Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Truth condition

In semantics and , truth conditions are the specific circumstances or states of affairs in the world that must obtain for a declarative to be true. This concept forms the foundation of truth-conditional semantics, a theory that identifies the meaning of a with the conditions under which it would be true, providing a systematic way to understand linguistic meaning through recursive definitions of truth. For example, the truth condition of the "Snow is white" is simply that snow is white, capturing what the asserts about . The idea of truth conditions traces back to Alfred Tarski's seminal work on the semantic conception of truth, where he developed a formal definition of truth for artificial languages to avoid paradoxes like the , emphasizing that a truth predicate must satisfy the " 'p' is true p" for every p in the object language. Tarski's approach, outlined in his 1933 paper, requires a materially adequate and formally correct definition, using a to specify and truth recursively for compound expressions built from atomic sentences. This framework ensures that truth conditions are empirically verifiable and free from semantic antinomies, influencing subsequent developments in and . In the mid-20th century, philosophers like Donald Davidson extended Tarski's theory to natural languages, arguing that a theory of meaning could be constructed as a Tarskian truth theory, where the axioms recursively assign truth conditions to based on their syntactic structure and the meanings of their parts. Davidson's 1967 essay posits that knowing the truth conditions of a sentence is equivalent to knowing its meaning, as it reveals the speaker's assertion about the world, and such a theory must be empirically testable against native speaker intuitions. This truth-conditional approach has become dominant in formal semantics, enabling compositional analyses of complex in fields like and , though it faces challenges from context-sensitive expressions and non-declarative utterances that lack clear truth values.

Fundamentals

Definition

A truth condition is the specific state of affairs or circumstance that must obtain in order for a declarative to be true. This concept is central to truth-conditional semantics, where the meaning of a sentence is given by its truth conditions, which serve as the foundational element linking linguistic expressions to , or its (which pertains to the of individual terms rather than whole sentences). Unlike references, which identify objects or entities, truth conditions specify the conditions under which the entire sentence accurately describes the world. Formally, for a sentence S, its truth condition can be characterized as the set of possible worlds or situations in which S holds true. This is often represented as T(S) \iff p, where T(S) denotes the truth of S and p is the corresponding or condition that must obtain. In this framework, the truth condition identifies the precise configuration of facts required for S to be true across varying scenarios, thereby capturing the semantic content of the sentence. Truth conditions must be distinguished from the truth value of a sentence, which is simply its actual status as true or false in a particular . Whereas truth values are outcomes determined by empirical or logical evaluation, truth conditions describe the potential for truth by outlining the necessary and sufficient circumstances, independent of any specific evaluation. This distinction allows truth conditions to function as abstract descriptors of meaning, applicable across multiple contexts without committing to a fixed veracity. In semantics, truth conditions for complex sentences are typically derived through inductive definitions, starting from sentences and building recursively via logical connectives such as , , and . For sentences, truth conditions are assigned based on their correspondence to basic states of affairs; for compound sentences, they are computed systematically from the truth conditions of their components, ensuring that the overall meaning reflects structural . This recursive approach enables a finite set of rules to account for the truth conditions of an infinite array of sentences.

Examples

A basic example of truth conditions is provided by the declarative sentence "It is raining," which is true rain is falling at the specified time and place, and false otherwise. This illustrates how the truth of an everyday depends on meteorological facts in the actual world. In logical contexts, consider the sentence "," which is true if every individual satisfying the "man" also satisfies the "mortal." This truth condition can be understood through set membership, where the set of all men is a of the set of all mortals, or in predicate logic as \forall x (Man(x) \to Mortal(x)), ensuring the sentence holds whenever no exists. Another straightforward case is the "The is on the ," which is true precisely when a specific cat occupies the spatial of a specific mat at the relevant time, and false in all other circumstances. Such examples highlight how truth conditions for simple atomic tie directly to verifiable states of affairs, like the relative positions of objects. Truth conditions also distinguish between necessary and contingent truths. For instance, the mathematical " = 4" is true in all possible worlds, qualifying it as a necessary truth due to its logical inevitability. In contrast, " is " is true in the actual world because snow appears white under standard conditions, but it is contingent, as it could be false in hypothetical scenarios where snow has a different color.

