8/12/2019 Semantic Analogy

1/18

L A W R E N C E S K L A R

S E M A N T I C A N A L O G Y *

(Received 19 Novem ber, 1979)Even a three-year-old child Can understanda sto ry a bo ut people too l it tle to see . .. -Hilary Putnam, Wh at Theories Are N otIf one has t o imagine som e one else s painon the model o f one s ow n, this is non e tooeasy a thing to do: for I have to imaginepain I d o n o t f e e l on the m odel o f the painwhich I do feel . - Wittgenstein, Phil.Inves t iga t ions

F a c e d w i t h t h e d i f f ic u l t y o f r a t io n a l i z i n g t h e i n t u i ti v e n o n - d e d u c t i v e p r i n c ip l e so f i n fe r en c e w e e m p l o y a s g u id e s t o a t r a n s c e n d e n t t r u t h o n e m a y b e t e m p t e d ,i n t h e v e i n o f P e i r c e , t o o f f e r a r e d u c t i v e a c c o u n t o f w h a t t r u t h i s, t a k i n g i tt o b e t h a t w h i c h i s, if o n l y i n t h e l o n g r u n , t h a t w h i c h is w a r r a n t e d l yasse r t i b l e .

S i rn i la f ly , f a c e d w i t h t h e a p p a r e n t l y i n t r a c t a b l e p r o b l e m s o n e e n c o u n t e r sw h e n o n e t a k e s m e a n i n g , t o b e c h a r a c t e r i z e d i n t e rm s o f t r u th - c o n d i t i o n s ,t h e r e is a s t r o n g t e m p t a t i o n t o o f f e r a n a c c o u n t o f s e ns e w h i c h ti e s i tp r i m a r i ly t o t h e c o n d i t i o n s u n d e r w h i c h w e a re w a r r a n t e d i n a ss e rt in g an dd e n y i n g a p r o p o s i t io n . S u c h a v e r if ic a t io n i s t a c c o u n t o f m e a n i n g is s u p p o r t e de v e n m o r e s t r o n g l y b y t h e d o c t r in e o f m e a n i n g a s u s e , a n d b y a r g u m e n t s t ot h e e f f e c t t h a t l e a rn i n g t h e m e a n i n g o f a n e x p r e s si o n c a n o n l y b e l e a rn i n gw h e n i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o u s e it o r t o a c c e p t o r c r it i ci z e a n o t h e r s u s e o f i t ;a n d , h e n c e , t h a t w h a t is le a r n e d w h e n m e a n i n g is g r a sp e d m u s t b e , p r i m a r i ly ,t h e se v e r y c o n d i t i o n s o f a c c e p t a n c y a n d r e je c t io n .

T h a t a n a d e q u a t e t h e o r y o f m e a n i n g w i ll i n v o k e th e c o n d i t io n s u n d e rw h i c h w e a re w a r r a n t e d i n a c c e p t i n g a n d r e je c t in g a n a s s e rt io n a t s o m e p o i n t si n it s s t r u c t u r e i s s o m e t h i n g m a n y w i l l a c c e p t . B u t a v e r y f u n d a m e n t a l q u e s -t i o n i s th i s: M u s t a n a c c o u n t o f t h e m e a n i n g o f a n a ss e rt io n b e a n a c c o u n t o fP h i lo s o p h i c a lS tu d i e s 38 (1980) 21 7- 23 4. 0031-8116/80[0383-0217501.80Co p y r ig h t 9 1980 by D.Re ide l Pub l i sh ing Co . , Dordrech t , Ho l land , and Bos ton , U.S .A .

8/12/2019 Semantic Analogy

2/18

218 L W R E N C E S K L Rthe grounds for accept ing and re jec t ing i t for e v e r y as ser ti on whose mean ingis to be character ized? O r mig ht the s i tuat ion be , ra ther , tha t for some asser-t ions one m us t , to g ive thei r m eaning , s t ipu la te thei r ver i f i ca t ion and fa ls if i-ca t i on co nd i t i ons , bu t t h i s need n o t be done as ser ti on -by -asse rt ion fo r eve ryp ropos i t i on accep t ed as mean ing fu l ? Cou ld we no t , i n some w ay , p r o j e c t a nunders t and ing o f me an ing t h roug hou t l anguage , u s ing i ts s t ruc tu ra l f ea tu resas t he gu ide t o co r rec t p ro j ec t i on , f rom som e fun dam en ta l bas is t o w h ichm eaning accrues in a ma nne r acceptable to a ver i f i ca t ionis t?

The bas ic idea i s simple , if , ad m i t ted ly , t er r ib ly vague. Fo r those propos i -t ions who se t ru th-co ndi t ion s are accessible to us , mea ning is g iven by s t ipu-l a t ing t he cond i t i ons o f war ran t ed accep t ab i l i ty and re j ec t ab f li t y . F o r t hesepropo s i t ions g iv ing the ver i f i ca t ion an d fa l s i fi ca t ion con di t ions is giving thet ru th . cond i t i ons and , su re ly , on anyo ne s v i ew o f mean ing , fu ll y cha rac te r i-z i ng t he mean ing . Bu t fo r t hose p ropos i t i ons whose t ru th -cond i t i ons a re ,somehow, i nacces s ib l e t o u s we a re b locked f rom th i s rou t e . The so lu t i oni s no t t o fo rce us t o r e j ec t ou r i n tu i t ive p i c tu re o f t he p ropos i t i on as hav inginacessible t ru th-c ond i t ions , o f fer ing a ver i f i ca t ionis t rev is ion o f jus t w hatt he me an ing o f the p ropo s i t ion r ea l l y is ; bu t , r a t he r , t o o f fe r an accoun t o fho w we can g rasp t he m ean ing o f these p ropos i t ions wi th ou t s ti pu l a ti ng fo rt h e m d i r e c t l y cond i t i ons o f wa r ran t ed as se rt ab ll it y and re j ec tab i l it y . In s t eadwe o f fe r an accou n t o f how an under s t and ing o f t hese p ropos i t ions a r is esindi rect ly ou t o f thei r s t ructura l re la t ionship , in t ra l inguis t ica l ly , to the p ropo-s i ti ons whose t ru th cond i t i ons a re open t o u s .

I t i s one ve r si on o f such a t he o ry t h a t I i n t end t o l o ok a t he re .

II

I t wou ld be use fu l he re t o make some b r i e f r emarks abou t t he overa l ls t ructure of var ious aspect s o f the t rad i t ional ver i f i ca t ionis t program . Whileeveryone i s f ami li a r w i th m any o f t he ob j ec t ions i n de t a il wh ich appa ren t l yvi t i a ted these programs, some remarks a bo ut th e general s tructure o f theal leged fai lures wil l be im po rta nt her e.

The posi tivi sts t r i ed to presen t both cr i t er ia o f me aningfulness and atheo ry o f mean ing . The c r i te r ia o f mean ing fu lness were usua l l y f r amed i nt e r m s o f s e n t e nc e s pr inc ip l es be ing o f fe red t o de t e rmine whe n a p ropos i t ionwas m eaning ful in t erms o f i t s bear ing some ap propr ia te logical re la t ionshipto the d i s t inguished c lass of observat ional , and hence p r i m a f a c ie mean ing -

8/12/2019 Semantic Analogy

3/18

S E M N T I C N L O G Y 219f u l p r op os i t i ons . O f c ou r s e t he r e i s a l so a t r a d i t i on o f a t t e m p t i ng t o a pp l ya c r i t e r i on o f m e a n i ng f u l ne s s f o r t e rms a s w e l l . T he o r i e s o f m e a n i ng w e r ep r e s en t e d i n th e f o r m o f a th e o r y o f h o w t e rms a c c r ue m e a n i ng o n t he ba s iso f a n a n t e c e d e n t l y g iv e n o b s e rv a t io n a l v o c a b u l a r y . T h a t a t h e o r y o f m e a n i n gw o u l d b e g iv e n as a t h e o r y o f t e r m m e a n i n g s e e m s a n in e v i ta b l e c o n s e q u e n c eo f c o m p o n e n t i a li s m i .e . o f t h e r e a l iz a t io n t h a t a t h e o r y o f m e a n i n g m u s t p r o -c e e d by t e r m s un l e ss a n in f i n i te n um be r o f d i s t inc t s e n t e nc e s a re t o ha vem e a n i n g a s si gn e d t o t h e m o n e a t a t im e . C u r i o u s ly n o t m u c h a t t e n t i o n w a spa i d by t he ve r i f ic a t i on i st s t o t he f a c t t ha t e ve n i f w e c ou l d c ha r a c t e r i z et he c la ss o f m e a n i ng f u l t e r m s a nd s pe c i f y t he i r m e a n i ngs w e w o u l d s ti llne e d a t he o r y w h i c h t e l ls u s w h e n a g ive n c om bi na t i on o f t e r m s i n t o as e n t e n c e is m e a n i n g f u l a n d w h i c h t e ll s u s h o w t o g e n e r a te t h e m e a n i n g o f t h ew h o l e s e n t en c e o u t o f t h e m e a n i n g s o f t h e c o m p o n e n t t e r m s . T h i s w i ll b eessen t i a l fo r u s l a t e r .

