Again,
this cannot be correct, according to Gupta, because the conceptual resources of
understandi
ng‘
t
r
ue
’a
r
ee
nor
mou
s
l
yma
s
s
i
ve
.I
ti
snotdi
f
f
i
c
ul
tt
of
i
ndt
heba
s
i
c
assumption of this criticism—that is, the sense equivalence relation. However, in terms of
my clarification of the understanding of the disquotational schema, it is without doubt that
t
hi
sa
s
s
umpt
i
oni
st
o
t
a
l
l
ywr
ong
,
a
ndhe
nc
es
oi
sGupt
a
’
sa
r
g
ume
nt
.
Qui
nec
e
r
t
a
i
nl
ywoul
dnota
g
r
e
ewi
t
hHor
wi
c
h’
s(
TRUE)a
se
xpl
i
c
a
t
i
ngt
hemeaning of
‘
t
r
ue
’
.Ne
ve
r
t
he
l
e
s
s
,t
heg
e
ne
r
a
li
de
abe
hi
ndi
ti
spr
oba
bl
ya
c
c
e
pt
a
bl
ei
nt
ha
ti
nQui
ne
’
s
terms, all instances of the disquotational schema are stimulus analytic.25 Following my
clarification of the understanding of the disquotational schema three paragraphs back, it is
quite clear that a proper understanding of the disquotational schema can be nicely
separated from any account of meaning, provided that these accounts of meaning are
non-truth-conditional.26 Wha
ti
se
s
s
e
nt
i
a
lt
oourunde
r
s
t
a
ndi
ngof‘
t
r
ue
’i
st
hepe
c
ul
i
a
r
feature of the disquotational schema, that the sentences mentioned and used in every
instance are exactly the same sentence with the same interpretation. What is not essential
is what the sentence mentioned and used means. The truth predicate is really transparent
24
Gu
pt
a
’
sa
r
g
ume
n
ti
sba
s
e
donDumme
t
t
’
sa
r
g
ume
n
ti
nh
i
sc
e
l
e
br
a
t
e
dpa
pe
r“
Tr
u
t
h
”
,a
c
c
or
di
n
gt
owh
i
c
h
the sense equivalence relation is also regarded as essential to deflationism.
25
Stimulus analytic sentences are by definition those sentences that speakers would assent to under any
circumstance.
26
There are, of course, some necessary conditions for the applicability of the truth predicate; for instance,
with the syntactic feature of declarative sentences and with assertoric content. But this is not unique to
disquotationalism, but is true of deflationary truth theories in general, especially the minimal theory of
propositional truth. Please see section 3.
182
in this sense. It also nicely accommodates the fact that what is true depends doubly on
meaning and reality. Further, it is unnecessary to restrict the language, in the present case,
English, to be relative to a particular space-time frame—that is, the language can be seen
a
se
vol
vi
ngove
rt
i
me
.
The
r
ei
snone
e
dt
oa
doptMc
Ge
e
’
si
diolect disquotationalism or
Fi
e
l
d’
spur
edi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
m,be
c
a
us
et
heus
e
soft
het
r
ut
hpr
e
di
c
a
t
eofpe
opl
es
pe
a
ki
ng
the same language incline to coincide with one another. For, unlike McGee and Field, the
l
a
ng
ua
g
ewea
r
et
a
l
ki
nga
bouti
snota
ny
one
’
si
diolect. The impression that the extension
of the disquotational truth predicate varies each time new terms are introduced into the
l
a
ng
ua
g
e
,i
sc
a
us
e
dbyt
hede
f
i
ni
t
i
ona
lf
or
mul
a
t
i
on,s
uc
ha
sDa
vi
d’
s(
D)
,(
DM)
,a
nd(
DM)
discussed in Chapter Two, according to which the range of truth ascription depends on the
substitution class. It is now clear that this is nothing but a misconception. If any new term
introduced into a language causes problems to the disquotational theory, then it equally
causes problems to substantive theories too. English speakers would accept instances of
t
hedi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
ls
c
he
ma
,s
uc
ha
s“
‘
Snowi
swhi
t
e
’i
st
r
uei
fa
ndonl
yi
fs
nowi
swhi
t
e
,
”
noma
t
t
e
rwha
t
.
Anot
he
rr
e
a
s
onnott
oa
doptMc
Ge
e
’
sorFi
e
l
d’
sa
c
c
ount
s
,i
st
he
prominent role played in them by the notion of content.
Be
f
or
ewemoveont
ot
hef
ol
l
owi
ngs
e
c
t
i
on,onet
hi
ngs
houl
dbenot
e
d.I
n“
Ana
l
y
t
i
c
i
t
y
,
Ca
r
na
p
,Qui
ne
,a
ndTr
ut
h”(
Da
vi
d1996)
,Da
vi
dobs
e
r
ve
st
ha
tQui
ne
’
sa
r
g
ume
nti
n“
Two
Dog
ma
sofEmpi
r
i
c
i
s
m”a
ga
i
ns
tCa
r
na
p’
sde
f
inition of analyticity—that is, the definition
in terms of the semantical rules or, in other words, meaning postulates of a given
language—has a similar impact on other semantic concepts, including the concept of
truth.
183
Ca
r
na
p’
si
de
ai
st
ha
t
,onc
ey
ouc
hoose a convenient language form, there is a set of
(analytic) sentences, each of which is true according to the semantical rules of this
language. In other words, when the language is fixed, a certain set of analytic sentences is
also fixed. The drawback of this account, Quine argues, is that it only labels some
s
e
nt
e
nc
e
sa
s‘
a
na
l
y
t
i
c
’or‘
s
e
ma
nt
i
c
a
lr
ul
e
’a
ndl
e
a
ve
st
he
m une
xpl
a
i
ne
d.Fur
t
he
r
,t
hi
s
account transfers the unclearness of the concept of analyticity to the concept of semantical
rules (cf. Quine 1953b section 4).
Ac
l
os
e
ri
nve
s
t
i
ga
t
i
ona
ndc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
m oc
c
ur
si
n“
Ca
r
na
pa
ndLog
i
c
a
lTr
ut
h”(
Qui
ne1954)
,
written three years later.27 One of the main points is about the distinction between
legislative and discursive postulation. Legislative postulation institutes truth by
convention and discursive postulation is merely the selection of certain true expressions
(from a pre-existing body of truths) as a basis from which to derive others (p. 111). There
is also a similar distinction between legislative and discursive definitions. Following these
di
s
t
i
n
c
t
i
ons
,mos
ts
e
ma
nt
i
c
a
lr
ul
e
sa
ndpos
t
ul
a
t
e
si
nCa
r
na
p’
srule book should be
classified as discursive ones, if Carnap is attempting to explicate the intuitive concept of
analyticity. These semantical rules and postulates simply state pre-existing truths, whose
selection is arbitrary, or relative to our demonstrating purposes or interpretation.
Consequently, there are no statements that are true by these rules or postulates. Otherwise,
all true sentences should be considered as semantical rules or postulates since they are
true by t
he
ms
e
l
ve
s
.I
fCa
r
na
p’
sa
t
t
e
mpti
st
oc
ons
t
r
uc
tane
w(
a
r
t
i
f
i
c
i
a
l
)l
i
ng
ui
s
t
i
cs
y
s
t
e
m
to explicate the intuitive concept of analyticity, then those rules and postulates are
legislative even though this legislative procedure is still arbitrary. If the reason for
27
“
TwoDogma
sofEmpi
r
i
c
i
s
m”wa
swr
itten in 1951.
184
constructing a formalised language L is to capture the intuitive concept of analyticity, then
this legislative procedure can never be successful. These rules, or postulations, are
constructed in language L and hence do not belong to ordinary languages. The analytic
statements in language L, then, are not coincident with the analytic statements in ordinary
languages. It follows that the attempt at capturing the intuitive concept of analyticity
fails28. In a nutshell, if it is impossible to define the concept of analyticity as analytic-in-L
for a variable L ranging over all languages in terms of a restricted, indexed concept of
analyticity, then to define true-in-L for a variable L ranging over all languages in a similar
fashion is also not possible.
Surprisingly, David so complains, Quine later conceded that the debate between him and
Carnap merely concerns the explanandum (David 1996, p. 284).29 Da
vi
d’
ss
ur
pr
i
s
e
,I
think, results from hi
smi
s
c
onc
e
p
t
i
onofQui
ne
’
si
de
aa
boutt
r
ut
h.I
ti
sr
a
t
he
rdubi
oust
ha
t
analyticity can sensibly be defined as S is analytic for L (for both variable S and L). For
i
ns
t
a
nc
e
,t
hec
l
a
i
mt
ha
t“
Ba
c
he
l
or
sa
r
eunma
r
r
i
e
dme
n”i
sa
na
l
y
t
i
cf
ora
nyl
a
ng
ua
g
eL is
problematic. This claim implies that it makes sense to talk about the analyticity of this
sentence in Mandrin, say. But for Mandrin speaking people who do not understand
Eng
l
i
s
h,t
hi
ss
e
nt
e
nc
ei
snot
hi
ngmor
et
ha
ng
i
bbe
r
i
s
h.Ont
heot
he
rha
nd,Ca
r
na
p’
s
account consists of two parts. First is about the definition of analyticity relative to a given
language. Then utilising the notion of translation to see whether or not the
above-mentioned instance can make sense in another language. Although Quine has a
strong view against the absoluteness of meaning and translation, this is irrelevant to the
28
M.G.
Wh
i
t
ei
n“
Th
eAn
a
l
y
t
i
ca
n
dt
h
eSy
n
t
h
e
t
i
c
:
AnUnt
e
na
bl
eDu
a
l
i
s
m”(
1950)ma
deas
i
mi
l
a
rc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
m
a
sf
ol
l
ows
:“
Wh
a
ts
omeph
i
l
os
oph
e
r
sdoi
st
opr
e
t
e
n
dt
h
a
tn
a
t
u
r
a
ll
a
ngu
a
g
e
sa
r
er
e
a
l
l
yqu
i
t
el
i
k
et
h
e
s
e
artificial languages; and that even though there is no rule-book for them, people do behave as if there were
such a rule-book
”(
i
bi
d.
:82)
.
29
Quine admits this in Dear Carnap, Dear Van, Quine to Carnap, 1951-3-29.
185
explanatory procedure ofCa
r
na
p’
sa
c
c
ount
.Si
mi
l
a
r
l
y
,‘
t
r
uei
nL’(
va
r
i
a
bl
eL) should be
explicated in a similar fashion.
I
n“
No
t
e
sont
heThe
or
yofRe
f
e
r
e
nc
e
”
,Qui
nes
a
y
s:
I
nTa
r
s
k
i
’
sc
on
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
ons
,mor
e
ov
e
r
,weh
a
v
ea
ne
x
pl
i
c
i
tg
e
ne
r
a
lr
ou
t
i
n
ef
orde
f
i
n
i
n
g
truth-in-L for individual languages L which conform to a certain standard pattern and are
well specified in point of vocabulary. We gave indeed no similar single definition of
‘
t
r
u
e
-in-L’f
orv
a
r
i
a
bl
e‘
L’
;butwh
a
twedoh
a
v
es
uf
f
i
c
e
st
oe
n
dow‘
t
r
u
e
-in-L’
,e
v
e
nf
or
v
a
r
i
a
bl
e‘
L’
,wi
t
hah
i
ghe
n
oug
hde
g
r
e
eofi
n
t
e
l
l
i
gi
bi
l
i
t
ys
ot
h
a
twea
r
en
otl
i
k
e
l
yt
obe
averse to using this idiom. (p. 138)
I
nhi
sp
a
pe
r
,Da
vi
dt
wi
s
t
s‘
t
rue-in-L for individual languages L’a
nd“
‘
t
r
ue
-in-L’f
or
variable L”i
nt
o‘
i
nde
xe
dt
r
ut
hpr
e
di
c
a
t
e
sr
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
dt
oi
ndi
vi
dua
lf
r
a
g
me
nt
sofEng
l
i
s
h
’
a
nd‘
t
r
u
e
-in-Eng
l
i
s
h’
.
Thi
si
st
hec
ons
e
que
nc
eofhi
sf
a
i
l
i
ngt
oa
ppr
e
c
i
a
t
eQui
ne
’
s
reasoning as characterise
da
bove
.Cons
i
de
r
i
ngDa
vi
d’
smi
s
i
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
onof
disquotationalism, this is not surprising. The general routine is not available in defining
a
na
l
y
t
i
c
i
t
y
,pur
e
l
ybe
c
a
us
e‘
i
sa
na
l
y
t
i
c
’i
snott
r
a
ns
pa
r
e
nt
.
Thewor
ds‘
ge
ne
r
a
lr
out
i
ne
’c
a
n
of course be regarded as about the disquotational schema. The corresponding truth
predicates in different languages are similarly accounted for in terms of the corresponding
disquotational schemata of them. Therefore, whether or not we can have a general
de
f
i
ni
t
i
onof‘
t
r
ue
’depends on how strong our account of meaning is. This will be
discussed in the third section.
2. Explaining General Facts Involving Truth
For disquotationalism and minimalism to be feasible theories of truth, the most important
task is to explain the over
a
l
lus
eof‘
t
r
ue
’i
nt
e
r
msoft
hec
or
r
e
s
pondi
ngs
c
he
ma
t
aoft
r
u
t
h.
Fori
ns
t
a
nc
e
,onemi
g
hti
nc
l
i
net
oa
c
c
e
ptt
hes
e
nt
e
nc
e“
‘
Wa
t
e
ri
st
r
a
ns
pa
r
e
nt
’i
st
r
uei
fa
nd
186
only if water is H2O”
.
Thedi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
ls
c
he
maa
ndt
hee
qui
va
l
e
nc
es
c
he
ma
,along the
line of its material equivalence feature, can well explain this. I only give an explanation
here in terms of the disquotational schema. This sentence is a derivation from the
scientific explanation of the transparency of water, according to which water is
transparent if and only if it is H2Oa
ndt
hedi
s
quot
a
t
i
ons
e
nt
e
nc
et
ha
t“
Wa
t
e
ri
s
30
t
r
a
ns
pa
r
e
nt
”i
st
r
uei
fa
ndonl
yi
fwa
t
e
ri
st
r
a
ns
pa
r
e
nt
.
Among these explanations, the
most important part is about general facts involving truth. Or, in other words, does
affirming all instances have a relation to affirming the corresponding generalisations close
enough to establish the relation that, by affirming a generalisation or an infinite
conjunction, one can affirm the other? In the following, we will first see some answers
provided by two disquotational theorists, Field and Halbach. Then I will discuss one of
Hor
wi
c
h’
si
ns
t
a
nc
e
sofmodus ponens—that is, if one sentence/proposition implies
another, and the first one is true, then so is the second. By doing this, I seek to discover
whether or not disquotationalism and minimalism could satisfactorily account for general
facts involving truth. Moreover, I would like to show that in what reasoning one can
depend the explanation of all general facts involving truth on the material equivalence
relation occurring within each instance of the disquotational and the equivalence
schemata. And finally, I aim to show a deficiency that is unique to minimalism, that is, the
problem of the liar paradox.
But let me briefly discuss some alternatives advanced by some defenders of
disquotationalism. Field (1994) proposes to begin from the idea of building schematic
30
Amor
ec
ompl
i
c
a
t
e
dc
a
s
ei
sge
n
e
r
a
t
e
dbys
u
bs
t
i
t
u
t
i
n
gt
h
ewor
d‘
be
c
a
u
s
e
’f
or‘
i
fa
n
don
l
yi
f
’i
nt
h
e
sentence explained and the scientific explanation. Horwich seems to think that this is problem free
(Horwich 1998b, pp. 49-50 and pp. 105-106). Although I doubt that this will work, I ignore this issue.
187
variables into the language and subjecting them to a rule of substitution.31 Unlike
Horwich, Field accepts the truth schema itself, and not just its instances, as part of a
language. It follows that this device naturally gives the disquotational theory of truth the
desired deductive power to justify generalisations. For instance, to prove that, whenever
modus ponens is applied to true premises, the conclusion is true, we can do as follows:
1. If p, then q
premise
2.‘
p’i
st
r
ue
pr
e
mi
s
e
3.‘
p’i
st
r
uei
f
fp
a
s
s
umpt
i
on,di
s
quot
a
t
ionalism
4. p
from 2, 3
5. q
from 1, 4
6. ‘
q’i
st
r
uei
f
fq
a
s
s
umpt
i
on,di
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
m
7.‘
q’i
st
r
ue
f
r
om5,6
So‘
I
fp,t
he
nq’a
nd‘
p’i
st
r
ue
,t
he
n‘
q’i
st
r
ue
All general facts involving truth are supposed to be derived in a similar fashion.
According to Field, there are at least three advantages of this account. First, the theory of
truth does not need to be revised as the language is expanded. Second, the use of the
s
c
he
ma
t
i
cf
or
mul
a“
‘
p’i
st
r
uei
fa
ndonl
yi
fp”i
nt
hea
xi
oma
t
i
s
a
t
i
ons
e
e
mst
omor
e
directly capture the core of the notion of truth. Finally, and most significantly, according
to Field, the theory does not depend on our having a compositional account of the
functioning of the other devices in the language. That is, the accounts of reference and
satisfaction are expendable in explicating compositionality (cf. Postscript of Field 1994, p.
142).
31
Field supplements his view, in the Postscript of Field 1994, with the claim that the syntactic theory also
needs to be done with schematic variables. For the sake of simplicity, the discussion of this issue is left out.
188
Presumably, the second advantage is just about my proper understanding of the
disquotational schema in the discussion of the material equivalence relation. The third is
important. It is about how truth commutes,bor
r
owi
ngHa
l
ba
c
h’
st
e
r
ms
,wi
t
hl
og
i
c
a
l
connectives. In terms of a similar procedure, for instance, it is not hard to reach the
conclusion:
‘
porq’i
st
r
uei
fa
ndonl
yi
f‘
p’i
st
r
ueor‘
q’i
st
r
ue
.