Historical Development

Tarski's Semantic Theory

Alfred Tarski's semantic theory of truth, formulated in the early 1930s, provides a rigorous mathematical framework for defining truth in formalized languages, addressing longstanding philosophical challenges by grounding truth in semantic satisfaction rather than circular or intuitive notions. In his seminal 1933 paper, originally published in Polish as "Pojęcie prawdy w językach nauk dedukcyjnych" in Przegląd Filozoficzny, Tarski sought to construct a non-circular definition of truth that avoids the pitfalls of earlier attempts, such as those leading to semantic paradoxes. This work was later translated into English and included in Tarski's 1956 collection Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics: Papers from 1923 to 1938, where it appeared as "The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages." Tarski's approach emphasizes truth as a predicate applicable to sentences within a model-theoretic structure, where a sentence is true if it is satisfied by all (or some, depending on quantifiers) sequences of objects in the model's domain. Central to Tarski's theory is the Convention T, which establishes a for the material adequacy of any truth . According to Convention T, a formally correct of truth for a must entail, for every sentence S in that , a of the form S is true p, where p is the structural description of S translated into the in a way that preserves its meaning. A classic instance is: "'Snow is white' is true snow is white." This biconditional schema ensures that the truth predicate aligns directly with the conditions under which hold in the world, without invoking truth in its explanation, thereby providing an extensional and verifiable account. Tarski argued that satisfying Convention T for all in the guarantees a materially adequate theory of truth. To prevent paradoxes such as the —where a sentence like "This sentence is false" leads to contradiction—Tarski introduced a strict distinction between the object language (the formal language whose sentences are being evaluated for truth) and the (a richer language used to define and discuss truth in the object language). The must contain the object language as a part but avoids self-referential constructions by not allowing the truth to be expressed within the object language itself. This hierarchical separation resolves semantic antinomies by ensuring that truth is defined externally, without the language referring to its own truth values in a way that generates inconsistency. Tarski's 1933 formulation and its 1956 English translation thus laid the groundwork for , influencing subsequent developments in by providing a paradox-free semantic foundation. Tarski's definition of truth follows an axiomatic, recursive structure tailored to the of formalized languages. For atomic , truth is defined via the satisfaction relation: a like "Fa" (where F is a and a a name) is true in a model if the object denoted by a satisfies the F under the model's . This base case is extended recursively to complex using logical connectives and quantifiers; for instance, the ¬p is true p is false, the p ∧ q is true both p and q are true, and a ∀x φ(x) is true φ(s) is true for every sequence s in the model. This recursive procedure ensures that truth for any is determined systematically from its syntactic structure and the model's semantics, fulfilling Convention T while maintaining formal correctness and avoiding circularity.