T he h i s t o r y o f t he ve r i f i c a t i on i s t p r og r a m s i s a h i s t o r y o f p r og r e s s i vewe akenin g . F i r s t on ly sen tences s t r i c t ly ve r i f i ab le and s t r i c t ly fa ls i fi ab le a rec o n s i d e r e d m e a n i n g f u l . B u t t h e n v a s t n u m b e r s o f pr im f c i e m e a n i n g f u lp r op os i t i ons o f s c ie nc e ar e de c l a r e d m e t a ph ys i c a l o r a t l e a s t uns c i e n t if i c .S o t he c r i t e r i on i s w e a ke ne d i n one d i r e c t i on o r a no t he r . W e l l know n i s t hed i r e c t i on i n w h i c h one a l l ow s t he u s e o f a ux i l i a r y s e n t e nc e s i n t e s t i ng as e n t e nc e f o r m e a n i ng f u l ne s s by e xp l o r i ng i t s de duc t i ve c onne c t i ons w i t hobs e r va t i ona l s e n t e nc e s . Bu t t h e n i t be c a m e ha r d t o f o r m u l a t e a c r i t e r ionw h i c h e xc l ude s a ny s e n t e nc e a t a l l f r om t he r e a l m o f t he m e a n i ng f u l . A l t e r -na t i ve l y one c a n w e a k e n t he c r i t e r i on by a l low i ng i nduc t i ve o r p r oba b i l i s t icr e l a t i ons be t w e e n obs e r va t i on s e n t e nc e a nd t he o r e t i c a l s e n t e nc e r a t he r t ha ni n s is t ing on a s tr i c t de duc t i ve r e l a ti on be t w e e n t he t w o . O r one c ou l d m o ve inb o t h d i r e c ti o n s s i m u l ta n e o u s l y . I f o n e c h o o s e s t o d e a l w i t h t e r m s r a t h e r th a ns e n t e nc e s a pa r a ll e l p r oc e s s o f w e a k e n i ng i s obs e r ve d a s t he a u t ho r s m o vef r om o pe r a t i ona l o r c oo r d i na t i ve de f i n i t i ons t o r e duc t i on s e n t e nc e s t o t heho l i st ic no t i o n o f pa r t ia l in t e r p r e t a t i on . H e r e a ga in by a l l ow i ng i nduc t i vec o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n o b s e r v a ti o n a l c o n s e q u e n c e s a n d t h e o r y t o le g i ti m i z ea th e o r y a n d h e n c e t o g iv e m e a n i n g t o t h e t e r m s a p p r o p r i a t e l y a p p e a r in gi n it a w e a ke n i n g i n t he o t he r d i r e c t i on i s i nvok e d a s w e l l.

I t i s w e ll kno w n t ha t t he w e a ke n i ng o f t he o r ig i nal s t r ic t ve r i f ic a t i on is tc r i te r i a c a n no t be a c c om pl i s he d w i t hou t s e ve r e d if f ic u l t ie s i n f e c t i ng t hep r og r a m . O nc e a l l ow a s m e a n i ng f u l a n a s s e r t i on w hos e t r u t h - c ond i t i onsc a n n o t b e f u l ly s t i p u l a te d i n t e r m s o f t h e o b s e r v a t io n a l v o c a b u l a r y a n d i t

8/12/2019 Semantic Analogy

4/18

2 2 0 L A W R E N C E S K L A Rb e c o m e s h a r d t o se e h o w a n y s e n t e n c e o r t e r m c a n b e e x c l u d e d f ro m t h er e a lm o f t he me a n ing f u l . Th i s is m os t obv ious whe n the m ove tow a r d h o l i sm i sm a de , t ha t i s wh e n a ux i l i ar y se n te nc e s a re a l lowe d in t e s ting a s e n te nc e f o rme a n ing f u lne ss o r w he n pa r t ia l i n t e r p r e t a t ion o f t e r ms r ep la ce s s t r ic t ope r a -t iona l de f in i t i ons . W ha t we m us t be c l e a r a bou t , t houg h , is t ha t t h e f a i lu reto p r od uc e a de f in it i ve ve r if i c a tion i s t c r i t e r ion o f me a n ing f u lne s s is no t t her e su lt o f m e r e t e c hn ic a l d i f f ic u l t ie s , bu t i s, i n s t e a d , t he r e su lt o f ve r y se riousdi f f icu l t ie s the app roach faces a s soo n as i t ab and ons the m ost na ive and r ig ids t a nda r ds o f s t ri c t ne c es sa r y a nd su f f ic i e n t t r u th c ond i t ions f r a m e d in theobse rva t ion language .

Ea c h d i r e c t ion o f we a ke n ing , t he hol is t ic whic h a l lows the invoc a t ion o fa ux i l ia r y se n te nc e s w he n t e s t ing a s e n te nc e f o r me a n ing fu lne s s o r t he invoc a -t ion o f o the r t he o r e t i c a l t e r ms wh e n t e s t ing a t e r m f o r me a n ing f u lne s s, a ndthe criterial whic h a llows the u se o f induc t iv i s t o r p roba b i l i s ti c c onn e c t ionsbe tw e e n the the o r e t i c a l a nd the obse r va t iona l t o s e rve a s t he t e s t f o r me a n ing -fu lness , suf fe r s i t s ow n cha rac te r i s t ic d i f f icu l tie s . The real force o f thesed i ff ic u l ti e s o n l y b e c o m e s a p p a r e n t w h e n o n e m o v e s f r o m t h e c o m p a r a t iv e l ye a sy t a sk o f spe c i f y ing a c r i t e r ion f o r me a n ing f u lne s s t o t he muc h mor ed i f f i c u l t t a sk o f o f f e r ing a f u l l - f l e dge d the o r y o f me a n ing f o r t he o r e t i c a ld iscourse .

The hol i s t ic case i s the more fami l ia r . Once take whole theor ies a s thea pp r op r i a t e be a r e r s o f me a n ing , a nd , i n t he dom a in o f i n f e r e nc e , t a ke re s-pons ib i l i t y t o t he p he n om e na a s t he ba si c c r it e r ion o f wa r r a n t f o r t he i raccep tab i l i ty (a llowing , poss ib ly , a s we l l s im pl ic i ty , m e tho dolo gica l con -se rva t ism, e t a l. t o a lso p l a y a r o l e ), i t t he n be c om e s ha r d to s ee how e i the rinde p e nde n t non - the o r y - r e l a t ive me a n ing i s t o b e a ss igne d to a ny se n te n t i a la t o m o f t h e t h e o r y , o r in d e p e n d e n t r e fe r e n c e a n d e x t e n s i o n t o t h a t s e n te n c e sc ompone n t s ingu la r t e r ms a nd p r e d ic a t e s . On the in f e r e n t i a l p l a ne i t i s ha r dto se e ho w inde p e nd e n t wa r r a n t is t o be a ss igne d to s e n te nc e s one a t a t ime .Th i s d i f f i c u l ty shows i t s e l f m os t c l e a r ly in the f a mi li a r f e a tu r e o f dua l i t y .G ive n a the o r y wh ic h a de qua te ly sa ve s the phe nome na we c a n a l so c ook upinnum e r a b le o the r s , supe r fi c ia l ly inc ons i s t e n t w i th the g ive n o rig ina l t he o r y ,by s imp ly . c ompe nsa t ing f o r va r ia t ion in o ne p l a c e w i th a s av ing va r i a tione lsewhere . On the leve l o f in fe rence such dua l i ty leads to skept ic ism, apr ior i sm or , the i r no t -pa r t icu la f ly4n te l l ig ib le re la t ive , conv ent ion a l i sm . Bu t ,m uc h de e pe r , i s wh a t dua l i t y le a ds to o ne the le ve l o f mean i ng t h e o r y . E i t h e rd i r e c t ly , a s i n Edd ing ton , R e ic he nba c h , e t al. o r m o r e o b s c u r e l y o n t h e p a r t

8/12/2019 Semantic Analogy

5/18

S E M N T I C N L O G Y 221o f s o m e r e c e n t a u t h o r s , d u a l it y o n t h e t h e o r e ti c a l l e ve l l e ad s u s b y a s m o o t hc ha i n o f a r gum e n t t o a de n i a l o f ge nu i ne ( o r , pe r ha ps , un r e l a ti v i z e d ) m e a n i ng( a n d r e f e re n c e ) t o t h e s e n te n c e s o f t h e t h e o r y t a k e n o n e a t a t i m e o r t o t h e i rc om pone n t s . T r u t h i s de n i e d t o t he s e n t e nc e s i nd i v i dua l l y , bu t s a i d t o bea p p l ic a b le t o t h e m o n l y r el at iv e t o t h e r e m a i n in g b o d y o f t h e o r y ; a n d t h er e f e r e nc e o f t he t e r m s a nd p r e d i c a t e s o f t he s e n t e nc e s i s a ga in no w o n l yr e l a ti v e t o t h e r e m a i n i n g t h e o r e ti c a l c o n t e x t . C o m m o n l y ( a n d p la u s i b ly )

w e a re l e d b y s u c h a r g u m e n t s to t h e d i l e m m a o f e it h e r r et r e a ti n g to t h er e duc t i on i s t a na l y si s o f t he m e a n i ng o f t he o r e t i c a l a s s e rt i ons w h i c h t he s t r i c tve r i f i c a ti on i s t ha d i n m i nd i n t h e f i rs t p l a c e , o r , i n s t e a d , t o a de n ia l o f re duc -t ion i sm which succeeds in f ind ing a ro le for the ind iv idua l theore t i ca ls e n t en c e s b y , i n it s m e a n i n g t h e o r y , d e n y i n g t h e m m e a n i n g p r o p e r l y s o c a ll e da t a ll - t ha t i s, by a r e t r e a t t o i n s t r um e n t a l i s m f o r t he the o r e t i c a l a ppa r a t u s .