Sha
pi
r
or
a
i
s
e
sonepr
obl
e
m ofFi
e
l
d’
spr
opos
a
l
.Heque
s
t
i
onst
hes
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
or
i
ne
s
soft
h
i
s
proposal in accounting for sentences that one does not understand, even in the extended
disquotational sense (Shapiro 2003, p. 129). Extended disquotationalism is not helpful
because the substitution range of schematic variables still boils down to the same class of
sentences that one understands. This will be discussed in the next section. Horwich, on
the other hand, questions the reasonableness of attributing schematic reasoning to the
great majority of people. This seems to be too sophisticated an activity to be attributed to
ordinary people (Horwich 2001a, note 20).
Halbach also gives us a quite different answer in Halbach 2000. According to his
modalised disquotationalism (MD), the necessary status of the disquotation sentences,
that is, the instances of the disquotational schema, can be accounted for by the notion of
truth-analyticity.32 He uses the following as an axiom of truth:
“
‘
A’i
st
r
ue
”a
nd“
A”a
r
et
r
u
t
h-a
na
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
l
ye
qui
va
l
e
ntf
ore
ve
r
ys
e
nt
e
nc
e“
A”
of the base language. (p. 163)
‘
Tr
ut
h-analytically equivalent
’i
nt
ur
nc
a
nbede
f
i
ne
di
nt
e
r
msoft
r
ut
h-analyticity and
32
For the preliminary formulation, please cf. the second sect
i
onofCh
a
pt
e
rTwo,un
de
rt
h
et
i
t
l
e‘
A
preliminary set-u
pofapr
ope
rf
or
mu
l
a
t
i
on’
,a
n
dt
h
et
h
i
r
ds
e
c
t
i
onoft
h
es
a
mec
h
a
pt
e
r
,u
n
de
rt
h
et
i
t
l
e
‘
Ex
pr
e
s
s
i
bi
l
i
t
y
’
.
189
material equivalence:
“
A”a
nd“
B”a
r
et
r
ut
h-analytically equivalent if and only if (the proposition
e
xpr
e
s
s
e
dby
)t
hes
e
nt
e
nc
e“
A if and only if B”i
st
r
ut
h-analytic (ibid.).33
In addition to all the disquotation sentences in the truth theory, two further principles are
added in order to define truth-analyticity. That is,
(L) Truth-analyticity is closed under predicate logic;
and a reflection principle
(
R)Fo
re
ve
r
yf
or
mul
a“
A(x)
”wi
t
honef
r
e
eva
riable x, the following is derivable:
Fora
l
l“
B”
:i
f“
A(x)
”i
st
r
ut
h-a
na
l
y
t
i
cf
or“
B”
,t
he
nA(“
B”
)(
p.164)
.
Then it can be claimed in the truth theory, that all disquotation sentences (of the base
language) are truth-analytic. The virtue of this account, according to Halbach, is its
capacity to allow truth to commute with the connectives (p. 165). Unlike Field, the
reasoning is not schematic, but is about universally quantified sentences. For instance, it
can be proved that truth commutes with the connective of negation:
1. All disquotation sentences are truth-analytic.
Assumption, MD
2.Fora
l
l“
A”
:“
‘
A’i
snott
r
uei
f
fnotA”i
st
r
ut
h-analytic.
from 1, (L)
3.Fora
l
l“
A”
:“
‘
notA’i
st
r
uei
f
fnotA”i
st
r
ut
h-analytic.
from 1
4.Fora
l
l“
A”
:“
‘
notA’i
st
r
uei
f
f‘
A’i
snott
r
ue
”i
st
r
ut
h-analytic.
from 2, 3
5.Fora
l
l“
A”
:“
notA”i
st
r
uei
f
f“
A”i
snott
r
ue
.
f
r
om4,(
R)
All the general facts involving truth are supposed to be proved under similar reasoning.
However, there is one thing not very clear in this account. Halbach does not appeal to a
notion of what Boghossian calls impure analyticity to define truth-analyticity. If the
33
Halbach is well aware of the de re character of his formulation and offers a solution to it. Please cf.
Halbach 2000, pp. 163-164.
190
not
i
onof‘
t
r
ut
h-a
na
l
y
t
i
c
i
t
y
’i
sde
f
i
ne
di
nvi
r
t
ueoft
heme
a
ni
ngoft
het
ruth predicate, then
truth-analyticity cannot be used as an auxiliary notion to help axiomatise truth. Similar to
Horwich, (except for the differences between the primary truth bearers), Halbach holds
that the meaning of the truth predicate is fixed and exhausted by nothing beyond the
disquotation feature (Halbach 2000, p. 168). Thus, a sentence is truth-analytic if and only
if it is either a disquotation sentence or if it follows logically (not by virtue of the
meanings of non-logical vocabulary) from the disquotation sentences (ibid.). Halbach also
claims the following:
According to the view of modalized disquotationalism, being logically provable from the
disquotation sentences and being [truth-analytic] are the same. (p. 168)
So truth-analyticity is conceived in terms of provability. The problem for this account is
Ha
l
ba
c
h’
sc
l
a
i
mt
ha
tt
hepr
e
di
c
a
t
e‘
i
sl
og
i
c
a
l
l
ypr
ova
bl
ef
r
om t
hedi
s
quot
a
t
i
ons
e
nt
e
nc
e
s
’
,
in the sense of classical predicate logic, can be defined within the base theory (ibid.). And
according to Halbach, a base theory is formulated by the base language consisting of only
s
e
nt
e
nc
e
swi
t
houtt
het
r
ut
hpr
e
di
c
a
t
e(
p.155)
.
The
n,howc
a
n‘
l
og
i
c
a
l
l
ypr
ova
bl
ef
r
omt
he
di
s
quot
a
t
i
ons
e
nt
e
nc
e
s
’bede
f
i
ne
di
nat
he
or
ywi
t
hi
nwhi
c
hdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ons
e
nt
e
nc
e
s cannot
e
ve
nb
ef
or
me
d?It
hi
nkwha
tHa
l
ba
c
hha
si
nmi
ndi
st
ha
t‘
l
og
i
c
a
l
l
ypr
ova
bl
e
’butnot
‘
l
og
i
c
a
l
l
ypr
ova
bl
efrom disquotation sentences’c
a
nbede
f
i
ne
dwi
t
hi
nt
heba
s
et
he
or
y
.
Andt
hepr
e
di
c
a
t
eof‘
l
ogi
c
a
l
l
yp
r
ova
bl
ef
r
om di
s
quot
a
t
i
ons
e
nt
e
nc
e
s
’c
a
nhence be
defined in the truth theory.
As I indicated in the last subsection, the original idea of disquotationalism comes from
semantic ascent and descent. The truth predicate has its use in helping us express, as well
as affirm, infinite lots of sentences, and infinite conjunctions.34 The issue regarding the
34
Again, the discussion of infinite disjunctions is left out hereafter.
191
deductive power of the disquotational theory is raised in considering the relation between
affirming an infinite conjunction and affirming a corresponding (universal) generalisation.
It is easy to reach the conclusion that affirming a universal generalisation implies
affirming all of its instances, and through the disquotational schema, all conjuncts of the
original infinite conjunction are gained. The other way round is problematic, due to lack
of an infinitary rule of inference.
When some infinite conjunctions have their conjuncts with syntactic or proof-theoretic
features, it is easiest to see how adding some axioms and/or rules of inference can help
explain the affirmation of a generalisation from the affirmation of all its instances. The
truth theory accompanied with additional axioms and/or rules of inference provides
derivations of the affirmation of a given generalisation from the affirmation of all its
instances. Both Field and Halbach hold that the disquotational theory of truth is not
simply an axiomatisation of truth, in terms of the disquotational schema as the axiom
schema, but a theory about an axiomatic system of truth. Since all the axioms resulting
from the instances of the disquotational schema are deductively too weak to account for
certain general facts involving truth, more axioms and/or rules of inferences are needed to
enhance the deductive power of the truth theory. If the additional axioms and/or rules of
inference are truth-free
,t
he
ya
r
ea
dde
dt
oot
he
re
xpl
a
na
t
or
yr
e
s
our
c
e
s(
Fi
e
l
d’
s
)
.I
fnot
,
t
he
ya
r
ea
dde
dt
ot
het
r
ut
ht
he
or
y(
Ha
l
ba
c
h’
s
)
.
Al
t
houg
hbot
hFi
e
l
da
ndHa
l
ba
c
h
emphasise that these additional axioms and/or rules of inference are not substantial, it is
doubtful that they do not inflate the truth theory in one way or another.
Fi
e
l
d’
sa
c
c
ounti
nt
r
oduc
e
ss
c
he
ma
t
i
cl
e
t
t
e
r
sa
ndt
hec
or
r
e
s
pondi
ngs
ubs
t
i
t
ut
i
onr
ul
ei
n
t
o
192
our natural language, and first order propositional logic is thus absorbed into the language
we speak as a part of it.35 In addition to attributing schematic reasoning to ordinary
people, one striking consequence is that infinite conjunctions with certain synthetic
features are all expressible. The function of the disquotational truth predicate of
expressing some infinite conjunctions vanishes. The use of the truth predicate is to
properly form disquotational truth conditions, and a side interest is to distinguish true
generalisations from false ones. Another striking consequence is that, it seems, some
model-theoretic conceptions are built-in the language spoken by ordinary people. One can
de
r
i
vet
ha
t
,f
ora
l
ls
e
nt
e
nc
e
s
,‘
I
fS,t
he
nS’i
st
r
ue
,whe
r
et
hes
c
he
ma
t
i
cl
e
t
t
e
r‘
S’r
a
ng
e
s
substitutionally over all sentences of the language.36 In other words, that the sche
ma‘
I
fp,
t
he
np’i
sl
og
i
c
a
l
l
yva
l
i
dc
a
nbepr
ove
di
npr
i
nc
i
pl
ebyor
di
na
r
ype
opl
ewhos
pe
a
kt
he
natural language they speak. For Halbach, on the other hand, the disquotational truth
predicate cannot play the most important role of expressing and affirming infinite
conjunctions, so the notion of truth-analyticity is indispensable for this purpose. It seems
that the notion of disquotational truth more or less fades out at this stage. More
importantly, in order for the truth predicate to commute with objectual quantifiers, some
intensional predicates of other semantic concepts are needed. The more we need, the less
important the truth predicate is. Both accounts complicate the truth theory in order to
establish the soundness of first order logic. But the original task is only to establish the
claim that, by justifying that one can affirm an infinite lot of sentences by affirming the
corresponding generalisation, infinite conjunctions can be expressed in terms of the truth
predicate. Whether or not the price is so high, that the name, if not the spirit, of
35
Field proposes to develop a new kind of logic to solve the liar paradox, so he does not go for a
hierarchical system.
36
I
nv
i
e
wofFi
e
l
d’
squ
a
s
i-disquotationalism, it seems that consideration regarding possible world
semantics is comprised in his account.
193
deflationism is put in danger, is worth considering.37 Since neither Quine nor Horwich go
f
ort
hes
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
ss
ugge
s
t
e
dbyFi
e
l
d’
sa
c
c
ounta
ndHa
l
ba
c
h’
s
,t
hedi
s
c
us
s
i
onwi
l
lbel
e
f
t
here.
Now, let us return tot
hedi
s
c
us
s
i
onofHor
wi
c
h’
smi
ni
ma
l
i
s
te
xpl
a
na
t
i
on,b
a
s
e
dont
he
minimal theory of truth (MT), of the general fact mentioned at the beginning of this
section. It runs as follows:
1. Log
i
cpr
ovi
de
suswi
t
hf
a
c
t
sl
i
ke[
dog
sba
r
k&(
dog
sba
r
k→ pi
g
sf
l
y
)
]→ pi
gs fly,
that is, with every fact of the form
[p & (p → q)
]→ q.
2. Therefore, given MT, we can go on to explain every fact of the form
[<p> is true & (p → q)
]→ <q> is true.
3. But from the nature of implication, we have all instances of
(<p> implies <q>)→ (
p → q).
4. Therefore we can explain each fact of the form
[<p> is true & <p> implies <q>]→ <q> is true.
5. And therefore, given MT, we get each fact of the form
<[<p> is true & <p> implies <q>]→ <q> is true> is true.
6. But it is a peculiar property of propositions that any general claim about them—any
characterization of all propositions—is made true by the infinite set of particular facts
associating that characteristic with each individual proposition.
7. Therefore, in light of 5 and 6, we can explain the general fact:
Every proposition of the form, <[<p> is true & <p> implies <q>]→ <q> is true>, is
37
Whether or not they make some extra metaphysical and/or epistemological commitments is not able to
be discussed here.
194
true. (Horwich 1998b, pp. 21-22)
This explanation is clearly unavailable to the disquotationalist, because of premise 6. This
turns out to be insignificant, for Horwich later abandons this line of reasoning. Earlier, the
success of this explanation was crucial for Horwich, to demonstrate the deductive power
of the minimal theory, its capacity for deriving a universal generalisation from all its
instances, and also the fulfilment of the necessary condition for the minimal theory to be
an adequate theory of truth.38
It appears that because of premise 3, Horwich intends to explain the notion of logical
implication. But this makes the whole explanation unsound, for the strong modal relation
between <p> and <q> i
n‘
<p> implies <q>’i
smi
s
s
i
ng from premises 2, 3 and premise 4.
Soi
ti
spr
oba
bl
ymor
ec
ha
r
i
t
a
bl
et
ot
a
keHor
wi
c
h’
sa
r
g
ume
nta
sbe
i
nga
boutt
henot
i
o
nof
material implication—about modus ponens. This slip does not affect my criticism of his
a
r
g
ume
nta
ny
wa
y
.Is
ha
l
lf
ol
l
owDa
vi
d’
sobservation that this must be a typographical
error and hereafter change 3 into the following:
3’(
<p> implies <q>) ↔ (
p → q).39
The idea behind this explanation is apparently to take the general fact as an infinite
c
onj
unc
t
i
on,“
‘
<Snowi
swhi
t
e
>i
mpl
i
e
s<Gr
a
s
si
sg
r
e
e
n>a
nd<Snowi
swhi
t
e
>i
st
r
ue
,
t
he
n<Gr
a
s
si
sg
r
e
e
n>i
st
r
ue
,
’‘
<Skyi
sbl
ue
>i
mpl
i
e
s<Dog
sba
r
k>a
nd<Sky is blue> is
t
r
ue
,t
he
n<Dog
sba
r
k>i
st
r
ue
,…”
,a
ndt
he
nt
oe
xpl
a
i
nhowwec
a
na
r
r
i
vea
tt
he
conclusion that this conjunction can be expressed in terms of the minimalist truth
predicate. And hence modus ponens—if one sentence/proposition implies another, and the
38
Premise 6 is new to the second edition of Truth, so is 7. It is not difficult to see why Gupta complains in
bot
h“
ACr
i
t
i
qu
eofDe
f
l
a
t
i
oni
s
m”(
1993)a
n
d“
Mi
n
i
ma
l
i
s
m”(
199
3)t
h
a
tHor
wi
c
h(
i
nt
h
ef
i
r
s
te
di
t
i
onof
Truth, 1990) only explains all the instances of a generalisation but not the generalisation itself. I will skip
the discussion of the old version.
39
Please cf. David 2000, note 19.
195
first one is true, then so is the second—can be explained in terms of the minimal theory
along with some truth-f
r
e
ee
xpl
a
n
a
t
or
yr
e
s
our
c
e
s
.Da
vi
d’
si
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
on(2000) is that
Hor
wi
c
h’
si
de
aofe
xpl
a
i
ni
ngg
e
ne
r
a
lf
a
c
t
si
nvol
vi
ngt
r
ut
hi
st
odeduce these facts from
the minimal theory, along with some truth-free resources. This does not seem to be
misleading, for it is Horwich himself who advances such an idea in some places.40 What
David wants to show is that the deducibility of these general facts eventually boils down
to an extended notion of loose deducibility.
The
r
ea
r
es
e
ve
r
a
lpr
obl
e
msf
orHo
r
wi
c
h’
sa
r
g
ume
nt
.
Themos
ti
mpor
t
a
ntonei
st
ha
t
,a
sI
discussed in the last chapter, premise 3 will inevitably go infinite at the level of schematic
argument. Since we have the problem of being short of an infinitary rule of inference, this
is probably the reason for Horwich to provide a meta-argument. Apparently it is the sixth
premise that makes Horwich think he successfully proves the deducibility. In the
Postscript of Horwich 1998b, Horwich says:
However, it seems to me that in the present case, where the topic is propositions, we can
find a solution to this problem [That is, there is no logically valid infinitary rule]. For it is
plausible to suppose that there is a truth-preserving rule of inference that will take us
from a set of premises attributing to each proposition some property, F, to the conclusion
that all propositions have F. No doubt this rule is not logically valid, for its reliability
hinges not merely on the meanings of the logical constants, but also on the nature of
propositions. But it is a principle we do find plausible. We commit ourselves to it,
i
mpl
i
c
i
t
l
y
,i
nmov
i
ngf
r
omt
h
edi
s
pos
i
t
i
ont
oa
c
c
e
pta
nypr
opos
i
t
i
onoft
h
ef
or
m‘
x is F’
(where x i
sapr
opos
i
t
i
on
)t
ot
h
ec
on
c
l
u
s
i
on‘
Al
lpr
opos
i
t
i
on
sa
r
eF’
.(
p.