Frege's Influence and Early Foundations

Gottlob Frege's foundational work in logic began with his 1879 publication , which introduced a formal that effectively constituted the first predicate calculus, allowing for the precise analysis of sentences as functions applied to arguments to evaluate their truth. This innovation shifted logical analysis from Aristotelian syllogisms to a more expressive framework capable of capturing quantificational relationships, thereby enabling the decomposition of propositions into components whose satisfaction determines truth values. In his 1892 essay "On Sense and Reference" (Über Sinn und Bedeutung), Frege distinguished between the Sinn () of an expression, which contributes to the cognitive content and truth conditions of sentences in which it appears, and the Bedeutung (), which denotes the actual object or value that ultimately determines the of the whole . For proper names and predicates, the sense provides the mode of presentation, while the reference ensures that substitutions preserving reference preserve truth value, laying the groundwork for understanding how linguistic expressions fix truth conditions through their referential structure. Frege extended this to complete , arguing that their is a —the True or the False—with truth conditions emerging from whether the arguments satisfy the expressed by the . This view treats as names of truth values, where the truth of a depends on the proper of its functional structure by suitable arguments, such as objects falling under concepts. A key element in Frege's approach was the context principle, articulated in his 1884 : "Only in the context of a does a word mean something." This principle emphasized that meaning, including contributions to truth conditions, is grasped holistically through the , influencing subsequent by prioritizing sentential semantics over isolated terms. Frege's ideas profoundly shaped and early 20th-century logic, particularly in advancing —the reduction of to logic—through Russell's adoption of Frege's predicate logic and in works like The Principles of Mathematics (). However, Frege's framework was oriented toward an idealized logical language, deliberately sidelining issues like and ambiguities in , which he viewed as imperfections unfit for precise semantic theory.

Theoretical Frameworks

Davidson's Truth-Conditional Semantics

Donald Davidson adapted Alfred Tarski's for formal languages to develop a truth-conditional semantics applicable to s during the and . In his influential 1967 essay "Truth and Meaning," Davidson argued that a satisfactory theory of meaning for a could be constructed using a Tarskian truth theory, which incorporates recursive clauses to derive truth conditions for complex s from those of their parts, provided the theory's axioms empirically capture the semantic facts of the language. This approach posits that the meaning of a is fully specified by its truth conditions—the set of circumstances under which it would be true—and that a theory of meaning is essentially a device for generating these conditions in an interpretive manner. Davidson's framework emphasizes interpretive semantics, where a speaker's understanding of a is demonstrated by their to hold it true under the appropriate conditions, and the truth theory provides the explicit specification of those conditions through T-sentences of the form "'S' is true p," where p paraphrases the truth condition of S. To address the peculiarities of , Davidson extended the theory to handle features like indexicals and quantification. For indexicals, such as in the sentence "I am tired" uttered by a speaker s at time t, the truth condition becomes: s is tired at t, thereby relativizing truth to context without invoking non-extensional notions. Regarding quantification, Davidson proposed that truth conditions could be captured through structured meanings, where quantified expressions are analyzed in terms of by sequences, or via event-based representations that decompose into underlying logical forms amenable to recursive treatment. In his 1973 paper "Radical Interpretation," Davidson connected truth-conditional semantics to the practical problem of understanding an unfamiliar , arguing that interpreters must assign truth conditions to utterances based on speaker and intentions, guided by principles like to maximize agreement on what counts as evidence. This holistic approach underscores that meanings are not assigned atomistically but as part of an interconnected web of beliefs and utterances, ensuring empirical adequacy through overall consistency with the speaker's actions. Davidson's key essays on these themes, including "Truth and Meaning" and "Radical Interpretation," are collected in his 1984 volume Inquiries into Truth and , which elaborates the holistic dimension of meaning assignment in semantic .

Compositionality Principle

The compositionality principle in truth-conditional semantics asserts that the truth condition of a complex expression is a of the truth conditions of its immediate parts and the of their syntactic combination. This ensures that semantic interpretation proceeds systematically from simpler to more complex structures, allowing truth values to be derived recursively without appeal to holistic or idiosyncratic meanings. The principle originates in Gottlob Frege's work, particularly his 1884 The Foundations of Arithmetic, where he emphasized the systematic dependence of meanings on contextual composition, though it was later formalized explicitly in truth-conditional frameworks. Formal rules exemplify this for basic connectives: the truth condition for a conjunction "p and q" holds if and only if both p and q are true; similarly, for negation, "not p" is true if and only if p is false. These rules extend to other operators, maintaining the functional determination of truth values through syntactic structure. In the 1970s, integrated compositionality into his using to assign denotations of different types, treating elements like transitive verbs as s that map objects to properties—for instance, "love" as a from an individual to a property of loving that individual. This approach addressed challenges such as scope ambiguities in quantifiers (e.g., "every man loves some woman," which can mean either universal or existential scope dominates), resolved through precise syntactic parsing that determines binding and interpretation order. The principle gained further formalization in truth-conditional contexts following Donald Davidson's semantic program, where it underpins the recursive specification of truth conditions for entire languages. In Davidsonian semantics, it facilitates the construction of truth theories that handle novel sentences via structural rules.