T h e l o o s e n in g o f s t ri c t v e ri f ic a t io n i s m w h i c h p r o c e e d s b y w a y o f r ep l a ci n ge n t a i l m e n t r e l a ti ons w i t h r e l a ti ons o f w a r r a n t e d a s s e r ta b i l it y , i nduc t i vep r o ba b i l i t y , e t c . a ls o f a c e s s e r ious p r ob l e m s . H e r e t he f und a m e n t a l d i f f i c u l t yi s no t o f ho l i s m . I n t h e c a s e w he r e ve r i f ic a t i on i s m w a s w e a ke ne d by a ll ow -i ng i n a u x i l i a ry s e n t e nc e s i n t e s ts o f m e a n i ng f u l ne s s a nd b y t a k i ng m e a n i nga s r o le p l a ye d i n t o t a l t he o r y , t he d i f f i c u l t y is i n r e c onc il i ng a n e m p i r i c i s mw h i c h f u n d a m e n t a l l y t a k e s w h o l e t h e o r i e s a s t h e u n i ts o f m e a n i n g w i t h a na t t e m p t t o p r e s e rv e n o t i o n s o f t r u t h , r e f e r e n ce , e t c . d i s tr i b u t e d a t o m i s t i c a l l yove r i nd i v idua l s e n t e nc e s a nd t he i r c om po ne n t r e f e r r i ng e xp r e s s ions . I n t h isn e w c a se t h e p r o b l e m is t ry i n g t o r e c on c i le t h e n e w t h e o r y o f m e a n i n ga pp r op r i a t e t o t h i s w e a k e ne d c r i t e r ion o f m e a n i ng f u l ne s s w i t h t he ba s ici n t u it i o n s w e h a v e c o n n e c t i n g t h e n o t i o n s o f m e a n i n g a n d t r u t h

I t i s a l m o s t a t r u i s m t o c l a i m t ha t a s t ipu l a t i on o f t he m e a n i ng o f a n a s se r -t i on r e qu i r e s at l eas t a s t i pu l a t i on o f i t s t r u t h c ond i t ions . T h i s m i g h t no t b ee noug h , a s w e k no w , be c a us e o f a ll t he f a m i l i a r a r gum e n t s t o the e f f e c t t ha tl og i c a ll y e qu i va le n t a s s e r ti ons ne e d n o t be s yn on ym ou s , e t c . Bu t , s u r e ly , onea r gue s, sa y i ng und e r w ha t c i r c um s t a nc e s a n a s s e r t ion i s t r ue a n d u nde r w h a tfa l se cons t i tu tes a necessary c o m p o n e n t i n s p e c if y i n g i ts m e a n in g . T h e n o n eg o e s o n t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e m e a n i n g s o f t h e c o m p o n e n t s o f t h e s e n t e n c e i nt e r m s o f t he i r c on t r i b u t i on t o t he s e ns e , i .e . t he t r u t h - c o nd i t i on s t i pu l a t ion ,o f t h e w h o l e .

Bu t i f w e a r e t o be a l l ow e d t o i n t r od uc e nove l a ss e r ti ons i n t o o u r la ngua geon t he ba s is so l e ly o f t he i r i n f e re n t i a l r e l a ti ons t o a l r e a dy unde r s t ood a s se r-t i ons , w he r e t he s e i n f e r e n t i a l r e l a t i ons a r e le s s t he n de duc t i ve a nd s o a r e no t

8/12/2019 Semantic Analogy

6/18

L W R E N C E S K L R

su f f i c i e n t e ve n to c ha r a c t e r i z e the t r u th - c ond i t ion o f t he a s se r t ion soin t r oduc e d , t he n w ha t a r e we to m a ke o f t h i s i n tu i t i ve ly obv ious c l aim tha tthe m e a n ing o f a n a s se r tion is a s t i pu la tion o f t he c o nd i t ions un de r wh ic h i ti s t rue and u nd er wh ich i t i s fa lse?

T h e t h e o r y w h i c h t a k e s t h e f u n d a m e n t a l p r im i t iv e in m e a n i n g t h e o r y t o b ew ar ran te d asse r tab i l ity ra the r th an t ru th faces a d i lem m a. Ei th e r i t r e serves ap lace f or a l im i ted c lass o f a sse r t ions wh ose m eanin g is g iven by o ur recogni -t i on o f t he t r u th - c ond i t ions f o r t he m ( obse r va t ion se n te nc e s , pe r ha ps ) o r i tdoes no t . In the form er case those asse r t ions no t in the pr iv ileged c lass seemto ha ve suc h a n a t t e n ua te d se nse o f me a n ing l e f t ove r f o r t he m ( inc om pa r i son w i th tha t r i ch , f u l l s ense o f me a n ing posse sse d by the me mb e r so f the pr iv ileged class whose m eaning i s the i r r ecognizable t ru th -con di t io n)tha t we a re e a si ly l e d to a n in s tr ume n ta l i s ti c a c c oun t o f t he i r ro l e in o u rc onc e p tua l s c he me . Th e i r me a n ing doe sn t r e f e r t o t he i r t r u th - c ond i t ions ,the i r s ingu la r t e r m s do n t ha ve r e f e r e nc e in the f u l l s e nse , no r t he i r p r e d ic a t e se x te ns ions . W hy the n t a ke the i r a ppa r e n t on to log ic a l c om m i tme n t s , e t c .ser iou sly a t a ll?

The a l t e r na t ive i s t o ho ld tha t t he me a n ing o f l l asser t ions is given bythe i r c ond i t ions o f wa r r a n te d a s se rt a b i li t y a nd de n ia b i l i t y a nd tha t t her e c ogn iz a b i l i t y o f t r u th - c ond i t ions ne ve r p l a ys a r o l e i n t he c ompr e he ns iono f m e a n ings . S u c h a f i a t -ou t a n t i - t ru th - c ond i t ion the o r y o f me a n ing is ha r dto c r i t ic ize , expec ia l ly s ince , desp i te D um m et t s suggest ive wo rk , no suchthe o r y ha s e ve n r e a lly be e n m a de a va ila ble t o u s f o r ou r i n spe c t ion . Dum -m e t t sugge st s t o u s t ha t t he a do p t ion o f a l l - ou t ve r i fi c a t ion i sm w t l , a t t hever y leas t , r equi re a rev is ion in o ur log ic , f rom t rad i t iona l to in tu i t ion is t iclogic or som e va r ian t the re of . F a r m ore se r ious i s the fu l l an t i -rea l ism wh ichon e w i ll t he n se e m t o be c o m m i t t e d to . I f all s e n te nc e s ha ve as t he i r me a n ingsom e th ing spe c i fi e d in t e r ms o f c ond i t ions o f wa r r a n te d a s se rt a b fl it y a ndd e n i a b il it y ; i f f o r a ll o f t h e m m e a n i n g i s d i s c o n n e c t ed t o t h e n o t i o n o f t r u t h -c o n d i t i o n , a n d , h e n c e , f o r t h e i r c o m p o n e n t s , m e a n i n g is d i s c o n n e c t e d f r o mt h e o r t h o d o x n o t i o n s o f r e fe r e n ce a nd e x t e n s i o n , w h a t w i ll b e l e f t o f t h ec on ne c t io n b e twe e n l angua ge a nd the wo r ld a t a l l? I t i s one th ing f o r W i t tgen -s t e in , a dvoc a t ing a ve r i f ic a t ion is t a c c ou n t o f me n ta l is t ic l a ngua ge , t o t e l u stha t a no th ing w ou ld d o a s we l l a s a som e th ing so f a r a s t he me a n ing o f pa inis concern ed . I t i s som eth ing e lse again to ad op t such a cava l ie r a t t i tu detowa r d be ing in ge ne r a l.

The pa r a ll e l he r e w i th the c a se o f i n f e r e nc e i s c l ea r . Onc e a do p t a f ounda -

8/12/2019 Semantic Analogy

7/18

SEMANTIC ANAL OGY 3

t i on l a nguage o f p r opo s i t i ons wa r r a n te d b y d i r e c t a cc es s t o t he s t a te s o f t hewo r ld the y de sc r ibe , a nd ske p t ic i sm a bou t t he t r u th o f t he r e ma in ing se n te nc e s ,be l ie ve d on suc h f a r mor e s l e nde r wa r r a n t , r e ar s i t s he a d . De ny the e x i s t e nc eo f f o u n d a t i o n s t a t em e n t s a l t o g e th e r an d o n e q u i c k l y f in d s o n e s e l f o n t h es li de f r o m a c o h e r e n c e t h e o r y o f w a r r a n t t o w a r d a c o h e r e n c e t h e o r y o f t r u t h .W ha t we see he r e is t ha t on the l e ve l o f t he t he o r y o f me a n ing , and e ve nw i t h o u t t h e c o h e r e n t i s t s h o l is m , a d o c t r i n e w h i c h e l i m i n at e s t ru t h - c o n d i t i o n sa l toge the r i n f a vo r o f c ond i t ions o f wa r r a n te d a s se n t a nd d i sse n t soon lo se sa n y a b i li ty t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n la n gu a ge a n d a n i n d e p e n -de n t wor ld o f t h ings , p r ope r t i e s a nd f a c t s . P e r ha ps , onc e a ga in , t he wor ld i swe l l l o s t a s R o r ty wo u ld ha ve u s be l i e ve , bu t i t i s a r a d ic a l st e p to t a ke a ndone w e w ou ld do we l l t o he s i t a t e be f o r e t a k ing . I nc ide n ta l ly , t h i s d i l e mm aof e i the r re se rv ing a spec ia l c la ss of obse rva t ion sen tences or e l se t r ea t inga ll sen ten ces on a pa r g ives ri se to s imi la r d i f f icu l t ie s for the hol i s t a s we ll .

