Erkenntnis:1-16 (forthcoming)

Indrek Reiland
University of Vienna
Ever since the publication of Kripke’s Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language, there’s been a raging debate in philosophy of language over whether meaning and thought are, in some sense, normative. Most participants in the normativity wars seem to agree that some uses of meaningful expressions are semantically correct while disagreeing over whether this entails anything normative. But what is it to say that a use of an expression is semantically correct? On the so-called orthodox construal, it is to say that it doesn’t result in a factual mistake, that is, in saying or thinking something false. On an alternative construal it is instead to say that it doesn’t result in a distinctively linguistic mistake, that is, in misusing the expression. It is natural to think that these two construals of semantic correctness are simply about different things and not in competition with each other. However, this is not the common view. Instead, several philosophers who subscribe to the orthodox construal have argued that the alternative construal of correctness as use in accordance with meaning doesn’t make any sense, partly because there are no clear cases of linguistic mistakes (Whiting 2016, Wikforss 2001). In this paper I develop and defend the idea that there’s a distinctively linguistic notion of correctness as use in accordance with meaning and argue that there are clear cases of linguistic mistakes.
Keywords meaning  correctness  normativity  mistake  semantics
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10670-021-00449-y
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

On What Matters: Two-Volume Set.Derek Parfit - 2011 - Oxford University Press.
Individualism and the Mental.Tyler Burge - 1979 - Midwest Studies in Philosophy 4 (1):73-122.
The Logical Basis of Metaphysics.Michael Dummett - 1991 - Harvard University Press.

View all 52 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Rules of Use.Indrek Reiland - forthcoming - Mind and Language.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Kripke’s Normativity Argument.José L. Zalabardo - 1997 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 27 (4):467-488.
Does Semantics Need Normativity? Comments on Allan Gibbard, Meaning and Normativity.Åsa Wikforss - 2018 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 61 (7):755-766.
Semantic Normativity.Åsa Maria Wikforss - 2001 - Philosophical Studies 102 (2):203-26.
Theory of Meaning.Adrienne Lehrer - 1970 - Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall.
Understanding Semantics.Sebastian Löbner - 2002 - Oxford University Press.
Naturalism and Normativity.John Garde Fennell - 2000 - Dissertation, Northwestern University


Added to PP index

Total views
89 ( #129,268 of 2,498,162 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
32 ( #27,314 of 2,498,162 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes