The Semantic Illusion

Presentation Transcript

The Semantic Illusion R. E. Jennings Laboratory for Logic and Experimental Philosophy Simon Fraser University jennings@sfu.ca

The Semantic Illusion R. E. Jennings Laboratory for Logic and Experimental Philosophy Simon Fraser University jennings@sfu.ca

The Semantic Illusion R. E. Jennings Laboratory for Logic and Experimental Philosophy Simon Fraser University jennings@sfu.ca

I The Physics of Language

Language is physical We submit demonstrations of discourse or of engraving. The demonstrations have physical impacts. A physical hypothesis of dialect will recognize implications with their physical (neural and other) sorts of impacts. Implications are physical sorts. SFU/LLEP

Language is physical We submit demonstrations of discourse or of engraving. The demonstrations have physical impacts. A physical hypothesis of dialect will distinguish implications with their physical (neural and other) sorts of impacts. Implications are physical sorts. SFU/LLEP

Language is physical We confer demonstrations of discourse or of engraving. The demonstrations have physical impacts. A physical hypothesis of dialect will recognize implications with their physical (neural and other) sorts of impacts. Implications are physical sorts. SFU/LLEP

Language is physical We submit demonstrations of discourse or of engraving. The demonstrations have physical impacts. A physical hypothesis of dialect will recognize implications with their physical (neural and other) sorts of impacts . Implications are physical sorts. SFU/LLEP

Language is physical We confer demonstrations of discourse or of engraving. The demonstrations have physical impacts. A physical hypothesis of dialect will recognize implications with their physical (neural and other) sorts of impacts. In such a hypothesis, implications are physical sorts. Be that as it may, shouldn't something be said about . . . SFU/LLEP

Language is physical We submit demonstrations of discourse or of engraving. The demonstrations have physical impacts. A physical hypothesis of dialect will recognize implications with their physical (neural and other) sorts of impacts. In such a hypothesis, implications are physical sorts. However, shouldn't something be said about . . . SFU/LLEP

Convention

Convention

Convention

Convention

Convention!

Convention! Their causal part is customary !!

Yes, yes, we hear you, traditional Yes, their causal essentialness is routine . In any case, for a physical hypothesis (disregarding aim ), this implies: The causal connections that constitute their association with the world have themselves a causal history. SFU/LLEP

Engendering We deliver the vocal and inscriptional buildings that we do with the causal noteworthiness that they have (a) in light of the fact that our semantic precursors created the vocal and inscriptional edifices that they did with the causal criticalness that they had . & (b) as a result of the certainties of causing . SFU/LLEP

To total up A physical hypothesis of dialect will reveal to us the standards overseeing the causal history of the causal connections between semantic movement and the world. SFU/LLEP

II The Biology of Language

Meanings are Species If a significance is a physical sort, then it is an animal types. An animal types is: The union of an arrangement of populaces transiently requested by an inciting connection. An animal categories is a non-established set (Every individual from (nearly) every species has progenitors that are not individuals from the species.) Members of a similar populace have comparable morphological profiles. Each types of impact that constitutes an importance has genealogical impacts that are not implications (since we have non-semantic predecessors.)

Prolific serial piece of words from a restricted vocabulary of phonemes Serial structure of codons from triples of amino acids Suggestive Parallels SFU/LLEP

Prolific serial arrangement of sentences from that vocabulary of words Compositions of chains of codons in a perusing outline Suggestive Parallels SFU/LLEP

Genes as DNA or RNA atoms Their appearance in protein union Phonemes and other essential segments of discourse Their neural impacts in the beneficiary Suggestive Parallels SFU/LLEP

Regulation of quality expression at different levels: Transcription Processing Transport to site Regulation of discourse parts at different levels: Suggestive Parallels SFU/LLEP

Regulation of Neural Expression of Speech Circumstances of articulation "I'll eat just if there is deficient nourishment." "If any understudy touches my whisky, I'll know it." (denoting the level, or legitimate observation?) SFU/LLEP

Regulation of Neural Expression of Speech Variations in prosodic measurements of introduction (stress, pitch form, lengthenings) "What is this thing called love" "What is this thing called, Love?" SFU/LLEP

Regulation of Neural Expression of Speech Variations in prosodic measurements of introduction (stress, pitch shape, lengthenings) "What is this thing called love?" "What is this thing called, Love?" SFU/LLEP