Ill

Give n th e d i f f ic u l t ie s o f su s t a in ing a r e al i st ic i n t e r p r e t a t ion o f t e r ms a nd se n-t e nc e s r e f e r ring to unobse r va b le s on e i the r t he ho l i s ti c o r ve ri f ic a t ion i s t ica c c oun t s , i t wou ld se e m p r ude n t t o a t le a s t e xp lo r e a ny prim f cie viablea l te rna t ive which presents i t se l f . One such a l te rna t ive has pa r t icu la r appea ls inc e the m ode l o f un de r s t a nd ing i t p r e se n ts i s one wh ic h see ms to u s p re -the o r e t i c a l ly ( r igh t ly o r wr o ng ly ) t o ha ve p l a us ib i li t y t o i t . The v i e w is t h is :Basic sen ten ces desc r ib ing ep is tem ica l ly access ib le s ta te s o f a f fa ir s a re lea rnedby us by the p r e se n ta t ion to u s o f t he a pp r op r i a t e st a te s o f a f fa i rs . Them e a n ing o f t he a s se rt ion is t he n g iven by a s soc ia t ion o f i t w i th it s d i r e c t lya va il ab le t r u th - c ond i t ion s . B u t suc h ba s ic s e n te nc e s a re m a de up ou t o f c om -p o n e n t s a n d , i n d e e d , o n t h e m o d e l o f a n y a d e q u a te t h e o r y o f l an g u ag e b a s e do n a c o m p o n e n t i a l i s t s em a n t ic s ( A n d w h a t o t h e r k i n d c o u l d p o s s ib l y e x p l a ino u r m a s t e r y o f a p o t e n t i a l l y i n f i n i t e c o l l e c t i o n o f n o v e l s e n t e n c e s ? ) t h em e a n i n g o f t h e w h o l e s e n t en c e m u s t b e u n d e r s t o o d a s b e i n g g e n e r a te d o u t o fthe me a n ings o f t he c ompone n t s a nd the i r g r a mma t i c a l a s se mbla ge in to thewho le se n te nc e . B u t t he n w e c a n und e r s t a nd , onc e a gain on a c om pone n t i a l i s tt h e o r y o f m e a n i n g f o r t h e w h o l e s a s g e n e r a te d o u t o f th e m e a n i n g o f p a r t s,n o v e l s e n t e n c e s c o n s t r u c t e d o u t o f t h e s e v e r y s a m e e l e m e n t s , t h e e l e m e n t sf i r s t i n t r oduc e d to u s t h r ough the i r r o l e i n s e n te nc e s whose t r u th - c ond i t ionsa r e ope n to ou r d i r e c t i n spe c t ion . B u t t he se nove l s e n te nc e s ma y de sc r ibe

8/12/2019 Semantic Analogy

8/18

2 2 4 L A W R E N C E K L A Rs t a te s o f a f fa ir s no t ope n to ou r obse r va t iona l c a pa ci ti e s. H e nc e , on aba s ic a lly ve r if i c a tion i s t t he o r y o f me a n ing , one c a n unde r s t a nd ho w i t is t ha tone c a n ha ve a n unde r s t a nd ing o f s e n t enc e s wh ic h de sc ribe st a te s o f af fa i rsw h o s e t r u t h - co n d i t i o n s c a n n o t b e p r e s e n t e d t o u s. B u t , o n th i s a c c o u n t , t h eme a n ing o f s e n t e nc e s is suppose d to be g ive n ind iv idua lly , r e scu ing us f r omthe dua l it i es o f ho l i sm a nd i t s c onve n t iona l i s t c onse que nc e s , a nd the me a n ingof t he nove l a s se r t i on i s c onne c t e d to i t s t r u th - c ond i t i on , a nd no t t oc ond i t i ons o f wa r r a n t e d a s se r t a b i l i t y a nd de n ia b i l i t y , a nd , he nc e , t he ne wa ppr oa c h i s suppose d to g ive u s ge nu ine r e f e r e nc e f o r t he c om po ne n t s o f t henove l a s ser t ion a nd ge nu ine t r u th f o r t he a s se r ti on a s a who le .

Th a t suc h a n a c c oun t i s f r a ugh t w i th d i f f i c u l ty i s, I t h ink , obv ious . B u ttha t i t i s one m a ny pe op le i n tu i t i ve ly a c c e p t on a p r e - the o r e t i c a l l e vel is al soc lea r. Know ing wha t r ed m eans f ro m such cases a s ~Fhis i s a r ed app le Iha ve n o d i f f i c u l ty i n unde r s t a nd ing wh a t i t is f o r som e th ing to be a r e d ob je c ttoo small t o s e e. Know ing wha t pa in i s f r om m y ow n ca se I und e r s t a nd paceW ittge ns te in ) wh a t i t is f o r yo u to be i n pa in . R e me m be r ing the f a m ous( n o t o r i o u s ? ) a r g u m e n t f r o m a n a lo g y t o t h e l e g i ti m a c y o f b e l i e f i n y o u rm e n ta l s t a te s o n the a na logy w i th m y ow n , i t be c om e s no t imp la us ib l e t o c a llsuc h a t h e o r y a s t he p r e se n t one a t he o r y o f m eaning by analogy . The generals t r uc tu r e o f t he t he o r y h e r e l ook s l ike t h i s : I n i ti a l ly me a n ing a c c rue s t owho le s e n t e nc e s by a n a s soc i a t i on o f t he s e n t e nc e w i th i t s ( c onve n t iona l lyde t e r m ine d ) t r u th - c ond i t i on , wh ic h s t a t e o f a f fa i r s i s d i r e c t ly ope n toepis temic access . Meaning then acc rues to sen tences in the language whoset ru th-c on di t ion s a re n o t so access ib le by a process of decom po si t ion and reas-s e m b l y w h i c h p r o c e e d s b y a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e w a y i n w h i c h t h e m e a n in go f w h o l e s e n te n c e s is f o r m e d o u t o f t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e i r p ar ts .

I d on t t h ink tha t e ve n tha t l oose c ha r a c t e r i z a t ion w il l do f o r a ll t hosec as es w h i c h o n e m i g h t c a ll p r o j e c ti o n o f m e a n i n g b y a n a lo g y . F o r e x a m p l e ,i t is some t im e s c la ime d tha t qua n t i f i c a t ion ove r a n in f in i t e dom a in i s unde r -s too d a na log ic al ly f r om qua n t i f i c a t ion ove r f i n i te doma ins . He r e t he p r o j e c -t i on o f me a n ing by a na logy doe s no t s e e m obv ious ly a ss imi la ble t o t hen o t i o n o f s e n t e n ti a l d e c o m p o s i t io n a n d r e as s em b l y .

As a f ir s t s te p a t e xp lo r ing the pos s ib i l it y o f suc h a no t ion o f s e ma n t i ca na logy p l a y ing a r e spe c t ab l e r o l e i n a n ove r a ll s e ma n t i c a c c o un t o f me a n ing ,l e t u s fi r st l oo k a t a num be r o f ob j e c t ions t o suc h a t he o r y o f me a n ing a c c r ua l.The se ob je c t ions a re ba s ic a lly o f tw o k inds : f r om c a se s a nd f r o m ge ne r alpr inciples .

8/12/2019 Semantic Analogy

9/18

SEM NTIC N LOGY 5

The re fu t a t i on o f s em an t i c ana logy by cases goes l ike t h i s : The ex i s tenceo f obv ious ly nonsens ica l s en t ences ma de up g ram ma t i ca l ly ou t o f pa r tswh ich a re p l a in ly mean ing fu l when t hey appear i n o the r s en t ences showsus t ha t p ro j ec t i on o f mean ing by decompos i t i on and reas sembly i s i l l eg i t i -m ate . T here are tw o k inds o f cases , those o f ord inary language : I t i s f iveo c loc k o n th e sun ; and those o f science: Tw o spat ia l ly separa ted events ares imu l t aneous , Th i s e lec t ron i s g reen .

Now o f cou rse we cou ld d eny t he meaning lessness o f t he s en tencesadduce d . Bu t even i f we ac cep t t he m as mean ing les s , t he i r ex i s tence d oesn ts h o w t h a t p r o j e c ti g n o f m e a n i n g b y d e c o m p o s i ti o n a n d r e a ss e m b ly is alwaysi l l eg i t imate . I t does show that i t sometimes i s. The exis tence o f such cases(very fami l iar f rom W it tgens te in w ho wishes to brea k the a l leged s t rangleholdo f t h e f a ls e p i c t u r e o f m e a n i n g b y a n a lo g y h a s o n u s ) d o e s i n d e e d s h o w u st h a t t h e a d v o c a te o f t h e l e g it im a c y o f m e a n i n g b y a n a l o g y h a s h is w o r k c u tou t fo r h im . F o r he m us t ma ke a t leas t the f i rs t st eps t ow ard a theory o fseman t i c p ro j ec t i on w h ich wi ll d e l i nea te t he r ange o f leg i t ima t e p ro j ec t ion o fme an ing by ana logy . S uch a t h eo ry m igh t a t l eas t i n i ti a l ly p roceed by at h e o r y o f s e m a n t ic c a t e g o r iz a t i o n o f te r m s , m a r k i n g o u t b y m e a n s o f c o n -s t ruc t i on ru l es l eg i t ima t e f rom i l l eg i t ima t e combina t i ons i n t e rms o f t heseman t i c ca tego r ies in to wh ich t e rm s a re p l aced . S uch a t h eo ry w ou ld no t , Ibe l ieve , work i n general. In any case , i t cou ld be bu t t he m os t rud ime n ta ryin t e rmed ia t e s t ep i n ou r t heo ry , fo r t he ve ry no t i on o f s eman t i c ca t ego r i za -t ion i t se l f ca ll s out for exp lanat ion .