Philosophical Implications

Connection to Correspondence Theory

The correspondence theory of truth posits that a is true it corresponds to a fact or state of affairs in reality, a view often traced to Aristotle's formulation in the Metaphysics: "To say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true." This theory emphasizes truth as an external relation between linguistic or propositional content and the world, rather than an internal property of the proposition itself. Truth conditions align closely with this framework by specifying the precise conditions under which a corresponds to ; for instance, the "The cat is on the mat" is true there exists a cat situated adjacently above a mat in the relevant . In this way, truth-conditional semantics operationalizes by delineating the factual configuration that makes the hold, without presupposing a robust of facts beyond what the conditions describe. Tarski's semantic theory of truth is compatible with , as it defines truth relative to a model or that supplies the "facts" through relations, thereby avoiding strong metaphysical commitments to independent fact-entities. Similarly, Davidson's truth-conditional approach extends Tarski's ideas to , where truth conditions in a of meaning provide the interpretive mechanism for to worldly states, treating truth as a grounded in empirical adequacy rather than abstract realism. Unlike the coherence theory, which evaluates truth based on consistency within a system of beliefs, correspondence via truth conditions prioritizes an external match to objective conditions, ensuring that truth bearers are answerable to independent reality rather than holistic internal relations.

Role in Meaning and Understanding

In truth-conditional semantics, grasping the truth conditions of a is taken to constitute understanding its meaning, a view central to Donald Davidson's . Davidson argued that to know the meaning of a is to know the conditions under which it is true, and thus a viable theory of meaning for a consists in a Tarskian truth theory that recursively specifies truth conditions for all its . This approach posits that involves the ability to interpret by determining their truth values across possible situations, enabling speakers to use effectively in diverse contexts. Evidence for this conception of understanding comes from Davidson's method of radical interpretation, which demonstrates how truth conditions can be inferred from observable patterns of speaker assent and dissent to held true or false under specific circumstances. In radical interpretation, an interpreter facing an unknown hypothesizes a truth theory based on the speaker's behavioral dispositions—such as uttering a when it matches the perceived situation—without prior knowledge of meanings, thereby constructing an account of semantic understanding grounded in . This process underscores that understanding a amounts to possessing a for assigning truth conditions that aligns with the speaker's reliable use of in the world. Truth conditions delineate the boundary between semantics and by capturing the literal, at-issue meaning of sentences, while excluding non-truth-conditional elements like conversational implicatures. For instance, Paul Grice's distinguishes the truth-conditional content—what is strictly said—from implicatures derived via cooperative principles and , such as the maxim of quantity, where uttering "Some students came" implicates "Not all students came" without altering the sentence's truth conditions. Thus, semantic understanding via truth conditions provides the stable core of meaning, upon which pragmatic inferences build to convey richer communicative intent. Debates persist regarding the psychological reality of truth-conditional knowledge, questioning whether it manifests as explicit representations or implicit components of linguistic competence. Some argue that speakers do not consciously compute truth conditions but rather exhibit them through intuitive judgments, suggesting an implicit, modular basis in the language faculty. These mechanisms enable the rapid acquisition and application of truth-conditional semantics, aligning psychological processes with formal semantic theories without requiring explicit awareness.