137,t
h
el
a
s
titalic
word is mine)
Supposedly, the disposition t
oa
c
c
e
pta
nypr
opos
i
t
i
onoft
hef
or
m‘
x is F’i
ss
ome
t
hi
ngt
o
do with premise 5. The inference rule, which is characterised in 6, is thus to licence us
40
I
na
tl
e
a
s
tt
wopl
a
c
e
sh
es
pe
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
yu
s
e
s‘
de
r
i
v
e
’(
Hor
wi
c
h1998
b, pp. 11-12)or‘
de
du
c
e
’(
pp.
24-25) to
account for what he means to say about explaining general facts involving truth.
196
from premise 5, to derive 7. What Horwich does not tell us is what sort of nature
possessed by propositions makes us implicitly commit to this rule of inference.41 David,
on the other hand, offers an interpretation of this alleged nature of propositions. He says:
I
tmus
tbebe
c
a
u
s
e[
Hor
wi
c
h
]t
h
i
n
kst
h
a
tpr
opos
i
t
i
on
s
…obe
yt
h
ef
ol
l
owi
n
gpr
i
n
c
i
pl
e
:If a
proposition exists in any possible world, then it exists in every possible world. But this
principle holds only on some (e.g., Fregean) conceptions of the nature of propositions. (David
2000, p. 172)
Russellian propositions are precluded from the minimal theory then, if this is the case.
Thi
sc
ont
r
a
ve
ne
sHor
wi
c
h’
sa
s
s
umpt
i
ont
ha
tmi
ni
ma
l
i
s
mi
sc
ompa
t
i
bl
ewi
t
hbot
hFr
e
g
e
a
n
and Russellian propositions, and even compatible with a hybrid kind of these two
(Horwich 1998b, p. 17). This also damages his account regarding the relation between
beliefs and propositions (ibid., Question 31). For David, the more serious deficiency of
Horwi
c
h’
sa
s
s
umpt
i
ont
ha
tpr
e
mi
s
e6i
sar
ul
eofi
nf
e
r
e
nc
e
,t
owhi
c
hwea
r
ei
mpl
i
c
i
t
l
y
commit, is its failure of explaining how this envisaged rule might work in the absence of
the assembling of infinitely many premises, or an infinite premise. Furthermore, this
envisaged rule is only supposed to work for some specific objects, namely, propositions.
This, according to David, shows that Horwich implicitly slackens the deducibility in need
of accounting for the deductive power of the minimal theory, to a much looser one.
Consequently, Horwich has to admit that substantive theories of truth can always find
some equally loose deducibility to fit their explanation of their adequacy in accounting
for our acceptance of all instances of the equivalence schema and all general facts
involving truth.
I do not think that Horwich is guilty of implicitly loosening the required deducibility.
Because in Truth, second edition, Horwich states the following:
41
Armour-Garb expresses the same view in Armour-Garb 2004, note 13.
197
My inclination is to think that the principles of deductive logic are neither susceptible of,
nor in need of, demonstrative justification. Instead, I would follow Quine (1953) in
supposing that the logical principles relied upon in scientific theorizing are justified in so
far as they are members of the simplest way of accommodating experience. I would say,
moreover, that the logical principles deployed outside science in ordinary life—which
may or may not differ from those used in science—are not subject to revision in light of
experience. Hence these commitments are a priori; their justification is pragmatic; purely
practical goals are furthered by adopting them.42 (p. 76, the first string of italics is mine)
If there is no need to demonstratively justify the principles of deductive logic, within or
without science, then what does it mean to say that the minimal theory, along with some
truth-free explanatory resources, can derive or deduce general facts involving truth,
including the principles of deductive logic such as the one I discussed?43 There seems to
be an apparent incoherence. The more sympathetic interpretation is that the required
deducibility is loosened in the very first place. What Horwich is guilty of is not making
this explicit.44
Why Horwich eventually intends to justify those general facts by appealing to the unique
nature of propositions is a separate question. In the cited words two paragraphs back, we
can see that Horwich recognises the logical invalidity of the rule of inference
characterised as such. He probably thinks, separately from the thought regarding
explanation cum derivation/deduction of general facts involving truth, that the principles
of deductive logic can be explained in an even looser sense. This shows yet another
42
This is partially the reason why Horwich does not go for the strategies advanced by Field. Moreover, the
c
l
a
i
mt
h
a
t“
t
h
el
og
i
c
a
lpr
i
n
ciples deployed outside science in ordinary life—which may or may not differ
from those used in science—a
r
en
ots
u
bj
e
c
tt
or
e
v
i
s
i
oni
nl
i
gh
tofe
x
pe
r
i
e
n
c
e
”r
e
s
ul
t
sf
r
omt
h
en
e
e
df
or
squaring this with his use theory of meaning. That is, the demarcation between common-sense logic and
various kinds of logical theories.
43
Apparently it is not just about the principles of deductive logic but also about other general facts, such as
that true beliefs about how to attain our goals tend to facilitate success in achieving them. To account for
this general fact and not only its instances, it is inevitable that Horwich will appeal to the unique nature of
propositions.
44
A sympathetic guess is that in revising the first edition of Truth these things did not coherently come to
Hor
wi
c
h’
smi
n
d.
198
incoherence in his account. Horwich holds that the minimal theories of utterance truth
and belief truth can be constructed, with suitable auxiliary assumptions, from the minimal
theory of propositional truth.45 He says:
Ordinary language suggests that truth is a property of propositions, and that utterances,
beliefs, assertions, etc., inherit their truth-like character from their relationship to
propositions. However, the above derivations show that this way of seeing things has no
particular explanatory merit. The truth-like conception for each type of entity is equally
minimalistic. And by assuming any one of them we can easily derive the others.
(Horwich 1998b, p. 102)
But the minimal theories of utterance truth and belief truth certainly cannot provide the
explanation of the general fact of modus ponens in the way characterised above, for that
e
xpl
a
na
t
i
onde
pe
ndsont
heuni
quena
t
ur
eofpr
opos
i
t
i
ons
.
ThusHor
wi
c
h’
smi
ni
ma
l
i
s
t
account is incoherent.
There is another notable fact, indicated by Armour-Grab (Armour-Grab 2004, note 13),
t
ha
tma
ke
sHor
wi
c
h’
spos
i
t
i
one
nt
i
r
e
l
yi
nc
ohe
r
e
nt
.
Atthe very beginning of Truth,
Question 1, that is, Horwich specifically makes the following claim:
However this commitment [to the existence of propositions], though controversial and in
n
e
e
dofs
omede
f
e
n
c
e(
…)
,i
smu
c
hl
e
s
ss
u
bs
t
a
n
t
i
a
lt
h
a
ni
tmi
g
h
ts
e
e
mat first. For it
presupposes very little about the nature of propositions. (p. 16)
The reason given by Horwich, to relieve the worry of introducing substantial elements
into the minimal theory by committing ourselves to the existence of propositions, is that
this commitment presupposes very little about the nature of propositions. But premise 6 is
important for Horwich to account for the loose deducibility of general facts involving
truth. The adequacy of the minimal theory turns out to be absolutely hinging on not just
the commitment to the existence of propositions but also on their very nature. The
45
Please cf. note 15 of the previous chapter or Horwich 1998b, pp. 98-102.
199
minimal theory is thus not very minimal, much less deflationary.
In latter times, Horwich seems to modify his argument, abandoning the idea of appealing
to t
heuni
quena
t
ur
eofpr
opos
i
t
i
ons
.I
n“
ADe
f
e
ns
eofMi
ni
ma
l
i
s
m”(
2001)
,Hor
wi
c
h
r
e
pl
i
e
st
oGupt
aa
ndSoa
me
s
’c
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
mt
ha
tmi
ni
ma
l
i
s
m onl
ye
xpl
a
i
nshowt
or
e
a
c
ha
l
l
instances of a generalisation but not the generalisation itself.46 Gupta in Gupta 1993a and
1993b made the criticism that Horwich refers to and Soames in Soames 1997. In Horwich
1998b, the argument about modus ponens characterised above is supposed to be one of
Hor
wi
c
h’
smos
ti
mpor
t
a
ntr
e
pl
i
e
st
ot
hi
sc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
m.Ne
ve
r
t
he
l
e
s
s
,i
nHor
wi
c
h2001,i
n
accounting for general facts involving truth he substitutes another premise for premise 6
mentioned above. It seems that he withdraws the original strategy in Horwich 1998b,
though he does not make this explicit, at least not in this article.
The new premise added to truth-free explanatory resources is as follows:
Whenever someone can establish, for every F, that is G, and recognizes that he can do
this, then he will conclude that every F is G. (Horwich 2001, p. 157)
In explicating this premise, Horwich continues:
We can establish, for every proposition of the form, (p → p), that it is true. Moreover, we
can become aware of this ability. For we can see that any of the propositions in question
may be designated by some expression of a certain form. And we can also come to see
that there is a general strategy which, given any such expression, will establish the
s
e
n
t
e
n
c
et
h
a
tr
e
s
ul
t
sf
r
omwr
i
t
i
n
gt
h
ee
x
pr
e
s
s
i
onbe
f
or
e“
i
st
r
u
e
”
.(
i
bi
d.
)
Thi
sma
t
he
ma
t
i
c
a
li
nduc
t
i
ver
e
a
s
oni
ngs
qua
r
e
swi
t
hHor
wi
c
h’
sa
t
t
i
t
udet
owa
rd the
principles of deductive logic, and thus makes his account more coherent. If adding this
46
This is actually part of the criticism. In terms of this part, Gupta and Soames go on to conclude that the
equivalence schema does not really suffice to account for all uses of the truth predicate. It follows that the
me
a
ni
ngof‘
t
r
u
e
’i
sn
otf
i
x
e
dbyou
ri
n
c
l
i
n
a
t
i
ont
oa
c
c
e
pta
l
li
n
s
t
a
n
c
e
soft
h
ee
qui
v
a
l
e
n
c
es
c
h
e
ma
.Howe
v
e
r
,
it is clear that the key issue here is about the explanation of how we move from affirming all instances to
affirming the corresponding generalisation.
200
new premise validates the argument, and accordingly all generalisations involving truth
are explained in terms of this line of reasoning, it does not seem that this line of reasoning
is not available to disquotationalism.47 For the significance of this premise does not rely
on the nature of propositions. And this reasoning is especially well-s
ui
t
e
dt
oQui
ne
’
s
thought that truth, even logical truth, hinges on reality; that in each instance of the
g
e
ne
r
a
l
i
s
a
t
i
on,s
e
nt
e
nc
e
swi
t
ht
hef
or
m‘
p → p’a
r
et
r
ue
,oure
y
e
sa
r
eonr
e
a
l
i
t
y
—that is,
for instance, if snow is white then snow is white. Hence I again fail to find any reason to
take minimalism as more desirable than disquotationalism.
There is a possible objection to my claim that this strategy is also available to the
disquotationalist. One might cast some doubt on the claim that disquotationalism is
entitled to do so, by arguing that what confers the ascription of the truth predicate to an
expression is the proposition designated by it. This line of reasoning is not applicable to
utterances or sentences, for, without the propositions designated by them, their
interpretations can vary from one case to another. Contrast this criticism to my
interpretation of disquotationalism, however, and it is easy to see that it is not justified.
For in every instance of the disquotational schema, the sentence mentioned and used is
with a fixed interpretation.
According to Armour-Gr
a
b(
2004)
,howe
ve
r
,Hor
wi
c
h’
sne
ws
t
r
a
t
e
gyi
si
nt
e
ns
i
onwi
t
h
his treatment of the liar paradox. Remember the basic claim of the minimal theory, that
bya
ppl
y
i
ngt
hepr
opos
i
t
i
ona
lf
or
m or
,i
not
he
rwor
ds
,pr
opos
i
t
i
ona
ls
t
r
uc
t
ur
eof‘
<p> is
true iff p’t
oevery proposition, we yield an axiom. In dealing with the liar paradox, using
47
The soundness of this new premise will not be discussed hereafter, for it is not the main issue.
201
‘
#’t
oa
bbr
e
vi
a
t
eal
i
a
r
-pa
r
a
doxi
c
a
li
ns
t
a
nc
e“
THEPROPOSI
TI
ONFORMULATEDI
N
CAPTI
TALLETTERSI
SNOTTRUE,
”Hor
wi
c
hs
a
y
s
:
But [to deny classical logic] cuts too deep; [to deny (à la Tarski) that the concept of truth
can be coherently applied to propositions, such as <#>,] also smacks of overkill; and [to
deny that the sentence in capital letters succeeds in formulating a proposition] goes
against the fact that, for any condition C, one might happen to believe that the proposition
meeting that condition is not true—whi
c
h…wou
l
di
mpl
yt
h
a
t‘
Th
epr
opos
i
t
i
onme
e
t
i
ng
condition C i
sn
ott
r
u
e
’e
x
pr
e
s
s
e
sapr
opos
i
t
i
on
…Th
e
r
e
f
or
et
h
eon
l
ya
c
c
e
pt
a
bl
es
ol
u
t
i
on
is [to reject certain instances of the equivalence schema]: only certain instances of the
equivalence schema are correct.48 (Horwich 1998b, p. 41)
Horwich does not provide any solution in order to bar liar-paradoxical propositions in
Horwich 1998b. In a footnote (21), he acknowledges what Gupta pointed out to him that
the need to restrict the instantiation of the equivalence schema is in tension with the
ability of the minimal theory to capture schematic generalisations (p. 42). For not every
instance of a given generalisation is entailed by the generalisation. However, Horwich
says,
[S]uch problem cases are few and far between; so the utility of truth as a device of
generalization is not substantially impaired by their existence. (Horwich 1998b, p. 42)
This only justifies why we should maintain the minimal theory, because of its utility, but
does not justify the theory itself. Similarly, the strategy of appealing to the nature of
propositions certainly is not helpful either, and the same is true for the new mathematical
inductive reasoning.
Normally there are two options to deal with liar-paradoxical expressions. We can follow
Ta
r
s
ki
’
si
ns
i
g
hta
ndg
of
orahi
e
r
a
r
c
hi
c
a
ls
t
r
uc
t
ur
eofl
a
ng
ua
g
e
s
.I
ne
a
c
hs
t
a
g
ewer
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
the target language to consist only of sentences without the truth predicate or without the
higher order truth predicate. Or alternatively, we can adopt deviant logic to allow
48
Wor
dsi
ns
qu
a
r
ebr
a
c
k
e
t
sa
r
eHor
wi
c
h’
s
,i
nt
h
epr
e
v
i
ou
spa
r
a
g
r
a
phofmyqu
ot
e
.
202
truth-value gaps into which the liar-paradoxical expressions fall. Both options have their
deficiencies. Going hierarchical is probably too artificial. Adopting deviant logic is, as
Horwich argues, to cut too deep. Nevertheless, the first option is not available to Horwich,
for he has no way to go hierarchical.49 And there is good reason why he should not,
be
c
a
us
et
heme
a
ni
ngof‘
t
r
ue
’i
st
h
e
nnotf
i
xe
dt
hr
oug
houri
nc
l
i
na
t
i
ont
oa
c
c
e
ptt
he
instances of the equivalence schema. Horwich apparently turns down the second option
for a similar reason that this jeopardises his use theory of meaning. Consider his instance
of (AND) discussed in the previous chapter. Presumably, the counterparts of all logical
connectives can be defined use-theoretically in a similar way. Adopting deviant logic
creates problems for this. Notice though, that these two options are open to the
di
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
t
.I
nmyf
or
mul
a
t
i
onofQui
ne
’
sdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
m,Ig
oa
l
lt
hewa
ydown
in terms of the first option. The second option is also available to Quine, though I think
that it is not very Quinean.
Weha
venotdi
s
c
us
s
e
dHor
wi
c
h’
sr
e
s
pons
ey
e
t
.
Thet
e
ns
i
oni
st
ha
t
,i
nde
a
l
i
ngwi
t
ht
he
generalisation problem, liar-paradoxical propositions cause trouble, and in dealing with
the liar paradoxes, the explanation of truth generalisations is incomplete. Presumably, any
principle or additional axiom added to the minimal theory has to satisfy both sides that
are in tension. That is, by restricting the instantiation of the equivalence schema, the
explanation of truth generalisations does not exclude any instance. We can agree with
Horwich that the utility of truth as a device of generalisation is not rejected by the few
and far between cases of the liar paradox, but the minimal theory is. One way to do it is to
49
In a footnote (McGrath 1997b, p. 74, 10), McGrath suggests that we can distinguishes between all
propositions, those with the truth predicate in various ways and those without the truth predicate, and that
we can allocate them to different levels. Relative to each level, then, we can develop a theory of
propositional truth for that level. It is doubtful that this is doable. But I will ignore this approach.
203
convert all truth generalisations into axioms of the minimal theory. But this is clearly not
acceptable for Horwich for the same reason that he does not go for the two options
mentioned above. Another way is to add the t
e
r
m‘
non-pa
r
a
doxi
c
a
l
’t
oa
l
lt
r
ut
h
generalisations to make them restricted. For instance, for modus ponens, if one
non-paradoxical sentence/proposition implies another non-paradoxical one, and the first
one is true, then so is the second. But according to Armour-Garb (2004, pp. 499-500), not
all truth generalisations can be treated in the same way. For instance, true
non-paradoxical disjunctions have at least one true non-paradoxical disjunct.
Liar-paradoxical propositions can still be one of the disjuncts.50 As McGrath indicates,
that a proposition might generate such a paradox is in some cases a contingent matter
(McGrath 1997b, p. 74, note 10). It follows that there is no a priori method for identifying
all and only those problematic propositions.
We can conclude for this section that the minimal theory has serious problems in dealing
with the liar paradox. The consequence is that its explanatory capacity for affirming truth
generalisations is compromised. On the other hand, disquotationalism is in a better shape.