Here , a s e l sewhere , t he pa ra ll e l o f t he t h eo ry o f mean ing w i th t he t heo ryof bel ievabi l i ty i s in teres t ing . As we now know, the bel iever in induct ivein fe rence has h i s wo rk cu t ou t fo r h im as we l l. Even p r i o r t o t he es t ab li sh -m en t o f a f ina l j u s t i f i ca t ion fo r i nduc t ive r eason ing , he m us t f ir s t g ive usat l eas t a rudimentary descr ip t ion of what induct ive reasoning cons i s t s in .Even on t he ve ry na ive mode l o f i nduc t i ve genera l i za t i on as i nduc t i on byenum era t i on , t he ex i s t ence o f unn a tu ra l c l a ss if ica t ions o f t h ings (wi th g rueas the ex t re m e case o f an i l l eg i timate c lass if i ca tory term ) show s tha t there isa fund am en ta l p rob l em f ir s t t o b e f aced in t ry ing t o de l inea t e t he leg i t ima t ef rom the i l l eg i t ima t e cases o f i n fe rence and t o somehow ra t i ona l i ze (o r a tl e as t e xp l a in ) t h e b o u n d a r y b e t w e e n t h e t w o .

Over and above t he r e fu t a t i on by cases ( t he fo rm o f r e fu t a t i on wh ichappears ve ry d ea r l y i n t h e r e lvan t po r t i on o f W i tt gens te in s Investigationsone can f red a t t empt s a t more t heo re t i ca l r e fu t a t i ons o f the v iew tha t

8/12/2019 Semantic Analogy

10/18

2 2 6 L A W R E N C E S K L A Rm e a n ing c a n a c c r ue by the a na logy o f e p i s t e m ic a l ly una c c ess ib l e t o e p i st e mi -cal ly accessible s ta tes o f affa irs .

One suc h r e f u t a t ion i s t ha t o f Du m m e t t . 1 B a s i c al ly , t he l i ne o f a r gume n ti s th i s : The the o r i s t w ho be li eve s tha t me a n ing c a n a c c rue by a na logy i sbas ica l ly a rea l i s t in sem ant ics . Th a t i s , he takes the m eanin g o f an asse rt iont o b e i t s t r u t h - c o n d i ti o n s . B u t t h e n h o w d o w e u n d e r s ta n d t h e m e a n i n g o f a na s se rt ion? On ly by g r a sp ing i ts t r u th - c ond i t ions . W ha t c a n th i s a m oun t t o?E i the r be ing a b le to s t i pu la t e t hose t r u th - c on d i t ions in som e non- tr iv ia l ve r ba lwa y ( sa y by o f f e r ing a r e duc tive a na lys is o f t he m e a n ing o f t he a s se r t ion ) o rb y k n o w i n g w h a t i t t a k e s t o determine the t r u t h o r f a ls e h o o d o f th ea s se r t ion . Now c ons ide r t hose a s se r t ions whose t r u th - c ond i t ions ou t r un thel imi ts of ep is tem ic access ib i li ty . Th e m eaning by an a logy theo r is t envisagess o m e o n e w h o c a n d e t e r m i n e t h e t r u t h o r f a ls i ty o f su c h an a s se rt io n b yme a ns a na logous bu t no t i de n t i c a l t o t hose we e m ploy . I t is suc h a n e x te n -de d no t ion o f ve r i f i c a tion , he c l a ims , wh ic h i s su f f ic i e n t t o g ive me a n ing tothe se a s se rt ions , a nd r e f e r e nc e to suc h a n e x te nd e d m e th od o f ve r i f ic a t ionwh ic h , i nde e d , spe c if ie s wh a t t he me a n ing o f the se , i n a c tua l f a c t , unve r i fi a b l eand unfa ls i f iab le , a sse r t ions i s .

N o w , D u m m e t t c o n ti n u e s, w h er e t h e a n a lo g y o f t h e n e w e x t e n d e d m e t h o dof ve r i f i c a tion to ou r u sua l m e tho ds is we a k o r non - e x i s t e n t , t he a na log i sta dmi t s t ha t me a n ing c a nno t a c c r ue in th i s wa y . He nc e , wh i l e i t migh t bel e g i tima te to th ink o f me a n ing a c c r u ing to qua n t i f i c a t ions ove r i n f in i t eto ta l i t ie s by envisaging s om eon e wh o can surv ey an inf in i te c la ss a s wesu r ve y a f in i te cla ss by e xha us t ive e num e r a t ion o f c a se s , non e bu t t he m os ta r de n t a na log i st is l i ke ly to be sa t i s fi e d w i th a t he o r y o f t he me a n ing o fm oda l a s ser tions w h ic h g ives u s a ve ri f ie r w i th th e e x te n de d c a p a b i l i ty o fsu r ve y ing the c on te n t s o f o the r poss ib le wor ld s .B u t , Du m m e t t s a ys, t he se d i s t i nc t ions a re on ly o f p syc ho log ic a l imp or t a n -c e , e x p l a n a t o r y o n l y o f w h y t h e a n a lo g is t thinks t h a t h e h a s a t h e o r y o fme a n ing e ve n in h i s be s t c a ses whe r e the a na logy is c l e ar e s t. F o r e ve n in thosec a se s he i s v i ewing the m e a n ing o f a n a s se rt ion no t a s we use i t bu t a s h i ssupe r - powe r e d ve r i fi e r u se s it a nd , he n c e , a s f a r a s a t he o r y o f me a n ing o fasse r tions in ou r language d oes , he i s mis representing the use o f t he a s se r t ionin language and misconstruing i t s meaning .

I t h i n k , t h o u g h , t h a t t h is r e f u t a t i o n o f w h a t D u m m e t t c al ls ( c u r io u s l y )s t ron g rea l i sm isn t conc lus ive aga ins t the ana logis t s case. Even i f we tak e

t h e a n a l og y t o b e , a s D u m m e t t s ug ge sts, o n e b e t w e e n o u r ac t u al m e t h o d s o f

8/12/2019 Semantic Analogy

11/18

S E M N T I C N L O G Y 2 2 7ve r i f i c a tion a nd those o f a n ima g ine d supe r- be ing , is i t so c l e a r t ha t t he a na -log is t i s b loc ke d in c l a iming tha t t he p r e se n ta t ion o f suc h a n a na logy ise noug h to g ive u s a g r asp o f t he m e a n ing o f t he a s se rt ion in que s t ion? Thec la im t h a t t h is m u s t b e a m i s c o n s tr u a l o f th e m e a n i n g a s t h e m e t h o d o fve r i f i c a tion de sc r ibe d i s no t t ha t a c tua l ly e mp loy e d by us i s pe r sua s ive on lyi f one ha s a l r e a dy a c c e p te d the ve r i f i ca t ion i s t s i de n t i f i c a t ion o f t he m e a n ingo f a n a s se r tion w i th i t s m e th od o f ve r i f ic a t ion a s i t is a c tua l ly u se d , wh ic h i s,o f c ou r se , e xa c t ly wha t t h e a na log is t is a nx ious to de n y .

F u r the r m or e , i s it so c l e a r t ha t i t i s a n a na logy o f m e tho ds o f ve r i f i c a tiontha t t he a na log i s t r e a lly ha s in m ind? To be su r e he ide n t if i e s t he me a n ingo f a n a s se rt ion w i th i t s tr u th - c on d i t ions a nd g r a sp ing the m e a n ing w i th g ra sp -i n g t h e t r u t h -c o n d i t i o n s . B u t w h y s h o u l d h e a g re e t h a t t h is ca n o n l y a m o u n tto g r asp ing tha t m e th od by w h ic h we , o r a t l e as t some a na log ic al ly m or epow e r f u l e x t e ns ion o f ou r s elves , wo u ld u se to de t e r m ine the t r u th o r f als e-ho od o f t h e a s se rt ion? Onc e a ga in tha t i s on ly p l aus ib le i f one is a ve r if ic a -t i on i s t t o be g in w i th . Mos t l i ke ly the a na log is t s pos i t i on i s, r a the r , som e th ingl ike th is : F o r t he ba si c a sse r tions , t hose whose t r u th - c o nd i t ion s ar e d i r e c t lya c c e s s ib l e t o u s e p i s t e mic a l ly , we l e a r n the i r me a n ing by a s soc ia t ing the mdi r e c t ly w i th the p r e se n te d t r u th - c ond i t ion . Of c ou r se s inc e d i r e c t ly be inga w a re o f t h e e x i s te n c e o f t h e t r u t h - c o n d i t i o n is t h e p r i m a r y a n d m o s t c o n c l u -s ive w a r r a n t we c ou ld p oss ib ly ha ve f o r be li e v ing in the se p r opo s i t i ons , onec o u l d a ls o i d e n t i f y t h e m e a n i n g o f th e a s se r ti o n w i t h t h e p r i m a r y g r o u n d s f o rwa r r a n t ing be l i e f i n i t - w i tho u t c om m i t t ing one se l f, o f c ou r se , t o a ve r if ic a -t i on i s t t he o r y o f me a n ing . F o r t hose a sse r tions who se t r u th - c ond i t ions a r eno t ope n t o ou r e p i s t e mic ac c es s , we unde r s t a n d the i r me a n ing by g r a sp ingthe i r t r u th - c o nd i t ion . W e do th i s l a t t e r by se eing the a na logy o f t he t ru thc ond i t i on o f t h is n e w a s se r ti o n w i t h t h e t r u t h - c o n d i t i o n o f s o m e o n e o r m o r eo f the basis a sse r t ions . Bu t i t is an ana logy o f t ru th~condi t ions which is re le-va n t , no t o f m e tho ds o f ve r i f i c a tion a t a ll.