Criticisms and Alternatives

Limitations in Handling Context

Truth-conditional semantics encounters significant challenges in accounting for indexicals, whose truth conditions rely on contextual elements that are not encoded in the sentence itself. Consider the utterance "This is good," where the of "this" depends on the speaker's , , or shared at the time of utterance, rendering the sentence's indeterminate without additional contextual specification. David Kaplan's 1989 framework of two-dimensional semantics addresses this by distinguishing between the "character" of an expression—a rule determining its content relative to context—and the context-invariant content itself, underscoring how indexicals expose the incompleteness of purely truth-conditional analyses in capturing full semantic import. A related limitation arises with , particularly in , where borderline cases prevent the assignment of precise truth conditions to . For instance, the "is a " applied to grains of sand generates : a large collection is a heap, yet removing one grain does not alter its status, leading iteratively to the absurd conclusion that a single grain is a heap. This challenges the bivalence assumed in standard truth-conditional theories, as vague terms lack sharp boundaries, forcing revisions such as many-valued logics or tolerance principles to resolve the indeterminacy. Truth-conditional approaches also falter with non-declarative sentences, such as questions ("Is it raining?") and imperatives ("Close the door"), which lack truth values yet play essential roles in communication by directing or action. Robert Stainton (2006) contends that these constructions contribute meaningful content to without necessitating truth-conditional semantics, as their semantic role involves illocutionary force rather than propositional truth assessment, highlighting a gap in the theory's applicability to the full spectrum of linguistic expressions. Contextualist critiques further emphasize that truth conditions underdetermine utterance interpretation, requiring integration with pragmatics to derive intended meanings. François Recanati (2004) argues that minimal semantic propositions—derived solely from truth conditions—are often insufficient, as pragmatic , including speaker intentions and situational factors, modulates what is conveyed in actual use, such as enriching "I've had breakfast" to imply recency based on conversational context. Empirical support from reinforces these limitations, showing that language comprehension routinely overrides literal truth conditions in favor of context-driven pragmatic enrichments. Studies on scalar implicatures, for example, reveal that listeners infer exhaustive readings (e.g., "some" implying "not all") within milliseconds, driven by contextual expectations rather than strict semantic , indicating that truth-conditional models fail to capture the efficiency of real-time interpretation.

Use-Based and Verificationist Approaches

In Ludwig Wittgenstein's later philosophy, as developed in his (1953), the meaning of linguistic expressions is determined by their use within specific "language games"—rule-governed activities embedded in social practices—rather than by fixed truth conditions that correspond to states of affairs. Wittgenstein argued that words derive their significance from practical application in diverse contexts, such as giving orders or describing objects, rejecting the earlier view in his that meaning stems from truth-functional propositions. This shift emphasizes that understanding language involves mastery of its uses, not knowledge of abstract conditions under which sentences are true or false. Verificationism, prominent in the Vienna Circle during the 1920s and 1930s, further challenges truth-conditional semantics by positing that a sentence is cognitively meaningful only if it is empirically verifiable, thereby reducing truth conditions to conditions of empirical confirmation. Influenced by figures like and , the Circle maintained that synthetic statements gain significance through potential observation or testing, dismissing metaphysical claims as unverifiable and thus meaningless. popularized this in his Language, Truth, and Logic (1936), where the verification principle holds that non-analytic propositions are meaningful insofar as their truth can be conclusively or partially confirmed by sensory experience, effectively tying meaning to evidential support rather than independent truth values. Michael Dummett advanced these ideas in his anti-realist framework, outlined in Truth and Other Enigmas (1978), by proposing that grasp of meaning consists in knowledge of assertibility conditions—warrantable grounds for accepting a statement—rather than bivalent truth conditions that may transcend human verification. Dummett contended that realism's commitment to evidence-transcendent truths is incompatible with how speakers manifest understanding through linguistic behavior, advocating instead for an where truth is equated with justified assertibility. Unlike truth-conditional approaches, which presuppose metaphysical facts determining sentence truth regardless of verification, use-based and verificationist theories accommodate context-dependent or indeterminate meanings by grounding semantics in practical deployment or evidential criteria, avoiding reliance on unknowable realities. This contrast addresses limitations in handling vague or indexical expressions, where truth conditions alone fail to capture variability in use. Contemporary developments include Robert Brandom's inferentialism, presented in Making It Explicit (1994), which derives meaning from normative inferences in discursive practices—commitments and entitlements arising from asserting and challenging claims—integrating use-based elements into a social model of semantics without prioritizing truth conditions. Brandom's approach treats linguistic content as holistic networks of inferential relations, where correctness is a matter of rational rather than to facts.