Unl
e
s
sHor
wi
c
h’
smi
ni
ma
l
i
s
m ha
sadr
a
s
t
i
ca
ndc
ons
i
s
t
e
ntc
ha
ngei
nbot
hoft
hemi
ni
ma
l
theory of truth and the use theory of meaning, it seems that disquotationalism is a better
choice.
3. The Proper Ascription of the Truth Predicate
Many opponents incline to regard deflationary theories of truth as having genuine
difficulty in accounting for truth ascription. The issue is about truth ascription to
50
Armour-Garb also gives a good counterexample in the case of blind ascription. Cf. Armour-Garb 2004,
pp. 500-501.
204
non-understood sentences. The difficulty of truth ascription under this condition is
divided into four types. They are, non-understood sentences of a given language of a
given speaker (NUSL), non-understood sentences of different languages (NUSDL),
sentences of the possible extension of a given language that are non-understood now
(NUSPEL), and sentences that are in principle non-understandable to human beings
(NUSH). Disquotationalism seems to be in more trouble with this difficulty. So I shall
begin with a discussion of disquotationalist accounts. However, we will soon discover
that this criticism focuses on disquotationalism because of some particular interpretation
of this sort of theory.
The criticism that disquotationalism has difficulties in accounting for the truth ascriptions
to non-understood sentences, stems from various readings of disquotationalism, mainly
ba
s
e
donr
e
a
di
ng
sofFi
e
l
d’
sa
c
c
o
u
nt
,pe
r
ha
psMc
Ge
e
’
st
oo,a
nds
ome
t
hi
ngs
i
mi
l
a
r
.
Amongot
he
r
s
,t
he
r
ea
r
eGupt
a
’
ss
e
ns
ee
qui
va
l
e
nc
er
e
a
di
ng
,Künne
’
sr
e
dunda
nt
i
s
tr
e
a
di
ng
,
a
ndDa
vi
d’
sde
f
i
ni
t
i
ona
lr
e
a
di
ng
.Ia
l
r
e
a
dys
howe
di
nt
hef
i
r
s
ts
e
c
t
i
ont
ha
tGupt
a
’
sr
e
a
di
ng
results from an incoherent assumption and a misconception of disquotationalism, so in the
f
ol
l
owi
ngonl
yKünne
’
sr
e
a
di
nga
ndDa
vi
d’
sr
e
a
di
ngwi
l
lbebr
i
e
f
l
ydi
s
c
us
s
e
d.
Si
nc
et
he
s
er
e
a
di
ng
sa
r
ema
i
nl
ya
boutFi
e
l
d’
sdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
lt
heory, I should first
elaborate his account a bit. Field claims that the pure disquotational truth predicate should
be explained as true-as-one-understands-it in every instance of the disquotational schema,
and each sentence on the right hand side should also be explained as what one
understands. Hence the truth predicate is only applicable to sentences that a given speaker
understands in the pure disquotational sense. Truth ascription to other sentences is
205
understood in the extended disquotational sense according to which the proper translation
of non-understood sentences of a given speaker is needed. Two problems emerge. First,
different speakers are inclined to have very different understandings of the truth predicate,
and hence their ascriptions of it are different in principle. Second, there seems to be a
conspicuous difference between cases of NUSL and those of NUSDL, for it is dubious
whether or not the notion of translation can play any role in the cases of NUSL.51
Künne raises the following argument aga
i
ns
tFi
e
l
d’
spur
edi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
m.Suppos
et
wo
people, Brad and Rachel, are talking about a newspaper report, and Brad comments on it
bys
a
y
i
ng
,“
Tha
ti
st
r
ue
”whi
l
ei
ndi
s
a
g
r
e
e
me
ntwi
t
hhi
m,Ra
c
he
ls
a
y
s
,“
No,i
ti
snott
r
u
e
”
(Künne 2000, p. 189). The startling consequence of pure disquotationalism is that there is
no disagreement between them at all. For the truth predicates used by them are different
in principle.52 OrBr
a
dma
ys
a
y“
I
ft
her
e
por
ti
st
r
ue
,t
he
nt
heg
ove
r
nme
nti
si
nt
r
oubl
e
,
”
and Rachel a
gr
e
e
swi
t
hhi
mbys
a
y
i
ng“
Ther
e
por
ti
st
r
ue
”
.Br
a
dt
he
nc
onc
l
ude
s
,“
The
g
ove
r
nme
nti
si
nt
r
oubl
e
”
.I
ts
e
e
mst
ha
tt
he
ybui
l
dupa
na
r
g
ume
ntba
s
e
donmodus
ponens (
i
bi
d.
)
.Butt
hi
si
sha
r
dl
yt
hec
a
s
e
,f
ora
g
a
i
nt
he
yus
e‘
t
r
ue
’di
f
f
e
r
e
nt
l
y
.
Thi
s
criticism iss
i
mi
l
a
rt
oGu
pt
a
’
s
:
[
O]
n
ef
i
r
s
ta
c
qu
i
r
e
st
h
ec
on
c
e
pt‘
t
r
u
e
-in-my-present-i
di
ol
e
c
t
’a
n
dt
h
e
nu
s
i
n
gi
ta
c
qu
i
r
e
s
the full-f
l
e
dg
e
d‘
t
r
u
e
.
’
Th
epr
o
bl
e
mofe
x
pl
a
i
n
i
ngh
owon
ege
t
sf
r
om
‘
t
r
u
e
-in-my-present-i
di
ol
e
c
t
’t
o‘
t
r
u
e
’s
e
e
ms
…muc
hh
a
r
de
rt
h
a
nt
h
a
tofe
x
pl
a
i
n
i
ng‘
t
r
u
e
’
u
s
i
ngal
i
mi
t
e
di
de
ol
ogy
”
.(
Gupt
a199
3,p.
81,
n
ot
e48)
Field owes us an explanation of how different speakers of the same language eventually
53
c
omet
ous
e‘
t
r
ue
’i
ndi
f
f
e
r
e
nt
l
y
.
51
Even if the speaker uses a hybrid language, the distinction between the languages she speaks and those
that she does not speak still makes sense. To simplify my discussion, only unilingual cases are in
considering.
52
Imodi
f
yKü
nn
e
’
sa
r
g
ume
n
tabi
t to suit my argumentation.
53
Ia
l
s
oma
deas
i
mi
l
a
robj
e
c
t
i
ont
oFi
e
l
d’
sa
c
c
oun
ti
n1.
2.
Th
a
ti
s
,t
h
ee
x
t
e
n
de
d- and quasi-disquotational
206
Now turn to the second problem. If the truth predicate is primarily applied to sentences
that a given speaker understands, then there is a difference between non-understood
sentences that belong to the language spoken by her and those that do not. For the latter,
t
het
r
ut
ha
s
c
r
i
pt
i
ont
ot
he
mi
se
xpl
a
i
ne
dbyFi
e
l
d’
sextended disquotationalism, according
to which a non-understood sentence is disquotationally true only if there is a proper
translation between it and a corresponding sentence that the speaker understands. For the
former, the notion of translation has no place. It seems that Field has to use the idea of
NUSPEL to explain the cases of NUSL. But there is supposed to be a difference between
NUSPEL and NUSL. The consequence of pure disquotationalism, then, is the confusion
between truth ascription to sentences of a given language that one does not understand
now, and to sentences of the possible extension of it that one could not understand now.
Da
vi
ds
t
r
ong
l
ydi
s
a
gr
e
e
swi
t
hFi
e
l
d’
spur
edi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
m.
Thea
us
t
e
r
e
disquotationalism, David so argues, is its lack of reliance on any notion of meaning.
However, the notion of understanding is within the same family of notions as meaning,
and hence cannot legitimately to be used by a physicalist account of disquotationalism
(David 1989, p. 608). For Field, and McGee as well, to reserve the necessary status of
instances of the disquotational schema, the price to pay is to introduce the notion of
unde
r
s
t
a
ndi
ngi
nt
ot
hea
c
c
ount
.I
tmi
g
htbec
l
a
i
me
dt
ha
t‘
t
r
ue
-as-one-understands-i
t
’a
nd
‘
a
soneunde
r
s
t
a
ndsi
t
’a
tbot
hsides of pure disquotation sentences somehow cancel each
other out—that is, it does not specify the understanding of the target sentence. In other
t
r
u
t
hsdon
otou
t
pa
c
et
h
egi
v
e
ns
pe
a
k
e
r
’
sownpu
r
edi
s
qu
ot
a
t
i
on
a
lt
r
u
t
h
,un
l
e
s
swea
r
eg
i
v
e
ns
omepr
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
hypotheses such as that the translation/interpretation manuals of people speaking the same language tend to
be convergent.
207
wor
ds
,t
het
wo‘
unde
r
s
t
a
nd’a
ppe
a
r
i
ngs
t
r
i
ng
sofwor
dsa
r
eonl
yus
e
dt
or
e
s
t
r
i
c
tt
her
a
ng
e
of substitutional va
r
i
a
bl
e‘
u’i
n“
‘
u’i
st
r
ue(
a
soneunde
r
s
t
a
ndsi
t
)i
fa
ndonl
yi
fu (as one
unde
r
s
t
a
ndsi
t
)
”
.
Ac
c
or
di
ngt
oDa
vi
d,t
hi
si
sonl
yac
he
a
t
.
Al
t
houg
hDa
vi
d’
se
xa
mpl
ei
s
his disquotational definition of truth, (D), which I discussed in Chapter Two, his point is
also applicable to the above claim.54 The point David made is that:
Of course we can keep a definition [or a full explanation of a schema] clean of
u
n
c
omf
or
t
a
bl
en
ot
i
on
si
fweon
l
yu
s
et
h
os
en
ot
i
on
si
na
n“
i
nf
or
ma
lc
omme
n
t
a
r
y
”ont
h
e
definition [or the schema]; but in this way we only keep the definition [or the schema] clean
and not the theory in which the definition [or the schema] is embedded. (David 1989, p.
608)
AsIi
ndi
c
a
t
e
de
a
r
l
i
e
ri
n1.
2,Fi
e
l
d
’
spur
edi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
mi
si
na
de
qua
t
ei
nbe
i
ng
implicitly committed to the sense equivalence relation. Conversely, this criticism is not
applicable to (DQ), for the notion of interpretation involved is not about the sentences
appearing at the two sides of the biconditionals. If one has any problems with it, one
s
houl
de
qua
l
l
yobj
e
c
tt
oTa
r
s
ki
’
sf
or
mul
a
t
i
onofConve
nt
i
onT.
Fur
t
he
r
mor
e
,Sha
pi
r
or
a
i
s
e
sa
na
r
g
ume
nta
g
a
i
ns
tFi
e
l
d’
sdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
la
c
c
ounti
nSha
pi
r
o
2003. Here is the background case on which the argument depends. A guru makes a
pronouncement about set theory; a disciple thinks that everything the guru says is true;
t
hedi
s
c
i
pl
edoe
snotunde
r
s
t
a
nds
e
tt
he
or
y
;al
og
i
c
i
a
nwhodi
s
t
r
us
t
st
heg
ur
u’
s
set-theoretic pronouncements would like to draw their number-theoretic consequences,
which the disciple does understand.55 Shapiro argues that if in addition the disciple trusts
t
hel
og
i
c
i
a
n’
sa
c
ume
na
boutl
og
i
c(
t
houg
hnota
bouts
e
tt
he
or
y
)
,t
he
nt
hedi
s
c
i
pl
eoug
htt
o
be able to reason in terms of the notion of logical consequence, that the number-theoretic
54
The definition is as follows:
(D) x is a true sentence =DF (
∑p)
(
xi
s‘
p’
,&p)(
Da
v
i
d1989,
p.60
4;Da
v
i
d1994
,p.
89).
55
Th
i
si
sa
c
t
u
a
l
l
yFi
e
l
d’
sc
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
a
t
i
onofSh
a
pi
r
o’
sc
a
s
ei
nPos
t
s
c
r
i
pt(
20
01)ofFi
e
l
d199
4.
Wh
e
nFi
e
l
d
ma
det
h
i
sc
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
a
t
i
on
,Sha
pi
r
o’
spa
pe
rwa
sn
oty
e
ti
npubl
i
c
a
t
i
on
.
208
c
ons
e
que
nc
eofwha
tt
heg
ur
us
a
y
si
st
r
ue
.
Theups
hotofSha
pi
r
o’
sa
r
g
ume
nti
st
ha
t
,
though the disciple understands the conclusion, the reasoning is frustrated by the pure
di
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
lf
a
c
tt
ha
tt
hedi
s
c
i
p
l
ec
a
nnotme
a
ni
ng
f
ul
l
ya
ppl
y‘
t
r
ue
’t
ot
heg
ur
u’
s
utterances. In considering how to extend the truth schema as we expand the language,
Fi
e
l
dc
onc
e
de
st
ha
t“
onc
ewec
omet
or
e
g
a
r
da
ne
xpr
e
s
s
i
onSa
sa
na
c
c
e
pt
a
bl
ede
c
l
a
r
a
t
i
ve
sentence, then even if we have no understanding of it (or virtually none) still we ought to
a
c
c
e
ptt
hec
or
r
e
s
pondi
ngi
ns
t
a
nc
eoft
het
r
ut
hs
c
he
ma
”(
Pos
t
s
c
r
i
pt(
2001)ofFi
e
l
d1994,p.
147).56 Field also acknowledges that, according to the cognitive equivalence thesis of
pure disquotationalism, truth attribution to an expression not yet understood is out of the
question. In order to settle this conflict, he proposes to think of this matter in terms of
indeterminacy—that is,
[
A]s
e
n
t
e
n
c
eIdon
’
tu
n
de
r
s
t
a
ndi
sma
xi
ma
l
l
yi
n
de
t
e
r
mi
n
a
t
ei
nc
on
t
e
n
tf
orme
,a
n
ds
oi
s
an attribution of truth toi
t
;bu
tt
h
ei
n
de
t
e
r
mi
n
a
c
i
e
sa
r
e‘
t
i
e
dt
og
e
t
h
e
r
’
.(
i
bi
d.
)
Ac
c
or
di
ngt
oFi
e
l
d,t
hi
smodi
f
i
e
dvi
e
wha
ndl
e
sSha
pi
r
o’
sc
a
s
ene
a
t
l
y
.
Thedi
s
c
i
pl
er
e
g
a
r
ds
t
heg
u
r
u’
ss
e
nt
e
nc
e
sa
s“
i
napot
e
n
t
i
a
le
xpa
ns
i
onoft
hedi
s
c
i
pl
e
’
sl
a
ng
ua
g
e
,s
ot
ha
tt
he
r
ei
s
57
no difficul
t
yi
nhi
sc
a
r
r
y
i
ngoutt
her
e
a
s
oni
ng
”(
i
bi
d.
,p.148)
.
In addition, Field argues
that the guru problem is also a prima-facie problem for minimalism (ibid.). For the
s
y
nony
mousr
e
l
a
t
i
onbe
t
we
e
nt
hedi
s
c
i
pl
e
’
se
xpr
e
s
s
i
onsa
ndt
heg
ur
u’
si
suna
va
i
l
a
bl
et
oa
mi
ni
ma
l
i
s
t
.
The
r
e
f
or
e
,Hor
wi
c
ha
l
s
oha
st
opr
ovi
dea
ne
xpl
a
na
t
i
onofhowt
hedi
s
c
i
pl
e
’
s
reasoning is possible.
I
tdoe
ss
e
e
mt
omet
ha
tFi
e
l
dg
e
t
st
hewr
ongi
de
aofSha
pi
r
o’
sc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
m.Fr
ommy
56
It seems to me that, in the case of language expansion, the schematic reasoning introduced by Field to
natural language is capable of accommodating the acceptance of the corresponding instances of the truth
schema. However, as a full-blooded physicalist, Field still relies on computational psychology to explicate
his pure disquotationalism.
57
Fi
e
l
di
n
di
c
a
t
e
st
h
a
th
i
sr
e
pl
ys
t
i
l
lh
ol
dsi
ft
h
egu
r
u’
sl
a
n
gu
a
g
edi
v
e
r
g
e
sf
r
omt
h
edi
s
c
i
pl
e
’
s
.I
nt
h
i
sc
a
s
e
,
t
h
ee
x
pa
n
s
i
onoft
h
edi
s
c
i
pl
e
’
sl
a
n
gu
a
g
ei
st
ot
r
a
ns
l
a
t
et
h
egur
u’
sutterances.
209
formulation of disquotationalism, mainly with respect to the schema (DQ), it is not hard to
find an explanation based on translation or possible expansion of the language to
accommodate this problem. My theory does not hinge its interpretation of the
corresponding schema on the notion of understanding. It is, then, a practical question
whe
t
he
rornott
hedi
s
c
i
pl
ei
nSha
pi
r
o’
sc
a
s
ec
a
nr
e
a
s
oni
nt
e
r
msofhi
sa
s
s
umpt
i
ont
ha
t
e
ve
r
y
t
h
i
ngt
heg
ur
us
a
y
si
st
r
ue
,
i
nt
e
r
msoft
hel
og
i
c
i
a
n’
sa
c
ume
ni
nl
og
i
c
,a
ndt
heno
t
i
on
of logical consequence. It depends on the justificationoft
hedi
s
c
i
pl
e
’
sfaith i
nt
heg
ur
u’
s
ut
t
e
r
a
nc
e
s
,a
swe
l
la
si
nt
hel
og
i
c
i
a
n’
sa
c
ume
ni
nl
og
i
c
.Le
tuss
uppos
et
ha
tt
hel
og
i
c
i
a
ni
s
trustworthy. If the part of everything the guru says that the disciple understands comes out
true, then the disciple at least is at a departure point for some inductive reasoning. If the
remaining part also comes out true after the disciple expands his language or translates
t
hos
eut
t
e
r
a
nc
e
si
nt
ohi
sl
a
ng
ua
g
e
,t
he
nt
hedi
s
c
i
pl
e
’
sf
a
i
t
hi
sf
ul
l
yj
us
t
i
f
i
e
d.Howe
ve
r
,
Field is ne
ve
ri
napos
i
t
i
ont
or
e
ga
r
dSha
pi
r
o’
sc
a
s
ea
sapr
a
c
t
i
c
a
lque
s
t
i
on,f
ort
he
di
s
c
i
pl
e
’
swhol
er
e
a
s
oni
ngi
sbl
o
c
ke
di
nt
hef
i
r
s
tpl
a
c
e
.Be
c
a
us
eoft
hi
s
,Fi
e
l
dha
st
o
a
ppe
a
lt
oi
nde
t
e
r
mi
na
c
yt
or
e
s
po
n
d,c
umbe
r
s
ome
l
ype
r
ha
ps
,t
oSha
pi
r
o’
sc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
m,
whereas my disquotational theory does not have to.