A n e x a m p l e m i g h t m a k e t h i s c l ea r er . H o w d o I k n o w t h e m e a n i n g o f H eis i n p a i n ? W e ll, f r o m m y o w n c as e I k n o w t h e m e a n i n g o f I am i n p a i n . B yde c ompos i t i on ( s t r uc tu r a l unde r s t a nd ing o f t he l a t t e r a s se r t i on a nd how i t sc o m p o n e n t s f u n c t i o n t o g e t h e r t o m a k e u p a m e a n i n g f u l w h o l e ) I k n o w w h a ti s i n pa in m e a ns a nd by r e a s se mbly I kn ow wha t He i s i n pa in me a ns . I sn t

t ha t t he a na log is t s a r gum e n t? I t is no t t h a t I ima g ine som e one who , un l ikem e , c a n imm e d ia t e ly e xp e r i e nc e e ve r yon e s pa in , no r e ve n tha t I g ra sp them e a n ing o f He is i n pa in by se e ing the a na logy be tw e e n h i s d i r e c t ly

8/12/2019 Semantic Analogy

12/18

2 2 8 L A W R E N C E S K L A Rexper i enc ing h is pa ins and me mine , and t hen r e ly ing upo n t he as soc ia t iono f m e a n i n g w i t h m e t h o d o f v e r i f i c a t i o n t o t h i n k I n o w g r a s p t h e m e a n i n go f He i s i n pa in . No . I t i s t ha t t he mean ing o f He i s i n pa in is g iven by i tst ru th -cond i t i ons , and t he s e I under s t and by t he i r ana logy wi th t he (d i r ec t l yepis temical ly access ib le) t ru th-c ond i t ions o f I am in pain . I t i s som ethingl ike a s ta te o f a f fa i r s which I am supposed to g rasp on the ana logy wi th ad i rect ly exper iencib le s ta te-of-af fa i rs tha t i s a t the hea r t o f the analogis t sc l a im seen f rom th i s po in t o f v iew. Of cou rse t h i s is no t a t heo ry o f mea n ingand i t i sn t c l ear t ha t t he re is any cohere n t t he o ry wh ich can back up t h i si n it ia l m ode l o r p i c tu re . W e wi ll r e t u rn t o t h i s p rob l em sho r t l y .

V

I have no i n t en t i on h e re , o f cou rse , o f even m ak ing reasonab ly coheren tsugges t i ons abou t j u s t wha t a t heo ry o f mean ing wou ld be wh ich wou lda l low fo r t he emb edd ing i n i t o f a t heo ry o f leg i tima t e p ro j ec t i on o f mean ingb y m e a n s o f a n a l o g y . R a t h e r, I w i ll j u s t n o t e f o u r a s p e c ts o f t h e p r o b l e m o fme an ing by ana logy wh ich a re o f some im por t ance , a spec t s wh ich will com eund er d i scus s ion , I t h ink , n o ma t t e r wh a t t he genera l mea n ing t heo ry is t o bewh ich a l lows fo r ana logical p ro j ec t i on o f t he com prehens ion o f t he mea n ingo f asser tions .

A . S k e p t i c i s mI f we ag ree t ha t we can g rasp t he mean ing o f p ropos i t i on on t he bas i s o fthei r analogy w i th previous ly un de rs too d prop os i t ions , we m ust rea lizetha t we have o pen ed ourselves up to the poss ib i l i ty o f mean ingful asser tionsrelat ive to w hich no groun ds o f warran ted a sser tab i li ty and deniab f l i ty arefo r t hcom ing (o r , pe rhaps , even co u ld be fo r t hcom ing) . Th i s is no t t o s aythat the bel iever in semant ic analogy m u s t b e c o m m i t t e d t o t h e c o m -prehen dab i l i t y o f a t leas t some undec idab l e p ropos i t ions , bu t on ly t ha the migh t be .

In t h i s way h e su re ly d i f f e r s f rom the ve r i fi ca ti on i st . I f t he ve ry mean ingo f t he p ropo s i t ion i s f i xed by t he war ran t i ng cond i t i ons fo r i t , one need neverfea r t ha t one wi l l com e upo n a mean ing fu l a s se r ti on fo r wh ich war ran t i ngcond i t i ons a re no t fo r t hcom ing . P robab ly , a l so , i n t h i s t he be l i eve r i n s eman-t ic a nalogy d i f fers f rom the hol i s t as wel l, a l thou gh i t i sn t as c lear in th i s

8/12/2019 Semantic Analogy

13/18

S E M N T I C N L O G Y 9

c a s e as it i s i n t he c a s e o f t he ve r i f i c a t i on i st a c c o un t o f m e a n i ng . F o r t heho l i s t t he m e a n i ng o f the a s s e r ti ons no t a s s e rt ing t he e x i st e nc e o f c ond i t i onsd i r e c t l y ope n t o e p i s t e m i c a c c es s is f L xed by t he r o l e t he a s s e r ti on p l a ys i na t o t a l t h e o r y . B u t t h e t o t a l t h e o r y m u s t b e r e sp o n s i b le , p r e s u m a b l y o n l y t ot he e m p i r ic a l f a c t s w h i c h c ou l d s e rve t o c o n f i r m o r d i s c on f i r m i t. N o w i f w et a k e i t a s a s u f fi c ie n t c o n d i t i o n o f t h e o r e t i c a l s y n o n y m y ( t w o t h e o r i e s b e i n ge q u i v al e n t i n t h e s en s e o f s a y i n g t h e s a m e t h i n g ) t h a t t h e t w o t h e o r i es h a v ea c o m m o n b o d y o f o b s e r v a ti o n a l c o n s e q u e n c e s , th e n o n c e a ga in s k e p t ic i smha s be e n und e r c u t . W e ne e d no t f e a r t he e x i s t e nc e o f a lt e r na t ive t he o r i e sw h i c h c a n n o t b e j u d g e d r e la ti v e to o n e a n o t h e r b e c a u s e t h e y h a v e t h e i re m p i r ic a l c o n s e q u e n ce s i n c o m m o n , f o r i n th e c as e o f c o m m o n c o n s e q u e n c e sw e ju s t a s s im i l a te t he t he o r i e s t oge t h e r b y c ha r a c t e r i z i ng t he m a ss y n o n y m o u s . A n d o f c o u r s e t h e h o l is t w ill n o t c o u n t e n a n c e o u r a sk i ngt h e q u e s t i o n o f h o w w e t e s t i n d iv i d u a ll y th e a s se r ti o n s o f th e t h e o r y f o ra c c e p t a b i l i ty , s inc e i t is j u s t t h i s c ons i de r a t i on o f t he a s s e r ti ons one a t a t i m ew h i c h he w i l l no t a l l ow .

B u t i f i t i s tr u e t h a t b o t h v e r i f ic a t io n i s m a n d h o l i sm a m o u n t t o a d en i al o fr e a l i s m f o r t he a s s e r t i ons w hos e t r u t h - c ond i t i ons l i e ou t s i de t he r a nge o fd i r e c t e p i s t e m i c a c c e s s i b i l i t y , t he n i t i s ha r d l y a s u r p r i s e t ha t t he s e m a n t i ca n a lo g i st h a s g r e a te r c o n c e r n t h a n t h e y o v e r t h e p r o b l e m s o f sk e p t ic i sm .F o r he t a ke s t he s e t he o r e t i c a l a s s e r ti ons t o be t r ue a nd f a l se , a s a r e t heo b s e r v a t i o n a l , a n d t h e ir c o m p o n e n t s t o h a v e g e n u in e r e f e r en c e , e x t e n s i o n ,

e t c . A n d y e t h e f r e e ly a d m i t s t h a t t h e t r u t h - c o n d i t io n s f o r t h e a s s e r ti o n a ren o t t h e s o r t w e c a n s i m p l y o b s e rv e t o e i t h e r b e o r n o t b e t h e c a se . I f I t a k ei t t ha t H e is i n pa i n i s a n a s s e r ti on o f t he e x i s t e nc e o f a m e n t a l s t a t e o fa n o t h e r , n o t o p e n t o m y e p i s te m i c a c c es s, t h e n o f c o u r s e I w i ll w o r r y a b o u th o w I c a n e v e r really k n o w w h e t h e r o r n o t s o m e o n e i s i n p a i n i n a m a n n e rw h i c h w i l l n o t b o t h e r a t a ll s o m e o n e t o w h o m a n o t h i n g w o u l d d o a s w e l la s a s o m e t h i n g as fa r as t h e m e a n i n g o f p a i n w a s c o n c e r n e d .