References

  1. [1]
    None
    ### Definition of Truth Conditions and Relation to Meaning
  2. [2]
    [PDF] Tarski's theory of truth
    Mar 2, 2005 · ” (from “The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages”). Tarski's view that natural languages are inconsistent. A problem with the ...
  3. [3]
    Truth Condition - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
    A 'Truth Condition' is the condition that makes a sentence true, based on the truth-conditional theory of meaning, where meaning lies in the truth condition, ...Missing: scholarly | Show results with:scholarly
  4. [4]
    The truth-conditional approach to meaning - Oxford Academic
    According to the basic dictum of truth-conditional semantics that “to know the meaning of a sentence is to know under what conditions that sentence would be ...
  5. [5]
    [PDF] Propositions as Truthmaker Conditions
    Thus, identifying propositions with truth conditions leads us to the view that propositions are sets of possible worlds, defended by Lewis (1986) and Stal-.
  6. [6]
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/20114563
  7. [7]
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767010147
  8. [8]
    Formal Logic - Philosophy 160 (002) - UMSL
    What makes 'it is raining' true (when it is true) is a contingent set of meteorological circumstances. But some sentences cannot be false in any circumstance.
  9. [9]
    Philosophical Semantics - Socratica
    For example, the sentence “The cat is on the mat” is true if and only if there is a cat on the mat. Philosophical semantics investigates what it means for this ...
  10. [10]
    [PDF] 24.244 Modal Logic: More on S2, Semantics - DSpace@MIT
    Let's consider conjunction. ∧ 1 2 3 4. 1 1 2 3 4. 2 2 2 4. 3 3 3 4. 4 4 4 4 4. Table 4. From this table, we see that conjoining anything with a necessary truth ...
  11. [11]
    Tarski's truth definitions - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Nov 10, 2001 · In 1933 Tarski assumed that the formal languages that he was ... –––, 1933, “The concept of truth in the languages of the deductive ...
  12. [12]
    Alfred Tarski - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Oct 30, 2006 · In his classic monograph on the concept of truth “The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages” (Polish original version, Tarski 1933; German ...Truth · Logical consequence · Further reading · Bibliography
  13. [13]
    [PDF] Frege and the logic of sense and reference - Kevin C. Klement
    5For more on how to read the propositions of the Begriffsschrift in English, see. Gregory Landini, “Decomposition and Analysis in Frege's Grundgesetze ...<|separator|>
  14. [14]
    [PDF] Frege and the logic of sense and reference - Kevin C. Klement
    “Über Sinn und Bedeutung” of 1892 (CP 157-77). In “Funktion und Begriff,” the distinction between the Sinn and Bedeutung of a sign in language is first made ...
  15. [15]
    Frege on Truth and Reference - Project Euclid
    For Frege, every significant semantic unit can have a reference —including singular terms, concept expressions, and sentences. If one reads for "reference" here ...Missing: scholarly source
  16. [16]
    [PDF] Peano, Frege, and Russell's Logical Influences
    Some credit Gottlob Frege as the main source of Russell's advocacy of symbolic logic in philosophy and endorsement of logicism, the theory that mathematics.
  17. [17]
    FREGE ON VAGUENESS AND ORDINARY LANGUAGE - jstor
    Frege supposedly believes that vague, predicates have no referent or Bedeutung. But given other things he evidently believes, such a position would seem to ...Missing: article | Show results with:article
  18. [18]
    Truth and meaning | Synthese
    Article PDF. Download to read the full article text. Use our pre ... Cite this article. Davidson, D. Truth and meaning. Synthese 17, 304–323 (1967) ...
  19. [19]
    Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation - Donald Davidson
    This volume updates Davidson's exceptional Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation (1984), which set out his enormously influential philosophy of language.