Re
g
a
r
d
i
ngFi
e
l
d’
sc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
mt
oHor
wi
c
h,It
hi
nkt
ha
thema
ke
sag
oodpoi
nt
.Si
mi
l
a
rt
o
Fi
e
l
d,t
hedi
s
c
i
pl
e
’
sr
e
a
s
oni
ngi
sbl
oc
ke
da
tt
heve
r
ybe
g
i
nni
nga
c
c
or
di
ngt
ot
hemi
ni
ma
l
theory of propositional truth. Shapir
oc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
e
sHor
wi
c
h’
smi
ni
ma
l
i
s
ms
i
mi
l
a
r
l
y
.
The
disciple is unable to understand the corresponding instances, about what the guru says, of
the equivalence schema. He can only express it vacuously in terms of his faith in the guru
and the logician who tells him that the set-t
he
or
e
t
i
cut
t
e
r
a
nc
eoft
heg
ur
u’
si
sal
e
g
i
t
i
ma
t
e
declarative sentence. Furthermore, it is dubious why the disciple should believe in the
210
notion of logical consequence, for he only has instances of what he understands. In other
words, Hor
wi
c
h’
sma
t
he
ma
t
i
c
a
li
n
duc
t
i
ver
e
a
s
oni
ngha
si
t
se
f
f
e
c
t
i
ve
ne
s
sonl
yf
or
sentences that one understands. For sentences that one does not understand, there are no
corresponding propositions to be grasped.58
It is the very nature of propositions, it seems tome
,t
ha
tma
ke
st
hedi
s
c
i
pl
e
’
sr
e
a
s
oni
ng
fail. That is, one does not know what proposition is expressed if one does not understand
the expression (does not know the meaning of it). The fact that the disciple does not
unde
r
s
t
a
ndt
heg
ur
u’
sut
t
e
r
a
nc
e
si
mpl
i
es that the disciple does not know what
propositions are expressed by those utterances. Consequently, the disciple cannot apply
t
hemi
n
i
ma
l
i
s
tt
r
ut
hpr
e
di
c
a
t
et
ot
heg
ur
u’
swor
ds
.I
not
he
rwor
ds
,t
he
r
ei
sapr
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
problem of truth ascription for the minimal theory of propositional truth in the cases of
NUSL. This also affects the explanation of general facts involving truth. The infinite
conjunctions or disjunctions are not fully captured by attaching the truth predicate to
generalisations, for the propositions not known by a speaker should not appear in the
instances of the generalisations. The possible expansion of language does not much help
here. Based on the assumption, or perhaps, as Horwich would say, common sense view,
that for any declarative sentence there is a corresponding proposition, Horwich formulates
his equivalence schema. For sentences that a given speaker does not understand, the
function of the minimalist truth predicate that plays the role of forming generalisations, is
only fulfilled by accepting the aforementioned assumption that those non-understood
sentences express propositions because of their declarative feature.59 In other words, the
58
Please see the following criticism to Horwich.
This assumption is not that unimportant. It is one of the main reasons why Horwich rejects moral
expressivism. With respect to this, I am with Michael Smith (1994a and 1994b)in holding that deflationary
theories of truth should not take any stand on issues like this.
59
211
minimalist truth ascription to many instances of a given generalisation is founded on our
implicit, if not explicit, acceptance of (DQ). The function of the minimalist truth predicate
only makes sense when (DQ)i
spr
e
s
uppos
e
d.
The
r
e
f
or
e
,t
heve
r
yr
e
a
s
oni
ngofHor
wi
c
h’
s
,
which gives the primary position to the minimal theory of propositional truth, is in doubt.
In dealing with propositions not yet expressible, Horwich refers to a possible extension of
English to explain. He says:
[
W]
ec
a
nc
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
et
h
e‘
e
qui
v
a
l
e
n
c
ea
x
i
oms
’f
orunf
or
mu
l
a
t
a
bl
epr
op
os
i
t
i
on
sby
considering what would result if we could formulate them and could instantiate those
formulations in our equivalence schema. Thus we may specify the axioms of the theory
of truth as what are expressed when the schema
(
E)‘
<p> is true iff p’
is instantiated by sentences in any possible extension of English.
Alternatively, instead of identifying the axioms indirectly in terms of how they would be
expressed, we can solve the problem by directly specifying the propositional structure
which all and only the axioms have in common. (Horwich 1998b, p. 19, note 3)
What we do not know, according to this passage, is whether or not the minimalist truth
predicate is applicable to propositions such as in the cases of NUSH. The option for the
disquotationalist is clear. There is no intelligent way to apply the disquotational truth
predicate to expressions (of some languages) that are in principle not understandable to us.
Horwich, on the other hand, has no choice but to accept the very controversial assumption
that we human beings are capable in principle of understanding all possible propositions.
Again, there is no reason, as far as I can see, to give the minimal theory of propositional
truth a privileged position.
In terms of the first three sections, there is little difference between my formulation of
disquot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
ma
ndHor
wi
c
h’
smi
ni
ma
l
i
s
m,e
xc
e
pt
,ofc
our
s
e
,mi
ni
ma
l
i
s
mi
sat
he
or
y
212
of propositional truth. If we take the equivalence schema not to apply to propositions but
sentences, and providing that those conditions set up by Horwich for a proper
understanding of the equivalence schema are satisfied, then we can hardly find any
difference between (DQ) and (E). However, according to the analysis in this and the
second section, there are some very serious deficiencies in the minimal theory of
propositional truth. So we may say that disquotationalism seems to be preferable.
4. Is Quine a Disquotationalist?
Whether or not Quine is an advocate of disquotationalism can be discussed in two parts.
One is about some inconsistent passages about which theory of truth he is in favour of.
For instance, in Quine 1995 he says:
Science is seen as pursuing and discovering truth rather than as decreeing it. Such is the
60
idiom of realism,a
n
di
ti
si
n
t
e
g
r
a
lt
ot
h
es
e
ma
n
t
i
c
soft
h
epr
e
di
c
a
t
e‘
t
r
u
e
’
.
(p. 67,
emphasis mine)
The other part is about his theory on meaning. For instance, in Quine 1981b he states the
following:
“
I
twa
sl
e
f
tt
oDa
v
i
ds
ont
or
e
c
og
n
i
z
eTa
r
s
k
i
’
st
h
e
or
yoft
r
u
t
ha
st
h
ev
e
r
ys
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
eofa
t
h
e
or
yofme
a
ni
ng
”(
p.38)
.
We will first spend some space to settle the former.
According to Davidson, Quine is among those who are in favour of deflationism. This
seems to be correct, for Quine does urge that disquotationalism is all there is to say about
truth. For instance, in Quine 1990b he says the following:
[T]he
r
ei
ss
u
r
e
l
yoni
mpug
ni
ngt
h
edi
s
qu
ot
a
t
i
ona
c
c
oun
t
;n
odi
s
pu
t
i
ngt
h
a
t‘
Sn
owi
s
60
Davidson suggests that this passage seems to suggest a non-deflationary position. This is probably not
t
h
ec
a
s
e
.Con
s
i
de
r
i
ngGr
ov
e
r
’
sv
i
e
wpoi
nt(
Gr
ov
e
r2000
)t
h
a
tt
h
ei
mpor
t
a
n
c
eof scientific pursuit is to
search for what-is-true, according to his terms, the italic word two sentences back can be perfectly
explained as the collection of all what-is-trues in terms of disquotationalism.
213
whi
t
e
’i
st
r
u
ei
fa
n
don
l
yi
fs
nowi
swhi
t
e
.Mor
e
ov
e
r
,i
ti
saf
u
l
la
c
c
oun
t
:i
te
x
pl
i
c
a
t
e
s
clearly the truth or falsity of every clear sentence. It is even a more than full account: it
imposes a requirement on the truth predicate that is too strong for any predicate within
the language concerned—on pain of contradiction. (p. 93)
Ofc
o
u
r
s
e
,t
he
r
ei
sa
l
s
oa
na
l
mos
ti
ndi
s
put
a
bl
epa
s
s
a
ge
:“
Tr
ut
hi
sdi
s
quot
a
t
i
on”(
p.
80)
.
However, there are also unmistakeable passages suggesting that we should not interpret
Qui
ne
’
sdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
ma
sde
f
l
a
t
i
ona
r
y
.
The
r
ei
sas
t
r
ongf
l
a
vouroft
hec
ohe
r
e
nc
e
theory of truth in the following passage:
It is rather when we turn back into the midst of an actually present theory, at least
hypothetically accepted, that we can and do speak sensibly of this and that sentence as
true. (Quine 1960, p. 24)
Wh
e
r
ei
tma
k
e
ss
e
n
s
et
oa
ppl
y‘
t
r
u
e
’i
st
oas
e
n
t
e
n
c
ec
ou
c
h
e
di
nt
h
et
e
r
msofag
i
v
e
n
theory and seen from within t
het
h
e
or
y
,c
ompl
e
t
ewi
t
hi
t
spos
i
t
e
dr
e
a
l
i
t
y
.
”(
i
bi
d.
,e
mph
a
s
i
s
mine).
Then again, Quine seems to be in support of the correspondence theory as well. In
Quine1990b he says:
Yet there is some underlying validity to the correspondence theory of truth, as Tarski has
t
a
u
gh
tu
s
.I
ns
t
e
a
dofs
a
y
i
n
gt
ha
t‘
Sn
owi
swhi
t
e
’i
st
r
u
ei
fa
ndon
l
yi
fi
ti
saf
a
c
tt
h
a
ts
n
ow
i
swhi
t
e
,wec
a
ns
i
mpl
yde
l
e
t
e‘
i
ti
saf
a
c
tt
h
a
t
’a
sv
a
c
u
ous
,a
n
dt
h
e
r
e
wi
t
hfacts themselves:
‘
Sn
owi
swhi
t
e
’i
st
r
u
ei
fa
n
don
l
yi
fs
n
owi
swhite. To ascribe truth to the sentence is to
ascribe whiteness to snow; such is the correspondence, in this example. (p. 80, emphasis
mine)
Sof
a
ra
si
ti
shol
ophr
a
s
t
i
c
,f
orQu
i
ne
,t
os
a
yt
ha
t‘
Snowi
swhi
t
e
’i
st
r
uei
si
nf
a
c
tt
o
ascribe whiteness to snow. This ascription conversely does not rely on the analysis of
sentential structure. The connection between our understanding of the world and the
world itself is through our sense experience. The empirical slack between the meagre
sensory input and the torrential output allows us the latitude of ontological relativity to
vary the reference schemes of a given theory while preserving the distribution of truths
214
(or, in other words, the sentence-to-sentence structure).
Quine seems to vacillate between the coherence theory and the correspondence theory.
The inclination to a coherence theory of truth, according to Davidson, is a mistake. This
i
nc
l
i
na
t
i
oni
ss
howni
nQui
ne
’
si
nde
c
i
s
i
onbe
t
we
e
nhi
ssectarian and ecumenical
positions towards choosing a true theory among empirically equivalent ones (Quine 1986).
Some citations might help. For sectarian position, Quine states:
One of the two systems of the world must be deemed false even if we know them to be
empirically equivalent. My reason for it was naturalism. (Quine 1986, p. 156)
For ecumenical position, he states:
I opted for truth of both systems of the world, finding it offensive to my empiricist
sensibilities to declare otherwise. (ibid.)
The difficulty with the ecumenical position is as follows:
Two empirically equivalent systems of the world may be logically incompatible, and
hence incapable of being simultaneously viewed as true. (ibid.)
Af
t
e
rpe
r
f
or
mi
ngDa
vi
ds
on’
se
xp
e
di
e
nt
,t
ha
t“
t
hei
nc
ompa
t
i
bi
l
i
t
yi
sr
e
s
ol
ubl
es
i
mpl
yby
re-construing some theoretical ter
mi
nt
ha
ts
e
nt
e
nc
ea
sapa
i
rofdi
s
t
i
nc
thomony
ms
”
(ibid.), the ecumenical position does not have this difficulty since empirically equivalent
systems of the world might be logically non-equivalent but never in conflict.
Da
vi
ds
ondoe
snota
c
c
e
ptQui
ne
’
sindecision. For him, the sectarian position is
completely flawed. It is hard to see how a sentence, with interpretation unchanged, can be
true for one person but not another or can be true for a person at one time but not at
a
not
he
r
.“
Thi
sdi
f
f
i
c
ul
t
y
,
”Da
vi
ds
ona
r
g
ue
s
,“
s
e
e
msduet
ot
hea
t
t
e
mptt
oi
mpor
t
e
pi
s
t
e
mol
og
i
c
a
lc
ons
i
de
r
a
t
i
oni
nt
ot
hec
onc
e
ptoft
r
ut
h”(
Da
vi
ds
on1990,p.306)
.
Andf
or
Davidson the import of epistemological consideration means to follow the approach of a
215
coherence theory to account for the concept of truth.61
Wea
l
s
oha
veg
oodr
e
a
s
ont
or
e
j
e
c
tQui
ne
’
si
nc
l
i
na
t
i
ont
oac
or
r
e
s
ponde
nc
et
he
or
y
.Eve
n
if Quine considers his theory of truth as some sort of correspondence theory, his theory is
too different from the mainstream theories considered in Chapter Two to be included as
one of them. The concept of truth does have a close relation to reality. As I said before,
truth is about reality, about what there is. This is what semantic ascent is about. It is by
semantic ascent that we can substitute the talk of sentences for the talk of reality. Thus to
s
a
yt
h
a
t“
Snowi
swhi
t
e
”i
st
r
uei
st
os
a
yt
ha
ts
nowi
si
nr
e
a
l
i
t
ywhi
t
e
.
Thi
ss
e
e
mst
obet
he
reason Quine claims that his theory of truth is a kind of correspondence theory (Quine
1990b, p. 80). As long as we do not possess some sort of telepathic communicative ability
that does not involve any linguistic forms whatsoever, we need linguistic expressions to
help us articulate facts. Whether or not we can specify a fact without any linguistic form
involved is less important here. What is important is that we have to rely on linguistic
f
or
mst
os
pe
c
i
f
yf
a
c
t
si
na
l
lki
ndsofc
ommuni
c
a
t
i
ons
.He
nc
eQui
ne
’
spoi
ntc
a
nbe
illustrated as the claim that any given sentence of a target language is true if and only if
this sentence articulates a fact.
According to most realists, truths as well as facts should be independent from scientific
t
he
or
i
e
s
.Howe
ve
r
,Qui
ne
’
si
de
a
soft
r
ut
ha
ndf
a
c
tdonotr
e
s
pe
c
tt
hi
svi
e
w.Oura
c
c
ountof
what reality should be concei
ve
dof
,a
c
c
or
di
ngt
oQui
ne
’
shol
i
s
ma
ndt
he
s
i
sof
under-determination, makes no absolute sense.62 It depends on how we construct
61
According to Colin McGinn, disquotationalism can be used to reject the classic coherence theory of truth.
Please cf. McGinn 2000, pp. 194-195.
62
The thesis of under-determination is that theories or theoretical formulations can be empirically
equivalent—that is, they imply the same set of empirical consequences—while being logically incompatible
216
hypotheses to interpret pieces of empirical evidence. According to holism, we have the
latitude to modify our theory, to redistribute truth-values over some sentences of our
theory, even logical truths, when a conflict with experience happens.63 And the
modification or redistribution of truth-values can occur in more than one way. It seems
that we have different ways to capture reality. The thesis of under-determination pushes
this to an extreme degree, for it implies that all possible observations fail to determine the
unique nature of reality.64 Therefore, what sorts of facts we have are relative to the theory
we hold. Otherwise, logically incompatible theories that account for all possible
observations are unintelligibly in support of the same set of facts. So, different
comprehensive scientific theories claim different sets of facts. It follows that talking about
the correspondencer
e
l
a
t
i
oni
na
na
bs
ol
ut
es
e
ns
ei
spoi
nt
l
e
s
s
.He
nc
eQui
ne
’
s
correspondence theory is not the normal kind in which most realists are interested. Even
with each other in a non-trivial sense. The logical incompatibility of two theoretical formulations might
s
i
mpl
ybet
h
a
tt
h
e
yh
a
v
eadi
f
f
e
r
e
n
tu
s
a
g
ef
ort
wot
h
e
or
e
t
i
c
a
lt
e
r
ms
,s
a
y
,‘
e
l
e
c
t
r
on’a
n
d‘
mol
e
c
u
l
e
’
,which do
not appear in the linguistic vehicles of their empirical consequences. What are said in theoretical
f
or
mu
l
a
t
i
onTa
b
ou
t‘
e
l
e
c
t
r
on’i
sa
bou
t‘
mol
e
c
u
l
e
’i
na
n
ot
h
e
rf
or
mu
l
a
t
i
onU,a
n
ds
i
mi
l
a
r
l
ya
bou
tt
h
ewor
d
‘
mol
e
c
u
l
e
’
.
