Philosophers Settle Debate on How Names Actually Work in Language
A new framework clarifies which uses of names linguists must explain versus ignore, resolving a long-standing philosophical dispute. The finding could improve how semantic theories are built and evaluated, with implications for natural language processing, AI language models, and communication standards.
Originaltitel: A Criterion of Literality for Names
<p>In recent years, several kinds of non-referential uses of names have received attention within semantics. However, the lack of a principled basis for drawing the distinction between uses that a semantic theory of names must account for ('literal' uses) and other uses that it need not explain by itself ('non-literal uses') represents an important deficiency in the debate. A prominent objection (the 'Sceptic's Challenge') against semantic views that treat predicative uses as literal exemplifies the kind of problem that can result from this deficiency. This article proposes a general manner of drawing the line between literal and non-literal uses of names. Further, by providing a rationale for treating predicative uses as literal, it also provides a response to the Sceptic's Challenge.</p>