B The Limits o f Meaning by AnalogyT o j u s t w h a t e x t e n d c a n w e p r o j e c t m e a n i n g o u t o f o u r b a s is s e n te n c e s a n d o nt o n e w a s se r ti o n s b y m e a n s o f s e m a n t i c a n a l o g y ? P e r h a p s , i f w e t a k e b a si cs e n t e nc e s a s r e po r t i ng t he c o n t e n t s o f i m m e d i a t e s ub j e c t i ve a w a r e ne s s , w ec o u l d p r o j e c t m e a n i n g o n t o a s s e r t i o n s a b o u t t h e e x t e r n a l w o r l d . A t l e a s tL o c k e t h o u g h t t h a t w e c o u l d a l t h o u g h B e r k e l e y s f a m i li a r c r it ic i sm s m a k e

8/12/2019 Semantic Analogy

14/18

2 3 0 L W R E N C E S K L Rus pa use e ve n he r e . P e r ha ps , us ing a p r o j e c t io n o f me a n ing by a na logy , we c a nund e r s t a nd se n te nc e s a t t r i bu t ing me n ta l s t a t e s t o o the r s on the bas is o f ou runde r s t a nd ing o f me n ta l i s t ic a s se rt i ons a bou t ou r ow n p r iva t e m e n ta l s t a t es .A l though , a ga in , W i t tge ns t e in wou ld ha ve u s doub t e ve n th i s . B u t t o wha te x te n t c a n we supp or t , f o r e xa m ple , a re a li s ti c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t he o r e t i c a lasse r t ions in sc ience by a program which in i t ia l ly a t t r ibu tes in te l l ig ib lem eaning t o these asse r t ions on the basis of the i r semant ic ana logy wi th asse r-t i ons o f the o bse r va t ion l angua ge a s sume d to be und e r s tood ?

P e r ha ps i t i sn t t oo un r e a sona b le t o v i e w ba c t e r i a a s, a m ong o the r th ings ,t i ny ob je c t s t o o sma ll t o s e e . Eve n f o r mo le c u le s t he a na logy is good e n oug hto a l low us t o a t l e a s t p l a us ib ly m a in t a in t ha t we unde r s t a nd the k ine t i cthe o r y o f ga se s on the a na logy w i th a bo x f il le d w i th r a p id ly mo v ing b i ll ia r dbal ls . B u t wh e n w e ge t t o e l e c t rons , qua r ks , pho ton s , o r wor se ye t , v i r tua lin t e r me d ia t e ma ssle ss bosons , c ha r m , e t c . wha t e a r th ly u se c a n we ma ke o fa na logy as a sou r c e o f me a n ing?

I t h ink the r e a r e two th ings t h a t c a n be s aid . F i r s t, e ve n in some p r e t tyrecherchd cases the re i s st il l a ce r ta in am ou nt o f theo re t ica l p red ica t io n goingon wh ic h c a n a t l ea s t p la us ib ly be a r gue d to be un de r s to od in t he a nalog ic a lwa y . Eve n i f v i rt ua l pa rt i c le s a re su f f i c i e n t ly r e m ote f r om dus t pa r t i c l esin t he i r p r ope r t i e s t ha t t o spe a k o f t he m a s pa r t ic l e s a t a ll is j u s t t o mi s l e a d ,s til l t he y d o h a ve , pe rha ps , spa t io t e m por a l l oc a t ion , m om e n tum , e ne r gy , e t c .a nd pe r ha ps t he se c a n be un de r s to od on a na logy w i th t hose f e a tu r e s wh e npr e d ic a t e d o f ob j e c t s o f e xpe r i e nc e . S e c ond , i n so f a r as t he f e a tu r e s o f t h ingsc a n n o t b e u n d e r s t o o d o n a n y a n a l og y w h a t e v e r w i t h f e a tu r e s o f t h e e l e m e n t so f e xpe r i e nc e , we c a n , a t t h i s po in t , a lwa ys r e t r e a t t o a n in s t r ume n ta l i s ti cde n ial o f f u ll me a n ing to t he p r e d ic a t e s a l t oge the r .

E le c t r i c c ha r ge i s j u s t t he d i spos i t i on to be ha ve in c e r t a in wa ys unde rc e r t a in t e s t c ond i t i ons ; t he p s i - f unc t ion o f qua n tu m m e c ha n ic s i s j u s t a n in .t e r ve n ing va r i a b le c onne c t ing t e s t c on d i t i ons a nd r e su l ts o f me a su r e me n t s ,bo th c ha r a c t e r i z e d in t he o ld obse r va tiona l voc a bu la r y , bu t hav ing noinde p e nde n t me a n ing o r r e f e r e nc e o f i ts ow n , e t c . W itne ss B ohr s i n s is t e nc et h a t o u r b o d y o f re l concepts wi l l a lways be res t r ic ted to those fami l ia rto u s f r om e ve r yd a y e xpe r i e nc e , t he r e s t o f t he t he o r e t i c a l a ppa r a tu s t o beund e r s too d on ly f unc t iona l ly r e l a ti ve t o a s ser ti ons f r a me d in th i s o rig ina lvoc a bu la r y .

N o w i t m a y v e r y w el l b e t h a t t h e d i s po s i ti o n o n o u r p a r t t o h o l d t o ar e al is t ic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the o r e t i c a l a s se rt ions whe n the y a re f r a m e d in t he

8/12/2019 Semantic Analogy

15/18

SEMANTIC ANALOG Y 23

f a mi l ia r voc a bu la r y o f obse r va t iona l e xpe r i e nc e , a nd r e t r e a t t o i n s t rum e n ta l i smo n l y w h e n t e r m s a r e i n v o k e d w h i c h c a n t b e u n d e r s t o o d a n a lo g ic a ll y o n t h ebas is o f obse r va t iona l p r e d i c a t e s i s a m or e p syc ho log ic a l p r e jud ic e on o u r pa r t .C e r t a in ly t h i s w ou ld be the c l a im o f t he o r th od ox ve r if i c a tion i s t a nd theho l i s t. B u t I t h ink i t wo u ld b e a s p r e m a tu r e t o dogm a t i c a lly a c c e p t suc h ac l a im a nd r e j e c t ou r i n tu i t i ons , vague as t he y m a y be , a s i t wou ld b e tor as h ly a c c e p t t h e H u m e a n c la i m t h a t o u r b e l i e f i n t h e u n i f o r m i t y o f n a t u rei s bu t a r e f e c t io n o f p syc ho log ic a l ly e xp l i c a b le p r e jud ic e a nd no t a r at i ona la n d r a t io n a li za b l e a p p r o a c h t o a n a t t e m p t t o k n o w w h a t g o e s o n i n t h e w o r l d .

C. Leg it imate vs I llegit imate Ana logyAs no te d e a r li e r a p r im a r y a s sa u lt on the v e r y no t io n o f s e ma n t i c a na logypr oc e e ds by a t t e m p t ing to show tha t t he p r inc ip l e s t he a na log i st u se s t oa l low the p r o j e c t io n o f me a n ing f r om se n te nc e to s e n t e nc e - ba s i ca l ly , I ha vec l a ime d , t he p r inc ip le o f de c o m pos i t i on a nd r e a s sembly - a r e suc h tha t t he ylead to the c la imed in te l l ig ib i l i ty a pr ima facie meaningless u t te ran ces ( I t i sf iv e o c l o c k o n t h e s u n , T h e n u m b e r t h r e e is th i n k i n g o f V i e n n a . e t c .) . N o wobv ious ly t he a na log i st c a n r e p ly t ha t he d oe sn t a c c e p t any d e c o m p o s i t i o na nd r e a s se mbly o f s e n t e n t ia l c om pon e n t s a s gua r a n te e ing a t r a ns f e r o fme a n ing f u lne s s f r om the o r ig ina l s e n t e nc e s de c ompose d to t he ne wlyr e a s se mble d u t t e r a nc e s . The r e mus t be some r e s t r i c t i ons on the r a nge o fd e c o m p o s i t i o n a n d r e as s e m b l y .

B u t h ow the se r e s t r ic t i ons a re t o be f o r m u la t e d i s go ing to be a m a t t e r o fsome d i f f i c u l ty f o r t he a na log i s t . I do no t be l i e ve tha t a ny na ive a t t e mp t i nt e r ms , s a y , o f a c a t e go r i z a t ion o f voc a bu la r y in to s e ma n t i c c la sses a nd a na t t e m p t t o de l imi t l e g i tima te r u le s o f a s se mbly in t e r m s o f t he se c la sses w i lldo the j ob . Eve n the m os t obv ious r u le s we th ink o f w i lt me e t a ve r i f ic a t ion i s tc ha l le nge , we m igh t n o t e . Me r e sub s t i t u t i on o f i nde x ic a ls is i t s e l f dub ious ,a c c o r d ing to t he ve r i f ic a t ion i s t , f o r , a c c o rd ing to h im, I d o n t u n d e r s t a n dHe i s in pa in on the ba s is o f I a m in pa in e ve n thoug h bo th inde x ic a l s r e f e r

to pe r sons . A ga in , i f some in t e r p r e t e r s o f r e la t i v i ty ar e r igh t , E ins te in showe dt h a t w e w e r e m i s t a k e n i n t h i n k in g t h a t w e c o u l d u n d e r s t a n d t h e s i m u l t a n e i tyr e l a t i on w he n p r e d ic a t e d o f e ve n t s at a d i st a nc e f r om one a n o the r , j u s tbe c a use we u nde r s too d i t w he n p r e d ic a t e d o f spa t ia l ly c o inc ide n t e ve n t s .No w the ve r i f ic a t ion i s t m igh t be wr ong a b ou t t he se ca ses , bu t how i s t he a na-log is t t o c onv inc e h im w i tho u t a f uUf le dge d the o r y o f t he l e g i t ima c y o f

8/12/2019 Semantic Analogy

16/18

2 3 2 L W R E N C E S K L Ra na log ica l p r o j e c t ion o f me a n ing a nd w i tho u t a n a na lys is o f t he l imi t s o fl e g i tima te me a n ing p r o j e c t io n by a na logy?