Th
es
e
e
mi
n
g
l
yl
ogi
c
a
li
n
c
ompa
t
ibility coming from the divergent usage of terms, for Quine, is
superficial and can be dispensed with by reconstrual of predicates.
Wh
a
t‘
r
e
c
on
s
t
r
u
a
lofpr
e
di
c
a
t
e
s
’me
a
ns
i
s‘
a
nyma
ppi
ngofou
rl
e
x
i
c
onofpr
e
di
c
a
t
e
si
n
t
oope
ns
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
s
’(
Qu
i
n
e1975,p.
32
0).
63
One might argue that logical truths are different from other sentences in the sense that they are devoid of
content, or that their truth has nothing to do with their content. The disputable part is whether logic is a
compendium of the broadest traits of reality or it is just an effect of linguistic convention (Quine 1970, p.
96)
.“
Mu
s
ta
l
lr
i
g
h
t
-mi
n
de
dme
na
g
r
e
eonl
ogi
c
,ori
si
te
v
e
r
yl
a
ngu
a
g
ef
ori
t
s
e
l
f
?
”(
i
bi
d.
)I
nt
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
n
ga
remote language, however, the logic of the translated language is at worst incommensurable with ours but
never in conflict, for the conflict only discredits our translation. Following this line, it seems that logic is
naturally an effect of linguistic convention. But the truth predicate plus some other Quinean theses—that is,
holism, indeterminacy of translation, and inscrutability of reference—s
e
pa
r
a
t
el
og
i
cf
r
oml
a
n
gu
a
g
e
.“
Th
e
truth predicate serves the crucial purpose, in oblique generalisation, of disquotation. Logical theory, despite
its heavy dependence on talk of language, is already world-oriented rather than language-oriented; and the
t
r
u
t
hpr
e
di
c
a
t
ema
k
e
si
ts
o.
”(
i
bi
d.
,p.
97
)
64
Gi
l
be
r
tHa
r
ma
ni
n“
Me
a
n
i
nga
n
dTh
e
or
y
”s
ug
g
e
s
t
st
h
a
tt
h
e
r
ea
r
et
won
ot
i
on
sofe
mpi
r
i
c
a
le
qu
i
v
a
l
e
n
c
e
.
The first one is that two theories are empirically equivalent if and only if they are equally supported by all
observational evidence. The second is that two theories are empirically equivalent if and only if they are
compatible with a
l
lobs
e
r
v
a
t
i
on
a
le
v
i
de
n
c
e
.I
n“
OnPoppe
r
’
sNe
g
a
t
i
v
eMe
t
h
odol
ogy
”
(
Qu
i
ne1974
a), Quine
argues that there is no confirmational support of natural laws or the like but only non-disconfirmational
support of them. (cf. ibid., pp. 218-20) There is no observational evidence that can confirm a hypothesis or
a law or the like  pieces of evidence only support them in the sense that they do not refute them. In other
words, what the pieces of observational evidence support is the compatibility between a theory and
observations. Therefore, there is no genuine distinction betweent
h
ec
on
c
e
pt
sof‘
e
qu
a
l
l
ys
u
ppor
t
e
dby
’a
n
d
‘
c
ompa
t
i
bl
ewi
t
h’f
orQu
i
n
e
.
217
though Quine seems to express his preference for realism in Quine 1995, his account of
the correspondence theory has no attraction for other realists. The resultant account of
realism that Quine supports is hardly the realism that we are familiar with.
Qui
ne
’
si
nc
l
i
na
t
i
ons
houl
dnotbea
boutt
hec
or
r
e
s
ponde
nc
et
he
or
yoft
r
ut
h,butr
a
t
he
r
about a correspondence intuition regarding truth. In considering the passage cited from
Quine 1990b (
p.93)
,t
hi
si
sa
ppa
r
e
nti
nt
hef
ol
l
owi
ngwor
dsquot
e
df
r
om “
Comme
nton
La
ue
n
e
r
”(
Qui
ne1990a):
I keep to the correspondence theory of truth, but only holophrastically: it resolves out into
Ta
r
s
k
i
’
sdi
s
qu
ot
a
t
i
on
a
lv
e
r
s
i
onoft
r
u
t
hr
a
t
h
e
rt
h
a
nac
or
r
e
s
pon
de
n
c
eofwor
dst
oobj
e
c
t
s
.
(p. 229)
The correspondence intuition can be phrased neatly as follows: the sentence mentioned
and used in all instances of (DQ) is exactly the same sentence with the same interpretation.
I
not
h
e
rwor
ds
,whe
noneus
e
sas
e
nt
e
nc
e
,f
ori
ns
t
a
nc
e
,“
s
nowi
swhi
t
e
”t
oma
kea
n
65
a
s
s
e
r
t
i
ona
boutt
her
e
a
l
i
t
y
,onec
a
ne
qua
l
l
ya
s
s
e
r
tt
ha
t“
Snowi
swhi
t
e
”i
st
r
ue
.
Now let us move onto the second part of this section. My formulation of
disquotationalism, based on (DQ), as I indicated above, separates the theory of meaning
ni
c
e
l
yf
r
omt
het
he
or
yoft
r
ut
h.I
fweha
veat
he
or
yofme
a
ni
nga
ss
t
r
onga
sHor
wi
c
h’
s
,
65
McGinn in McGinn 2000 adheres to what he calls thick disquotationalism, according to which the
concept of truth is simple, without empirical essence or nature, unanalysable, but substantial (p. 202). Truth
is a robust property and is disquotationally definable because it is the one and only self-effacing property
whose application conditions can be stated without making reference whatsoever to itself (p, 198).
Moreover, truth is essentially a device of inference; by learning that a certain proposition is true one can
infer a fact of the world in terms of making a transition from the truth of the proposition to that very fact.
Disquotation sentences accordingly are read as follows: from left to right, they are read as
reality-implying—that is, by knowing that truth applies to a proposition one comes to know facts about the
world (p. 199); from right to left, the truths are supervenient on the facts but do not collapse into facts and
propositions, since it is an irreducible property (pp. 205-206). Except for seeing truth as a robust property,
almost all the features above can be explicated in terms of my interpretation of (DQ). What thick
disquotationalism does not tell us, is how to explain the feature of semantic ascent. How can such a
substantial truth predicate form generalisations by which those corresponding infinite conjunctions and
disjunctions are expressed?
218
then in the cases of NUSDL the disquotational truth predicate is equally applicable to
sentences of other languages. Even under this consideration, disquotationalism is still
more preferable than minimalism according to the analyses in the last two sections. If
such a strong theory of meaning is not available, then truth ascription varies from one
translation/interpretation manual to another. Disquotationalism under this condition is still
in a better shape, for minimalism inevitably collapses. The genuine problem of my
f
or
mul
a
t
i
onofQui
ne
’
sdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
me
me
r
ge
s from his theory of meaning, from his
inclination to accept truth conditional semantics.
For instance, in Quine 1974b, he says:
[I]n learning language, we are learning how to distribute truth values. I am with Davidson
here; we are learning truth conditions. (p. 65)
I
ti
sc
e
r
t
a
i
nl
yt
e
mpt
i
ngt
og
oa
f
t
e
rMi
c
ha
e
lWi
l
l
i
a
ms
’vi
e
wi
n“
Me
a
ni
nga
ndDe
f
l
a
t
i
ona
r
y
Tr
ut
h”(
Wi
l
l
i
a
ms1999)t
ha
t
,pr
ovi
di
ngFi
e
l
d’
sdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
lt
he
or
ya
st
hes
a
mpl
e
,t
he
concept of truth need not play an explanatory but only an expressive role in the major
parts of a Davidsonian theory of meaning. For example, the imputation of logical form to
alien utterances, ascribing semantic relations of reference and satisfaction to nonlogical,
subsentential components of utterances, and most importantly the principle of charity.66
Establishing this view, a Davidsonian theory of meaning can join the deflationary club.
Howe
v
e
r
,a
c
c
or
di
ngt
oJ
e
f
f
r
e
yHe
r
s
hf
i
e
l
da
ndDe
bor
a
hHa
ns
e
nSol
e
si
n“
Re
i
nf
l
a
t
i
ng
Tr
ut
ha
sa
nExpl
a
na
t
or
yConc
e
pt
”(
2003)
,t
hi
svi
e
wi
s totally a misconception of a
Davidsonian theory of meaning.
66
Al
s
oc
f
.“
OnSomeCr
i
t
i
c
sofDe
f
l
a
t
i
on
i
s
m”(
2002)
,e
s
pe
c
i
a
l
l
yp.156in which Williams argues that the
r
ol
eof‘
t
r
u
e
’pl
a
y
e
di
nt
h
et
r
u
t
hc
on
di
t
i
onsofobs
e
r
v
a
t
i
ons
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
si
sj
u
s
tg
e
n
e
r
a
l
i
s
i
nga
nde
x
pr
e
s
s
i
ng
.
219
I merely indicate two points made by Hershfield and Soles, which mean that any attempt
to deflationise Davidsonian theory of meaning is doomed. The first point regards
Wi
l
l
i
a
ms
’
sc
l
a
i
mt
ha
tr
e
ading first order logic into alien utterances is neutral with respect
to the issue of whether truth is deflationary, and the point runs as follows:
Williams seemingly overlooks the ontological ramifications that come along with
Da
v
i
ds
on’
sa
ppl
i
c
a
t
i
onofaTarski-style theory.
In particular, [Williams] seems to ignore the fact that the assignment of first order logical
form, with a standard objectual interpretation of the quantifiers, carries certain
ontological import: using such a theory to generate truth conditions for utterances of a
speaker is, among other things, to impute to that speaker beliefs about the existence (or
non-existence) of various (sorts of) things. (Hershfield & Soles 2003, p. 36)
So the imputation of logic into alien utterances is to commit an alien informant to
something ontologically to which a deflationary concept of truth cannot do. The second
point is about the principle of charity, which Williams characterises as the maximisation
of truth and observational adequacy:
Da
v
i
ds
on’
spr
i
n
ciple of charity is a precondition of any interpretation at all. As such it is
part of a rationalizing enterprise which involves attributions of belief (and meaning and
desire). The attribution of contentful belief can and will involve attributions of what the
interpretee counts as evidence; it will also involve occasional attributions of erroneous
belief, that is, the attribution of some belief to the interpretee which the interpreter does
not hold true but for which the interpreter can find an explanation for the fact that the
interpretee does hold it true. But error presupposes an explanatory concept of truth, for it
represents the case where what is held true comes apart from what is actually true.67
(ibid., p. 37)
It does not seem to make any sense, in both of the maximisation of truth and
obs
e
r
va
t
i
ona
la
de
qua
c
y
,t
oba
s
eFi
e
l
d’
se
xt
e
nde
ddi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
mt
ous
et
hema
ppi
ng
r
e
l
a
t
i
onbe
t
we
e
none
’
sownut
t
e
r
a
nc
e
sa
nda
l
i
e
none
s
,t
oe
xpl
a
i
nDa
vi
ds
oni
a
npr
i
nc
i
pl
eof
67
In Horwich 1998a,
Hor
wi
c
hc
l
a
i
mst
h
a
t
,e
x
c
e
ptt
h
edi
v
e
r
g
e
n
c
ei
nt
h
ee
x
pl
a
n
a
t
or
yor
de
r
,“
Da
v
i
ds
on’
s
principle of c
h
a
r
i
t
ya
r
g
u
a
bl
yboi
l
sdownt
o[
hi
s
]us
et
h
e
or
yofme
a
n
i
ng
”(
p.72)
.Con
s
i
de
r
i
ngt
h
epos
s
i
bi
l
i
t
y
oft
h
ea
s
c
r
i
pt
i
onofe
r
r
orbe
l
i
e
f
,e
i
t
h
e
rHor
wi
c
h’
si
n
t
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
onoft
h
i
si
mpor
t
a
n
tpr
i
n
c
i
pl
eofDa
v
i
ds
on
i
a
n
theory fails, or he implicitly employs truth substantively as an explanatory concept. In either way, his
ob
j
e
c
t
i
on
st
oDa
v
i
ds
on’
st
h
e
or
ya
r
es
i
gn
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
ywe
a
k
e
n
e
d.
220
charity.
Final remarks
At the end of the day, I do not look at any possible reconciliation with sanguinity. There
are only two options left. One is to go all along the line of disquotationalism and to
abandon any idea of accepting the truth conditional theory of meaning. Or we can follow
Davidson in seeing truth as a substantive primitive, and hence depart from disquotational
reasoning. So we may come to the conclusion that either one should adopt truth
conditional semantics or, if one tends toward deflationism, one should choose the
Quinean disquotational theory based on (DQ)ove
rHor
wi
c
h’
smi
ni
ma
l
i
s
m.
221
Conclusion
At the beginning of the Introduction, I listed some issues regarding deflationism that had
yet to be clarified. These were:
1. What is a proper formulation of a disquotational schema of truth?
2. What is the modal status of disquotation sentences or the axioms of the minimal
theory of proposition truth?
3. How sensible are the presuppositions involved in asking these questions about the
modal status of sentences or axioms?
4. How should we give the deflationary theory of truth the deductive power it needs so
as so as to adequately explain all general facts involving truth?
5. What is the deflationary conception of reference? Is it feasible to explicate the
deflationary conception of truth in terms of the disquotational concepts of reference
and satisfaction?
6. What is an appropriate account of propositions for use in a minimalist account of
truth?
7. What sort of equivalence relation occurs within disquotational sentences or minimalist
axioms of truth?
8. Between disquotationalism, taking sentences as the primary truth bearers, and
minimalism, taking propositions as the primary truth bears, which is the more
promising approach to a deflationary theory of truth?
Hopefully this dissertation has made some contribution to a more appropriate
222
understanding of disquotationalism and minimalism. The first question is of course a very
general one, which is answered throughout the work. The second question has been
answered by the way in which I address many criticisms of disquotationalism, and some
of minimalism as well, which stem from a misinterpretation of the disquotational schema
of truth. For instance, David, Künne, and many others, criticise disquotationalism for
falling short of accounting for the modal status of disquotation sentences. According to
Mc
Gr
a
t
h,t
hi
si
sa
l
s
oapr
obl
e
mf
orHor
wi
c
h’
smi
ni
ma
l
i
s
m.I
nt
hes
e
c
onds
e
c
t
i
onof
Chapter Two I showed that this is the consequence of misinterpreting the disquotational
schema of truth as ascribing the truth predicate to sentence types disregarding what
contents they have. This sort of misinterpretation turns the whole reasoning of
disquotationalism and minimalism into a grotesquery. Further, in Chapter Five I argued
that the necessary status of disquotation sentences is not indispensable when explaining
all general facts regarding truth—this of course also addresses the fourth question above.
If there is any reason for disquotation sentences as well as the axioms of the minimal
theory to be necessary, it must be because of something else.
Thes
e
v
e
nt
hque
s
t
i
oni
sde
a
l
twi
t
hi
npa
r
tbymydi
s
c
us
s
i
onofGupt
a
’
sc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
m of
disquotationalism and minimalism that the equivalence relation within any instance of the
disquotational schema, as well as any instance of the equivalence schema, has to be sense
equivalence in order to maintain the expressing feature of the truth predicate. In Chapter
Five, I showed that the sense equivalence reading does not concern anyone as long as a
suitable explanation of the reasoning of infinitary inference is given. And this reasoning
in turn was discussed in the second section of Chapter Five.
223
We can see that these criticisms can be answered by a proper understanding and a proper
formulation of the disquotational schema. Following the clarific
a
t
i
onofQui
ne
’
s
reasoning on the disquotational feature of the truth predicate, namely, semantic ascent and
descent, my formulation of the disquotational schema within the truth language relative to
a target language is given in Chapter Two. This formulation addresses the first highly
general question in the list. The schema is:
(DQ)‘
p’i
st
r
uei
f
fp,
whe
r
et
hef
i
r
s
t‘
p’i
sr
e
pl
a
c
e
dbya
nys
e
nt
e
nc
eoft
het
a
r
g
e
tl
a
ng
ua
g
ea
ndt
hes
e
c
ond
‘
p’byt
hes
a
mes
e
nt
e
nc
ewi
t
ht
hes
a
mei
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
on.
Further in Chapter Five, I argued that, in terms of this formulation, the sense equivalence
as well as the necessary equivalence relations are not necessary in order for the truth
predicate to express infinite conjunctions. The material equivalence relation is enough for
the truth predicate to do this, providing that, of course, a suitable account of the reasoning
of infinitary inference is available. Thus the second, third, and seventh questions from the
list are addressed by my reply to objections raised by David, Künne, and many others,
which do not arise according to the proper understanding of (DQ). Granted, the material
equivalence relation of the disquotational schema, (DQ), is a bit stronger than the usual
one, for the sentences mentioned and used in all disquotation sentences are restricted to
the same sentence with the same interpretation. This is precisely why Quine takes truth as
immanent t
ohomel
a
ng
ua
ge
s
,f
o
rTa
r
s
ki
’
sT-sentences are not automatically instances of
(DQ). The expressibility of infinite conjunctions in terms of the corresponding
generalisations depends on both the material equivalence relation and the additional
restriction about the sentence mentioned and used in every instance of the generalisations.
However, this restriction does not yield any modal relation to the schema and its
224
instances.