  20. [20]
    [PDF] Radical Interpretation - Marcello Di Bello
    Radical Interpretation. Author(s): Donald Davidson. Source: Dialectica , 1973, Vol. 27, No. 3/4 (1973), pp. 313-328. Published by: Wiley. Stable URL: http://www ...
  21. [21]
    Compositionality - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Apr 8, 2004 · For Frege, the truth-value is the referent of a sentence because it is sentence's preeminent logical property. This fragment of Begriffsschrift ...Related Principles · Arguments for Compositionality · Arguments Against...
  22. [22]
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compositionality/#1.2
  23. [23]
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compositionality/#1.3
  24. [24]
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/montague-semantics/#3.2
  25. [25]
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/montague-semantics/#3.4
  26. [26]
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compositionality/#3.2
  27. [27]
    https://iep.utm.edu/compositionality-in-language/#H2
  28. [28]
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/20117105
  29. [29]
    Tarskian Truth and the Correspondence Theory - jstor
    In the philosophical literature on Tarski's theory of truth there is no agree ment on whether Tarski intended his theory to be a correspondence theory.
  30. [30]
    [PDF] The Semantic Conception of Truth - University of Alberta
    The truth of a sentence consists in its agreement with (or correspondence to) reality. (For a theory of truth which is to be based upon the latter formulation ...
  31. [31]
    Sorites Paradox - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Jan 17, 1997 · The sorites paradox originated in an ancient puzzle that appears to be generated by vague terms, viz., terms with unclear (“blurred” or “fuzzy”) boundaries of ...
  32. [32]
    [PDF] The Sorites Paradox
    The alternative is to assume that the positive intro- duces semantic content that results in vague truth conditions. Cresswell. (1976), for example ...
  33. [33]
    Literal Meaning - Cambridge University Press & Assessment
    According to the dominant position among philosophers of language today, we can legitimately ascribe determinate contents (such as truth-conditions) to ...
  34. [34]
    [PDF] Pragmatic enrichment in language processing and development
    psycholinguistic literature on implicature, most likely in part because psycholinguists are quite comfortable with the concept of conventionality.
  35. [35]
    Ludwig Wittgenstein - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Nov 8, 2002 · ” For Cavell, Wittgenstein's idea that meanings are determined only within language games, i.e., only in particular cases, is the key to ...Wittgenstein's Logical Atomism · Wittgenstein's Aesthetics
  36. [36]
    Theories of Meaning - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Jan 26, 2010 · One sort of theory of meaning—a semantic theory—is a specification of the meanings of the words and sentences of some symbol system ...Word Meaning · Normativity of Meaning · Meaning Holism · 10<|control11|><|separator|>
  37. [37]
    Vienna Circle - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Jun 28, 2006 · The Vienna Circle was a group of early twentieth-century philosophers who sought to reconceptualize empiricism by means of their interpretation of then recent ...Selected Doctrines and their... · Verificationism and the... · Reductionism and...
  38. [38]
    Alfred Jules Ayer - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    May 7, 2005 · His first formulation of a criterion of meaning, the principle of verification, was in the first edition of LTL (1936), where he claimed that ...Biographical Sketch · The Function and Nature of... · Meaning and Truth · Ethics
  39. [39]
    Challenges to Metaphysical Realism
    Jan 11, 2001 · Dummett's Manifestation Argument: the cognitive and linguistic behaviour of an agent provides no evidence that realist mind/world links exist; ...3.1 Language Use And... · 3.3 Radical Skepticism · 3.4 Models And Reality