The c om pa r i son w i th t he ve r i f ic a t ion i s t p r og r a m is i n t e r e s ti ng he r e . Theve r i fi c a tion i s ts p r ov ide d bo th a c r i t e rion o f me a n ing f u lne s s , a nd , m uc h m or ein t e r e s t i ng , a doc t r ine a bou t me a n ing . The two f i t t oge the r i n a n obv iouswa y : t o spe c i f y me a n ing i s t o g ive t he c ond i t i ons o f wa r r a n t e d a s se r t a b i li t ya nd de n ia b i l i ty . I n t he a bse nc e o f suc h c ond i t i ons , t he a s se r t ion is me a n ing le s s .W ha t i s t he a na log i s t s t he o r y o f me a n ing to b e , a nd h ow , r e la t ive t o i t , a rethe l imi t s o f l e g i tima te p r o j e c t ion o f m e a n ing by a na logy to b e c ha r a c t e r iz e d?

D A Theory of MeaningW e n o w c o m e t o t h e m o s t f u n d a m e n t a l p r o b l e m w i t h t h e d o c t r i n e o f t h ep r o j e c t a b i li t y o f m e a n i n g b y a n a lo g y . In t o j u s t w h a t t h e o r y o f m e a n i n g a n dthe kno wa b i l i t y o f me a n ing i s i t t o be i n se r t e d a s a v ia b le pa r t ?

T h e t h e o r y i s o n e w h i c h t a k e s a s f u n d a m e n t a l i n m e a n in g t h e o r y tr u t h -c o n d i t i o n s a n d o u r g r a sp o f t h e m . T o u n d e r s t a n d t h e m e a n i n g o f a p r o p o si -t i on i s t o k now wh a t i t a s se r ts , i .e . t o un de r s t a nd wh a t i t i s f o r i t t o be t r uea nd w ha t i t is f o r i t t o be f a ls e . W e c a n g r a sp a t r u th - c o nd i t i on by ha v ing i td i rec t ly access ib le to us (w e a re im m edia te ly aware o f the co ndi t io ns asser -t e d to be t he c ase f o r t he obse r va t ion se n t e nc e s ) o r we c a n g r a sp a t r u th .c o n d i t i o n b y s ee in g it s a n a l o g y t o a t r u t h - c o n d i t i o n a lr e ad y c o m p r e h e n d e db y u s , t h a t i s b y c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e n e w t ru t h - c o n d i t i o n o u t o f c o m p o n e n t sa va ila ble t o u s f r om the i r r o l e i n a n t e c e d e n t ly c om pr e h e nd e d t r u th - c ond i t i onsa c c o r d ing to s t r uc tu r a l p r inc ip l e s o f c ons t i t u t i ng t r u th - c ond i t i ons ou t o fob je c t s a nd p r ope r t i e s a lso f a mi l ia r t o u s f r o m un de r s to od c ases .

B u t wha t a l l t h i s me a ns i s f a r , f a r f r om c l e a r . I t sma c ks a l l t oo muc h o fa p i c tu r e in t he m ind the o r y o f me a n ing , whe r e c om pr e he n s ion o f a sser-t i ons i s v i e we d in t he ma nne r o f a n a s soc i a t i on o f s e n t e nc e s w i th p i c tu r e sa n d o f n o v e l s en t e n c es w i t h n e w p i c t u re s m a d e u p o u t o f p i ec e s c u t f r o m o l do n e s a n d g l u ed t o g e t h e r i n n o v e l w a y s . T h i s w o n t d o , o f c o u rs e , a s a t h e o r yo f m e a n ing . B u t j u s t w ha t do e s t he a na log ls t ha ve to p u t i n i ts p l a ce ? I npa r t i c u l a r wha t doe s he ha ve w h ic h i s i n f o rm a t ive ove r a nd a bove th e t r iv i a -l i t i e s wh ic h t e l l u s t ha t t o unde r s t a nd the me a n ing o f a s e n t e nc e i s t o g r a spi t s t r u th - c on d i t i on w h ic h i s , a f t e r all, j u s t t o kn ow wh a t t he s e n t e nc e me a ns?One th ing g r a sp ing a t r u th - c o nd i t i on c a nn o t me a n , o f c ou r se , is know ingh o w t o d e t e r m i n e t h e t r u t h o r f a l si ty o f t h e p r o p o s i t io n . F o r , a cc o r d in gto th i s v i ew a nd in d i r e c t c on f l i c t w i th ve r i fi c a t ion i sm in a ny o f i t s f o r ms ,

8/12/2019 Semantic Analogy

17/18

SEM NTIC N LOGY 233w e c a n p e r f e c t l y w e ll k n o w t h e m e a n i n g o f a p r o p o s i t i o n an d y e t h a v e n oi d e a w h a t e v e r h o w o n e c o u l d p o s s i b ly d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r i t b e t r u e o r f al se .A n d i t c a n t m e a n s i m p l y k n o w i n g t h e n e c e ss a ry a n d s u f fi c ie n t c o n d i t i o n sf o r t h e t r u t h o f t h e p r o p o s i t i o n .

D e s p i te t h e d i f f ic u l ti e s s u c h a t h e o r y o f m e a n i n g a n d t h e c o m p r e h e n s i o no f m e a n i ng o b v i o u s ly w o u l d m e e t , i t s ti ll m i g h t b e w o r t h s o m e e f f o r t t o f in ds u c h a t h e o r y . T o c o n v i n ce y o u o f t h a t l e t m e e n d w i t h a ( fa m i l ia r ) l i tt lepa r a b le . Exp lo r ing a d is t a n t p l a ne t w e c om e upo n some e n t i ti e s . U t t e r lyunl ike any l iv ing c rea tures w e a re fami l ia r wi th we s ti ll F red the i r beh avio rc o m p l e x e n o u g h t o o f f e r a n a c c o u n t o f i t i n te r m s o f p o s i t e d i n t er n a lf unc t iona l s t a te s . L e t u s c a l l one suc h s t a te be ing in g r inc h . Ou r c om ple xf unc t iona l i s t t he o r y som e t ime s l ea ds u s t o s a y Th a t one is i n t he g r inc hs t a t e . A f t e r a wh i l e a pa r t i c u l a r ly ima g ina tive a l i e n -a n th r opo log i s t sudde n lysee s c lo se f o r m a l pa r a ll e ls be tw e e n the f un c t iona l o r ga n iz a t ion o f t he i n t e r na ls t at e s o f t h e c r e a tu r e s a n d t h e p r o g r a m o f f u n c t io n a l o rg a n i z at io n o f h u m a nm e n ta l s t a te s . I n t h i s f o r ma l pa r a l le l , be ing in t he g r inc h s t a t e i s l oc a t e d ju s ta b o u t w h e r e b e i n g in p a i n is lo c a t e d i n o u r d e s cr i p ti o n o f th e m e n t a l l if e o fm en. So , specula t ing , he says : Pe rhaps b e ing in g r inch i s be ing in pa in .

N o w w e a re n o t c o n c e r n e d w i t h w h e t h e r o r n o t h e i s ri g ht . O r e v e n i f h ee ve r ha s a n y goo d r e a son f o r be l i e v ing he is f i gh t i n ide n t i f y in g g r inc hne sswi th pa in . Th e po in t is , do we no t be l ie ve tha t i n c om ing to e n t e r t a in thep r o p o s i t i o n T h a t t h in g is in p a i n h e h a s c o m e t o e n t e r t a i n a n o v e l p r o p o s i-t i on d i f f e r e n t f r om me r e ly be l ie v ing Th a t c r e a tu r e is in t he g r inc h s t a t e , a nd ,i n d e e d , a p r o p o s i t i o n h e c a n u n d e r s t a n d o n l y b e c a u se h e k n o w s w h a t p a ini s ( p r e sum a b ly , bu t no t ne c e s sa ri l y , f r om h i s ow n c a se ) . B u t h i s me a n s f o re s t ab l i sh ing wh e the r o r no t a c r e a tu r e is in pa in a r e , o f c ou r se , t he ve r y c ond i -t i ons he u se s f o r e s t a b l i sh ing whe the r o r no t a c r e a tu r e s g r inc he s . Ye t t hep r o p o s i t i o n h e n o w t a k e s w a r ra n t e d b y g r in c h in g b e h a v i o r is n o t m e r e l ytha t t he c r e a tu r e i s i n a g r inc h s t a t e , bu t t ha t i t is inpain I f y o u a c c ep t t h a ta n o v e l p r o p o s i t i o n h a s b e e n e n t e r t a i n e d b y h i m , t h e n y o u a c c e p t t h e c l a i mt h a t t h e r e is m o r e t o m e a n i n g o f a n a s s e rt io n t h a n i t s c o n d i ti o n s o f w a r ra n t e da s se r ta b i l it y a nd de n ia b i l i t y . And i f you a c c e p t t h e c la im tha t t h i s a dd i t iona le l e m e n t i s a g r a s p o f m e a n i n g w h i c h c o m e s a b o u t f r o m u n d e r s t a n d in g t h em e a n i ng s o f t h e c o m p o n e n t s i n t h e n o v e l a s s er ti o n f r o m u n d e r s t a n d in g t h er o le t h e y h a d i n p r ev i o u s ly u n d e r s t o o d a s se rt io n s , t h e n y o u o u g h t t o p u r su ea n a na log ica l t h e o r y o f m e a n ing p r o j e c t io n , elu sive a s suc h a t he o r y migh t be .The University o f M ichigan

8/12/2019 Semantic Analogy

18/18

34 LAWRENCE SKLAR

NOTES* Work on this paper was partially supported by a research grant of the National ScienceFoundation. Grant No. SOC 76-22334.i M. Dummet t, What is a theory of meaning? (II) , in G. Evans and J. McDowell (eds.),Truth and Meaning (Oxford, 1976), pp. 67 -13 7. The argument discussed above is onpp. 98-101.