I go some way towards dealing with question five in my discussion of the disquotational
conception of reference. Along with the disquotational feature of the truth predicate, the
disquotationalist and the minimalist normally adopt a disquotational theory of reference,
considering the disquotational schema of reference and all its instances to provide a
genuine reference scheme for the target language. Some disquotationalists, such as
Halbach and McGee, even claim that the disquotational concept of truth can be explicated
in terms of the disquotational concepts of reference and satisfaction. I showed in Chapter
Fi
vet
ha
tMc
Ge
e
’
sa
c
c
ounti
sba
s
e
donami
s
unde
r
s
t
a
ndi
ngofQui
ne
’
si
nde
t
e
r
mi
na
c
y
t
he
s
i
s
.
Ha
l
ba
c
h’
s account, on the other hand, is different. In order to enhance the
deductive power of the disquotational theory of truth, Halbach proposes to explicate the
concept of truth in terms of the inductive axioms of reference and satisfaction. In Chapter
Three, I argued that both claims cannot be accepted by Quine.
Question five is also dealt with in much of the second and third chapters—particularly
wi
t
hr
e
f
e
r
e
nc
et
oHa
l
ba
c
h’
spr
opos
a
l
.I
nt
hos
ec
ha
pt
e
r
sIs
howe
dhi
spr
opos
a
lf
a
c
e
sa
problem of the explanatory order, as well as a problem of falling short of implying all
disquotation sentences of the target language. If the disquotational schema of reference is
c
ons
i
de
r
e
da
spr
ovi
di
ngage
nui
ner
e
f
e
r
e
nc
es
c
he
me
,t
he
nQui
ne
’
st
he
s
e
sofi
ns
c
r
ut
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
of reference a
ndont
ol
og
i
c
a
lr
e
l
a
t
i
vi
t
ya
r
ej
e
opa
r
di
s
e
d.ForQui
ne
’
sma
ne
uvr
e
,whi
c
he
n
ds
the infinite relativisation of ontology in practice by acquiescing in our own language and
taking its words at face value, amounts to the claim that the relativised explication of any
given reference scheme of other languages or theories has to rely on unrelativised
225
semantic notions applied to our own language. In additional to this, I showed that the
disquotational schema of reference and all its instances, if taken as providing a genuine
reference scheme, cannot account for all the facts involving reference. For instance,
consider the hidden indeterminacy of reference in pre-Newtonian formulation of physics.
Ic
onc
l
ude
dt
ha
tadi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
la
c
c
ountofr
e
f
e
r
e
nc
e
,s
uc
ha
sHor
wi
c
h’
s
, is too
deflationary to account for referential indeterminacy. A disquotational schema of
reference is useful in scientific reasoning, but serious problems emerge when it is seen as
providing a genuine reference scheme.
I return now to how I have dealt with the fourth question. One of the most important tasks
of disquotationalism and minimalism is to explain all general facts involving truth.
Therefore, it is important for disquotationalism and minimalism to show that they have
enough deductive power to explain why infinite conjunctions or disjunctions can be
e
xpr
e
s
s
e
di
nt
e
r
msoft
het
r
ut
hpr
e
di
c
a
t
e
.If
ound,i
nCha
pt
e
rFi
ve
,t
ha
tHor
wi
c
h’
sa
c
c
ount
of explaining general facts involving truth (in Horwich 1998b) is incoherent. On the one
hand, he claims that the minimal theory of truth does not become substantial because of
its commitment to the existence of propositions. For it presupposes very little about the
nature of propositions. On the other hand, the crucial arguments for the capacity of the
minimal theory of truth to explain all general facts involving truth depend heavily for
their validity on the very nature of propositions. Moreover, Horwich claims that he
follows Quine in supposing that the logical principles relied upon in scientific theorising
are justified in so far as they are members of the simplest way of accommodating
experience. Therefore, the principles of deductive logic, according to Horwich, are neither
susceptible to, nor in need of, demonstrative justification. This, however, indicates
226
another incoherence. If there is no need to justify the principles of deductive logic, such
as modus ponens, why does Horwich appeal to the nature of propositions to prove that the
generalisation regarding the principle of modus ponens can be derived from all its
instances?
Later, Horwich abandons appealing to the nature of propositions, and turns to
mathematical inductive reasoning. That is, whenever someone can establish, for every F,
that is G, and recognises that he can do this, then he will conclude that every F is G. This
reasoning, however, generates problems regarding the liar paradox for minimalism. In
sum, either the truth predicate does not apply to every proposition, or the applications
pr
oduc
epa
r
a
doxe
s
,butt
he
r
ei
snowa
yt
ha
tHor
wi
c
h’
sa
ccount can get away from this.
Chapter four contains much of my discussion of the sixth question. In this chapter I
c
ons
i
de
rHor
wi
c
h’
sc
l
a
i
m,f
ol
l
owi
nghi
si
l
l
us
t
r
a
t
i
onofwha
twor
dme
a
ni
ng
sa
nds
e
nt
e
nt
i
a
l
me
a
ni
ng
sa
r
e
,t
ha
tQui
ne
’
si
nde
t
e
r
mi
na
c
yt
he
s
i
sdoes not successfully repudiate meaning
entities. He argues that this is because reference is not inscrutable. Hence, he argues,
Qui
ne
’
spr
oxyf
unc
t
i
ona
r
g
ume
ntdoe
snots
howt
ha
tt
he
r
ea
r
eonl
ya
de
qua
t
et
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
o
n
manuals, but not a correct one. In discuss
i
ngHor
wi
c
h’
sQQQa
c
c
ount
,If
i
r
s
ti
ndi
c
a
t
e
d
t
ha
thi
sf
or
mul
a
t
i
onoft
hea
l
l
e
g
e
da
r
g
ume
ntofQui
nei
sa
c
t
ua
l
l
ynotQui
ne
’
s
.
The
e
mpha
s
i
sofQui
ne
’
si
nde
t
e
r
mi
na
c
yt
he
s
i
si
si
na
c
c
ur
a
t
e
l
yboi
l
e
ddown,byHor
wi
c
h,t
ot
he
inscrutability of reference. Probably because of this, the importance of the proxy function
a
r
g
ume
nti
sove
r
e
s
t
i
ma
t
e
dbyHor
wi
c
hi
ne
va
l
ua
t
i
ngQui
ne
’
si
nde
t
e
r
mi
na
c
yt
he
s
i
s
.I
c
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
e
dHor
wi
c
h’
sdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
lt
he
or
yofr
e
f
e
r
e
nc
ei
nCha
pt
e
rThr
e
e
.
Wha
tHor
wi
c
h
f
a
i
l
st
ounde
r
s
t
a
nda
boutQui
ne
’
s indeterminacy thesis, is that in the case of radical
227
t
r
a
ns
l
a
t
i
on,wi
t
hr
e
g
a
r
dt
ot
het
ot
a
l
i
t
yofhe
ri
nf
or
ma
nt
s
’l
i
ng
ui
s
t
i
cdi
s
pos
i
t
i
ons
,ourf
i
e
l
d
linguist does not have the luxury to hope for any evidence beyond this. Even if we get the
totality of assertability conditions of our informants, we cannot establish semantic facts of
the translated language. True, if the proxy function argument is valid, then reference is
inscrutable and the ontology of a given language or a given theory has to be relativised to
be comprehended. Hence translation of another language is indeterminate. In contrast to
Hor
wi
c
h’
sove
r
e
s
t
i
ma
t
i
onoft
hei
mpor
t
a
nc
eoft
hepr
oxyf
unc
t
i
ona
r
g
ume
nt
,howe
ve
r
,t
he
indeterminacy thesis does not hinge its significance on the validity of this argument. The
notion of proxy function is used to make a point regarding semantical reasoning. The
notion itself is not a semantic notion. To actually infer a reference relation from its proxy
or the other way round is irrelevant and incidental.
I also di
s
c
us
s
e
dHor
wi
c
h’
sus
e
-theoretic account of meaning in Chapter Four. Based on
his view according to which the meaning property of a word is metaphysically
indistinguishable to its use property, Horwich arrives at the conclusion that each word has
its (explanatorily basic) use property, according to which the overall use of a word is best
explained. A word of a language is synonymous with a word of another language so long
as they have exactly the same use property. In terms of his account of compositionality,
applying a schema with a schematic property to the constituents of the sentence in an
exact order, one gets a construction property for each sentence. Similarly, two sentences
of different languages are synonymous if and only if they have the same construction
property. Consequently, a proposition can be explicated as the construction property of
the sentence expressing it. Therefore, a successful formulation of a use-theoretic account
of propositions makes a minimal theory of propositional truth more materialised.
228
Thef
i
r
s
tpr
obl
e
mofHor
wi
c
h’
su
s
e
-theoretic account of meaning is that the explanatorily
ba
s
i
cus
epr
ope
r
t
yofawor
dde
p
e
ndsont
hedi
s
t
i
nc
t
i
onbe
t
we
e
nt
hewor
d’
sba
s
i
cus
ea
nd
the rest. Horwich thinks that a use property of the basic use of a word is explanatorily
basic if and only if it can best explain the not basic use of the word. However, he does not
give us a satisfactory account of how to distinguish the basic use of a word from the rest
of its use. It is very likely that this distinction eventually boils down to a contingent fact
that can be known only through an empirical or scientific inquiry. This implies that there
might be equally explanatorily basic use properties of a word, due to the contingency of
the distinction. Secondly a
ndmor
ei
mpor
t
a
nt
l
y
,Hor
wi
c
h’
se
nt
i
r
eus
e
-theoretic account of
meaning depends for its plausibility on some contingent use facts of a language, in his
case, English. He seems to assume that different languages all share the total contingent
use facts of English. This is hardly acceptable. It is more apparent in his account of
compositionality that, according to him, different languages share the same set of
s
y
nt
he
t
i
cs
c
he
ma
t
a
.
Thef
unda
me
nt
a
ldi
f
f
i
c
ul
t
yf
orHor
wi
c
h’
sus
e
-theoretic account of
word meaning and compositionality is its fine-grained character. The particular semantic
and synthetic features of foreign words are finely ground into meaningless pieces by
Hor
wi
c
h’
smi
l
l
.
The fourth and eighth questions are answered by how I show that the deficiencies in
Hor
wi
c
h’
sus
e
-theoretic account of meaning and compositionality suggest a missing link
in his enterprise of deflationary semantics. Regardless of whether or not Horwich
provides an acceptable account of propositions, the minimal theory of propositional truth
is unable to explain all ascriptions of the truth predicate. In Chapter Five, in discussing
229
the proper applications of the truth predicate in the disquotational or the minimalist sense
to sentences or propositions that one does not understand, I found that the minimalist
truth predicate cannot be applied to sentences that one does not understand. For one does
not know what propositions are expressed by those sentences. As a result, the minimalist
truth predicate is not applicable to sentences that one does not understand. This further
da
ma
g
e
sHor
wi
c
h’
sma
t
he
ma
t
i
c
a
li
nduc
t
i
ver
e
a
s
oni
ngr
e
ga
r
di
ngt
hemi
ni
ma
l
i
s
t
explanation of general facts involving truth. This reasoning has its effectiveness only for
sentences that one understands, but not for all propositions. The possible expansion of
language does not much help here. Based on the assumption or common sense that for
any declarative sentence there is a corresponding proposition, Horwich formulates his
equivalence schema. For sentences that a given speaker does not understand, the function
of the minimalist truth predicate that plays the role of forming generalisations, is only
fulfilled by accepting the aforementioned assumption that those non-understood sentences
do express propositions because of their declarative feature. In other words, the
minimalist truth ascription to many instances of a given generalisation is founded on our
implicit, if not explicit, acceptance of (DQ).
I
nt
hef
i
na
ls
e
c
t
i
onofCha
pt
e
rFi
ve
,Ibr
i
e
f
l
ydi
s
c
us
s
e
dQui
ne
’
spos
s
i
bl
yincoherent
attitudes toward the matter of truth. I did not see any reconciliation between his
disquotational reasoning with respect to truth and his advocacy of a Davidsonian truth
c
ondi
t
i
ona
la
ppr
oa
c
h.I
nt
e
r
msoft
hec
ompa
r
i
s
onbe
t
we
e
nQui
ne
’
sdi
s
quot
a
t
ionalism and
Hor
wi
c
h’
smi
ni
ma
l
i
s
m,h
owe
ve
r
,Ic
onc
l
ude
dt
ha
ti
ft
he
r
ei
sas
t
r
ongt
he
or
yofme
a
ni
ng
,
then we can have a general account of disquotational truth or minimalist truth. Even given
t
hi
ss
i
t
ua
t
i
on,Qui
ne
’
sdi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
mi
spr
e
f
e
r
a
bl
et
oHor
wi
c
h’
smi
ni
ma
l
i
s
m.I
ft
he
r
e
230
is no strong theory of meaning, then disquotationalism has to cope with the following
problem: how do speakers of different languages, or even the same language, use the truth
pr
e
di
c
a
t
e
?ButHor
wi
c
h’
smi
ni
ma
l
i
s
mi
s
,ont
heot
he
rhand, destined to fail.
231
Bibliography:
Aki
ba
,Ke
n(
2002)“
Ca
nDe
f
l
a
t
i
oni
s
mAl
l
owf
orHi
dde
nI
nde
t
e
r
mi
na
c
y
?
”
,i
nPacific
Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 83, pp. 223-234.
Alston, W. (1996) A Realist Conception of Truth, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Armour-Ga
r
b,Br
a
dl
e
y(
2004)“
Mi
ni
ma
l
i
s
m,t
heGe
ne
r
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
onPr
obl
e
ma
ndt
heLi
a
r
”
,i
n
Synthese, Volume 139, pp. 491-512.
Az
z
ou
n
i
,
J
ody(
1998)“
On“
OnWha
tThe
r
eI
s
”
”
,i
nPacific Philosophical Quarterly,
volume 79, issue 1, pp. 1-18.
Boghossian, Paul (1990a) “
TheSt
a
t
usofCont
e
nt
”
,i
nThe Philosophical Review, April,
pp. 247-263.
——(1990b)“
TheSt
a
t
usofCont
e
ntRe
vi
s
i
t
e
d”
,i
nPacific Philosophical Quarterly 71,
pp. 264-278.
Brandom, R. (1994), Making it Explicit, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Br
e
nde
l
,El
ke(
2000)
,“
Ci
r
c
ul
a
r
i
t
ya
ndt
heDe
ba
t
ebe
t
we
e
nDe
f
l
a
t
i
oni
s
ta
ndSubs
t
a
nt
i
ve
The
or
i
e
sofTr
ut
h”
,i
nCircularity, Definition and Truth, edited by André Chapuis
and Anil Gupta, New Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical Research, pp.29-47.
Buchanan,R.(
2003)“
Ar
eTr
ut
ha
ndRe
f
e
r
e
nc
eQua
s
i
-Di
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
?
”
,i
nPhilosophical
Studies, volume 113, no. 1, pp. 43-75.
Chr
i
s
t
e
ns
e
n,Da
vi
d(
1993)“
Ske
p
t
i
c
a
lPr
obl
e
ms
,Se
ma
nt
i
c
a
lSol
ut
i
ons
”
,i
nPhilosophy
and Phenomenological Research, Volume 53, Issue 2, pp. 301-321.
Col
l
i
ns
,
J
ohn(
1993)“
Hor
wi
c
h’
sSc
he
ma
t
aMe
e
tSy
nt
a
c
t
i
cSt
r
uc
t
ur
e
s
”
,i
nMind, Volume
112, Issue 447, pp. 399-431.
David, Marian A. (1994), Correspondence and Disquotation, New York, Oxford
University press.
——(
1996)
,“
Ana
l
y
t
i
c
i
t
y
,Ca
r
na
p,Qui
ne
,a
ndTr
ut
h”
,i
nPhilosophical Perspectives, 10,
Metaphysics, pp. 281-296.
——(
2000)
,“
Mi
ni
ma
l
i
s
ma
ndt
heFa
c
t
sa
boutTr
ut
h”
,i
nWhat is Truth, edited by Richard
Schantz, Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, pp.161-175.
——(
2003)“
Tr
ut
h,El
i
mi
na
t
i
vi
s
m,a
ndDi
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
m”
,i
nNoûs, Volume 23, Issue
447, pp. 599-614.
Da
vi
ds
on,Dona
l
d(
1979)
,“
TheI
n
s
c
r
ut
a
bi
l
i
t
yofRe
f
e
r
e
nc
e
”i
nInquiries into Truth and
Interpretation (1984), New York, Oxford University press, pp. 227-241.
——(
1990)“
TheSt
r
uc
t
ur
ea
ndCont
e
ntofTr
ut
h”
, in Journal of Philosophy, Volume 87,
Issue 6, pp. 279-328.
232
——(
1996)“
TheFol
l
yofTr
y
i
ngt
oDe
f
i
neTr
ut
h”
,i
nJournal of Philosophy, Volume 93,
Issue 6, pp. 263-278.
De
vi
t
t
,Mi
c
ha
e
l(
2001)
,“
TheMe
t
a
phy
s
i
c
sofTr
ut
h”
,i
nThe Nature of Truth, edited by
Michael Lynch, Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, pp. 579-611.
Di
l
l
a
r
d,Pe
t
e
rS.(
1996)“
Ra
di
c
a
l
Ant
i
-De
f
l
a
t
i
oni
s
m”
,i
nPhilosophy and
Phenomenological Research, Volume 56, Issue 1, pp. 173-181.
Engel, Pascal (2002), Truth, Montreal: McGill-Que
e
n’
sUni
ve
r
s
i
t
yPr
e
s
s
.
Et
c
he
me
ndy
,J
ohn(
1988)
,“
Ta
r
s
kionTr
ut
ha
ndLog
i
c
a
lCons
e
que
nc
e
”
,The Journal of
Symbolic Logic 53, pp. 51-79.
Fi
e
l
d,Ha
r
t
r
y(
1972)
,“
Ta
r
s
ki
’
sTh
e
or
yofTr
ut
h”(
i
nc
l
udi
ng“
Pos
t
s
c
r
i
pt
”(
2001)
)
,i
nTruth
and the Absent of Fact (2001). Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 3-29.
——(
1973)
,“
The
or
yCha
ngea
n
dt
heI
nde
t
e
r
mi
na
c
yofRe
f
e
r
e
nc
e
”(
i
nc
l
udi
ng
“
Pos
t
s
c
r
i
pt
”(
2001)
)
,i
nTruth and the Absent of Fact (2001). Oxford: Clarendon
Press, pp. 177-198.
——(
1974)
,“
Qui
nea
ndt
heCor
r
e
s
ponde
nc
eThe
or
y
”(
i
nc
l
udi
ng“
Pos
t
s
c
r
i
pt
”(
2001)
)
,i
n
Truth and the Absent of Fact (2001). Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 199-221.
——(
1986)
,“
TheDe
f
l
a
t
i
ona
r
yConc
e
pt
i
onofTr
ut
h”
,i
nFact, Science, and Morality:
Es
s
ay
sonA.J
.
Ay
e
r
’
s‘
Lang
uage
,
Tr
ut
handLogi
c
’
, edited by G. Macdonald and C.
Wright. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 55-117.
——(
1994)
,“
De
f
l
a
t
i
oni
s
tVi
e
wso
fMe
a
ni
nga
ndCont
e
nt
”(
i
nc
l
udi
ng“
Pos
t
s
c
r
i
pt
”
(2001)), in Truth and the Absent of Fact (2001). Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp.
104-156.
——(
1999)
,“
De
f
l
a
t
i
ngt
heCons
e
r
va
t
i
ve
ne
s
sAr
gume
nt
”
,The Journal of Philosophy, 96,
(pp. 533-40).
Fodor, J. (1994) The Elm and the Expert, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Fodor
,J
.
;Le
por
e
,E.(
2001)“
WhyCompos
i
t
i
ona
l
i
t
yWon’
tGoAwa
y
:Re
f
l
e
c
t
i
onson
Hor
wi
c
h’
s‘
De
f
l
a
t
i
ona
r
y
’The
or
y
”
,i
nRatio, volume 14, no. 4, pp. 350-368.
Fog
e
l
i
n,Robe
r
tJ
.(
1997)“
Qui
ne
’
sLi
mi
t
e
dNa
t
ur
a
l
i
s
m”
,i
nThe Journal of Philosophy,
volume 94, no. 11, pp. 543-563.
For
be
s
,G.(
1986)“
Tr
ut
h,Cor
r
e
s
ponde
nc
e
,a
ndRe
dunda
nc
y
”
,i
nG.Ma
c
Dona
l
da
ndC.
Wright eds., Fact, Science, and Morality, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 671-687.
Ge
or
g
a
l
i
s
,Ni
c
hol
a
s(
2000)“
Re
f
e
r
e
nc
eRe
ma
i
nsI
ns
c
r
ut
a
bl
e
”
,i
nPacific Philosophical
Quarterly, volume 81, issue 2, pp. 123-129.
Gibson, Roger, Jr. (1988), Enlightened Empiricism, Florida: University Presses of Florida.
Gr
ove
r
,Dor
ot
hy(
1990)“
Tr
ut
ha
ndLa
ng
ua
ge
-Wor
l
dConne
c
t
i
ons
”
,i
nJournal of
Philosophy, Volume 87, Issue 12, pp. 671-687.
233
—— (
2000)
,“
OnLoc
a
t
i
ngOurI
n
t
e
r
e
s
ti
nTr
ut
h”
,i
nWhat is Truth, edited by Richard
Schantz, Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, pp.120-132.
Gupta, A. (1993a)
,“
ACr
i
t
i
queofDe
f
l
a
t
i
oni
s
m”
,i
nPhilosophical Topics Vol. 21 no. 2,
pp. 57-81.
——(1993b)
,“
Mi
ni
ma
l
i
s
m”
,i
nPhilosophical Perspectives 7: Philosophy of Language,
edited by J. E. Tomberlin. Atascadero, Calif.: Ridgeview Publishing Company.
——(
2002)
,“
AnAr
g
ume
nt
Ag
a
i
ns
tTa
r
s
ki
’
sConve
nt
i
onT”
,i
nWhat is Truth, edited by
Richard Schantz, Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 225-237.
Ha
l
ba
c
h,
Vol
ke
r(
1999)
,“
Di
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
ma
ndI
nf
i
ni
t
eConj
unc
t
i
ons
”
,Mind Vol. 108
(429), pp. 1-22.
——(2000), “
Di
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
mFor
t
i
f
i
e
d”
,i
nCircularity, Definition and Truth, edited by
André Chapuis and Anil Gupta, New Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical
Research, pp.155-176.
——(
2001)
,“
HowI
nnoc
e
ntI
sDe
f
l
a
t
i
oni
s
m?
”
,Synthese 126, pp. 167-194.
Heck, Richar
dG.
,J
r
.(
1997)
,“
Ta
r
s
ki
,Tr
ut
h,a
ndSe
ma
nt
i
c
s
”
,i
nThe Philosophical Review,
Volume 106, pp. 533-554.
He
r
s
h
f
i
e
l
d,J
.
;Sol
e
s
,D.H.(
2003)
,“
Re
i
nf
l
a
t
i
ngTr
ut
ha
sa
nExpl
a
na
t
or
yConc
e
pt
”
,i
n
Pacific Philosophical Quaraterly, Volume 84, pp. 32-42.
Horwich, Pa
ul(
1996)“
Re
a
l
i
s
ma
ndTr
ut
h”
,i
nPhilosophical Perspectives, 10,
Metaphysics, pp. 187-197.
——(1997a)“
Da
vi
ds
ononDe
f
l
a
t
i
oni
s
m”
,i
nU.Ze
g
l
e
n,e
d.
,Discussions with Donald
Davidson: On Truth, Meaning, and Knowledge, London: Routledge, pp. 20-24.
——(1997b)“
I
mpl
i
c
i
tDe
f
i
ni
t
i
on,
Ana
l
y
t
i
cTr
ut
h,a
ndApr
i
or
iKnowl
e
dg
e
”
,i
nNoûs,
Volume 31, Issue 4, pp. 423-440.
——(1998a) Meaning, Clarendon Press: Oxford.
——(1998b) Truth, second edition, Clarendon Press: Oxford.
——(2001a)“
ADe
f
e
ns
eofMi
n
i
ma
l
i
s
m”
,i
nSynthese, 126, pp. 149-165.
——(2001b)“
Deflating Compositionality”
,i
nRatio, volume 14, no. 4, pp. 369-385.
Hy
l
t
on,Pe
t
e
r(
2004)
,“
Qui
neonRe
f
e
r
e
nc
ea
ndOnt
ol
ogy
”
,i
nThe Cambridge Companion
of Quine, ed. By Roger Gibson, Jr., pp. 115-150.
Kovach, Adam (1997) “
De
f
l
a
t
i
oni
s
ma
ndt
heDe
r
i
va
t
i
onGa
me
”
,i
nMind, Volume 106,
Issue 423, pp. 575-579.
Kr
a
ut
,Pa
ul(
1993)“
Robus
tDe
f
l
a
t
i
oni
s
m”
,i
nThe Philosophical Reviews, Volume 102,
Issue 2, pp. 247-263.
Künne
,
Wol
f
ga
ng(
2000)
,“
Di
s
quot
a
t
i
ona
l
i
s
tConc
e
pt
i
onsofTr
ut
h”
,in What is Truth,
edited by Richard Schantz, Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, pp. 176-193.
234
Le
e
ds
,
St
e
phe
n(
1973)
,“
Howt
oThi
nka
boutRe
f
e
r
e
nc
e
”Journal of Philosophy 15: pp.
485-503.
Mc
Ge
e
,
Va
nn(
1993)“
ASe
ma
nt
i
cConc
e
pt
i
onofTr
ut
h”
,i
nPhilosophical Topics, vol. 21,
No. 2, spring, pp. 83-111.
McGinn, Colin (2000), “
TheTr
ut
ha
boutTr
ut
h”
,i
nWhat is Truth, edited by Richard
Schantz, Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, pp. 194-204.
McGrath, Matthew (1997a)
,“
Re
pl
yt
oKova
c
h”
, in Mind, Vol. 106, issue 423, pp.
581-586.
——(1997b)
,“
We
a
kDe
f
l
a
t
i
oni
s
m”
, in Mind, Vol. 106, issue 421, pp. 69-98.
——(2000), Between Deflationism & Correspondence Theory, New York: Garland
Publishing.
Mi
l
l
e
r
,
Al
e
xa
nde
r(
2000)
,“
Hor
wi
c
h,Me
a
ni
nga
ndKr
i
pke
’
sWi
t
t
g
e
ns
t
e
i
n”
, in
Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 50, issue 199, pp. 161-174.
——(
2001)
,“
OnWr
i
g
ht
’
sAr
g
ume
nta
ga
i
ns
tDe
f
l
a
t
i
oni
s
m”
, in Philosophical Quarterly,
Vol. 51, issue 205, pp. 527-531.
Ne
l
s
on,R.J
.(
1997)“
Pr
oxyFunc
t
i
ons
,
Tr
ut
ha
ndRe
f
e
r
e
nc
e
”
,i
nSynthese, volume 111,
issue 1, pp. 73-95.
O’
Le
a
r
y
-Ha
wt
hor
ne
,J
ohn;Oppy
,Gr
a
ha
m(
1997)“
Mi
ni
ma
l
i
s
ma
ndTr
ut
h”
,i
nNoûs,
Volume 31, Issue 2, pp. 170-196.
Qui
ne
,
W.
V.(
1951)“
Ont
ol
ogya
ndI
de
ol
ogy
”
,i
nPhilosophy Studies 2, pp. 11-15.
——(1953a)
,“
Not
e
sont
heThe
or
yofRe
f
e
r
e
nc
e
”
,i
nFrom a Logical Point of View,
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard university Press, pp. 130-138.
——(1953b)
,“
TwoDogma
sofEmpi
r
i
c
i
s
m”
,i
nFrom a Logical Point of View,
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard university Press, pp. 20-46.
——(
1954)
,“
Ca
r
na
pa
ndLog
i
c
a
lTr
ut
h”
,i
nThe Ways of Paradox and Other Essays,
revised ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, pp. 107-132.
——(1960), Word and Object, Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.
——(1969a)
,“
Epi
s
t
e
mol
ogyNa
t
ur
a
l
i
z
e
d”
,i
nOntological Relativity and Other Essays,
New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 69-90.
——(1969b)
,“
Ont
ol
og
i
c
a
lRe
l
a
t
i
vi
t
y
”
,i
nOntological Relativity and Other Essays, New
York: Columbia University Press, pp. 26-68.
——(1970), Philosophy of Logic, Eaglewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
——(1974a)
,“
OnPoppe
r
’
sNe
ga
t
i
veMe
t
hodol
ogy
”
,i
nThe Philosophy of Karl Popper,
ed. by P. A. Schlipp, La Salle, Ill: Open Court.
——(1974b), Roots of Reference, La Salle, Ill: Open Court.
——(
1975)
,“
OnEmpi
r
i
c
a
l
l
yEqui
va
l
e
ntSy
s
t
e
msoft
heWor
l
d”
,Erkenntnis 9, pp.
235
313-328.
——(1976)
,“
Tr
ut
ha
ndDi
s
quot
a
t
i
on”i
nThe Ways of Paradox and Other Essays, revised
ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, pp. 308-321.
——(
1977)
,“
Fa
c
t
soft
heMa
t
t
e
r
”
,i
nAmerican Philosophy from Edwards to Quine, ed.
by Shahan and Merrill, Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press.
—— (1981a)
,“
Re
pl
yt
oEl
e
ve
nEs
s
a
y
s
”i
nPhilosophical Topics 12, pp. 227-243.
——(1981b)
,“
Empi
r
i
c
a
lCont
e
nt
”i
nTheories and Things, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
university Press, pp. 24-30.
——(1981c)
,“
Re
s
pons
e
s
”i
nTheories and Things, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard university
Press, pp. 173-186.
——(1986a)
,“
Re
pl
yt
oPa
ul
A.Rot
h”i
nThe Philosophy of W. V. Quine, edited by L.
Hahn and P. Schilpp, La Salle, Ill: Open Court, pp. 459-461.
——(1986b)
,“
Re
pl
yt
oRog
e
rF
.Gi
bs
on,J
r
.
”i
nThe Philosophy of W. V. Quine, edited by
L. Hahn and P. Schilpp, La Salle, Ill: Open Court, pp. 155-157.
——(1990a)“
Comme
ntonLa
ue
n
e
r
”i
nPerspectives on Quine, ed. by Robert B. Barrett
and Roger F. Gibson, Cambridge, Mass.: Basil Blackwell, p.229.
——(1990b) Pursuit of Truth, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
——(1995) From Stimulus to Science, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Ra
ms
e
y
,F
.P
.(
1927)
,“
Fa
c
t
sa
ndPr
opos
i
t
i
ons
”
,Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society,
suppl. Vol. 7, pp. 153-171.
Robbi
ns
,Phi
l
i
p(
2001)“
Wha
tCompos
i
t
i
ona
l
i
t
ySt
i
l
lCa
nDo”
,i
nPhilosophical
Quarterly, volume 51, issue 204, pp. 328-336.
Romanos, George D. (1983), Quine and Analytic Philosophy, Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.
Press.
Rot
h,Pa
ul
A.(
1986)
,“
Se
ma
nt
i
c
swi
t
houtFounda
t
i
ons
”i
nThe Philosophy of W. V. Quine,
edited by L. Hahn and P. Schilpp, La Salle, Ill: Open Court, pp. 433-458.
Sc
ha
nt
z
,Ri
c
ha
r
d(
2000)
,“
HowDe
f
l
a
t
i
oni
s
t
sDi
ve
r
g
ef
r
omTa
r
s
ki
”
,i
nCircularity,
Definition and Truth, edited by André Chapuis and Anil Gupta, New Delhi: Indian
Council of Philosophical Research, pp.317-331.
Sc
hi
f
f
e
r
,St
e
phe
n(
2000)“
Hor
wi
c
honMe
a
ni
ng
”
,i
nPhilosophical Quarterly, volume 50,
issue 201, pp. 527-536.
Sha
pi
r
o,S.(
1998)
,“
Pr
oofa
ndTr
ut
h:Thr
oug
hThi
c
ka
ndThi
n”
, Journal of Philosophy 95,
pp. 493-521.
——(
2003)“
TheGur
u,t
heLog
i
c
i
a
na
ndt
heDe
f
l
a
t
i
oni
s
t
:Tr
ut
ha
ndLog
i
c
a
l
Cons
e
que
nc
e
”
,i
nNoûs, volume 37, no. 1, pp. 113-132.
She
r
,Gi
l
a(
1998)“
Ont
hePos
s
i
bi
l
i
t
yofaSubs
t
a
nt
i
veThe
or
yofTr
ut
h”
,i
nSynthese,
236
volume 117, issue1, pp. 133-172.
Smith, Michael (1994a)
,“
Mi
ni
ma
l
i
s
m,
Tr
ut
h-a
pt
i
t
udea
ndBe
l
i
e
f
”
,i
nAnalysis, 54.1, pp.
21-26.
——(1994b)
,“
WhyExpr
e
s
s
i
vi
s
t
sa
boutVa
l
ues
houl
dLoveMi
ni
ma
l
i
s
ma
boutTr
ut
h”
,i
n
Analysis, 54.1, pp. 1-12.
Soames, Scott (1997), “
TheTr
ut
ha
boutDe
f
l
a
t
i
oni
s
m”
,i
nPhilosophical Issues 8, edited
by E. Villanueva, Atascadero, Cal.: Ridgeview Publishing Company.
——(1999), Understanding truth, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Sosa, Ernest (1993a)“
Epi
s
t
e
mol
ogy
,Re
a
l
i
s
m,a
ndTr
ut
h”
,i
nPhilosophical Perspectives,
Volume 7, Issue Language and Logic, pp. 1-16.
——(1993b)
,“
TheTr
ut
hofMod
e
s
tRe
a
l
i
s
m”
,i
nPhilosophical Issues 3, Science and
Knowledge, pp. 77-95.
Tarski, Alfred (1956a)
,“
TheEs
t
a
bl
i
s
hme
ntofSc
i
e
nt
i
f
i
cSe
ma
nt
i
c
s
”i
n Tarski, Logic,
Semantics, and Metamathmatics, tr. J. H. Woodger, London: Oxford university Press.
——(1956b)
,“
TheConc
e
ptofTr
ut
hi
nFor
ma
l
i
s
e
dLa
ng
ua
g
e
s
”i
nTa
r
s
ki
,Logic,
Semantics, and Metamathmatics, tr. J. H. Woodger, London: Oxford university Press.
Va
nCl
e
ve
,J
a
me
s(
1996)“
Mi
ni
ma
lTr
ut
hI
sRe
a
l
i
s
tTr
ut
h”
,i
nPhilosophy and
Phenomenological Research, Volume 56, Issue 4, pp. 869-875.
Van Inwagen, Peter (2000), “
Ge
ne
r
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
onsofHomophoni
cTr
ut
h-Se
nt
e
nc
e
s
”
,i
nWhat
is Truth, edited by Richard Schantz, Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, pp. 205-222.
Wi
l
l
i
a
ms
,Mi
c
ha
e
l(
1999)
,“
Me
a
ni
nga
ndDe
f
l
a
t
i
ona
r
yTr
ut
h”
,i
nThe Journal of
Philosophy, 96, pp.545-564.
——(
2002)
,“
OnSomeCr
i
t
i
c
sofDe
f
l
a
t
i
oni
s
m”
,i
nWhat is Truth, edited by Richard
Schantz, Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, pp.146-158.
237