Regulation of Neural Expression of Speech Variations in prosodic measurements of introduction (stress, pitch form, lengthenings) "What is this thing called love?" "What is this thing called, Love?" BBC Contrast: "No trees have fallen here" SFU/LLEP

Regulation of Neural Expression of Speech Variations in prosodic measurements of introduction (stress, pitch form, lengthenings) "What is this thing called love" "What is this thing called, Love" Contrast: "No trees have fallen here." Mary Shaw SFU/LLEP

Replication Apprehension of discourse includes replication of linguistic structure. Actually a practice as if for its generation. Prosodic and conditional directions advance exact replication. There is a non-zero blunder rate. SFU/LLEP

Bigger living being suggests more cells, not greater ones. Longer composition work suggests more sentences not greater ones *. *Kant, Mill, John Harrison are exemptions. One More Parallel: Modularity SFU/LLEP

Protein union relies on feeble powers viable just at variable however little sub-atomic separations inside the endoplasmic reticulum and different organelles. Trepidation of syntactic structure relies on factor cutoff points of sentence length. Parts must not be past the limit of prosodic and logical prompting. Measured quality Cont'd SFU/LLEP

Protein amalgamation relies on frail powers viable just at variable however little atomic separations inside the endoplasmic reticulum and different organelles. Trepidation of syntactic structure relies on factor points of confinement of sentence length. Parts must not be past the limit of prosodic and logical signaling. Seclusion Cont'd SFU/LLEP

III Logicalization All legitimate, normally happening connectives are plunged from lexical things

Language is untidy Since consistent implications are the results of transformative procedures, we should expect differences, multifaceted nature, and chaos as opposed to solidarity, straightforwardness, and request. "One connective: one signifying" is semantic creationism. In a word, we should expect: SFU/LLEP

Polysemy pare: "You may have pie or you may have cake" Conjunction/Disjunction is not the striking refinement amongst and as well as. SFU/LLEP

Polysemy The Myth of Exclusive Or Compare: "You will have pie or you will have cake" "You may have pie or you may have cake" Conjunction/Disjunction is not the notable qualification amongst and as well as. SFU/LLEP

The Gricean Urn: Invoking Occam in the wrong locum In Biology: hypothetical establishments are costly. Living things are modest. In Language: hypothetical establishments are costly. Implications are shabby. So: (a) Keep hypothetical develops to a base. (b) Accept hypothetically reasonable diversities of importance. SFU/LLEP

Some Examples "It never rains, yet we as a whole possess umbrellas in any case." "It never rains yet it pours." "My, yet it's a delight!" "Nobody yet his mom calls him Hulon " SFU/LLEP

More Examples "He is thirty-nine or he is forty." "He might be thirty-nine or he might be forty." "He more likely than not left early, or I would have seen him." "Lou is taller than Mary or Nancy." "Lou is the sister of Mary or Nancy." SFU/LLEP

Lexical starting points of a few connectives But from however a (by outan = outside) Or from o the r (= second) If from g yf a (give) We can follow the progressions by which they procure connective employments. SFU/LLEP

But : A representation Spatial yet ("however the house") Abstract categorial yet ("no reward yet transcendence") Circumstantial yet ("No course is pardonable yet that he ought to yield") Ellipsis of that ("I won't be lifted up yet you should have partake in my eminence") SFU/LLEP

Mutations Connectives and their prompt precursors are less powerful than lexical things. Case: unless (1) in soonest utilizes: on [a condition] not as much as that (= and not) An on not as much as that B = An and not B However, dependably inside the extent of a refutation SFU/LLEP

Mutations cont'd Not (An unless (1) B) read as (Not An) unless B yields (Not An) unless (2) B ( unless (2) = or = if not ) (indistinguishable events of utilization) + (novel linguistic structure) >>> (novel meaning) SFU/LLEP

Stages of Mutation Initial extension confusion Incubation arrange (The new importance is covered up underneath the old.) Migrations to new situations with new significance are maintainable. Uncertainty in starting condition. Disambiguation by checking ( simply any, regardless of the possibility that, for all , just on the off chance that and so forth.) SFU/LLEP

But Resumed Or (if not) which means from and not importance by change: Not (A but rather B)/(Not A) however B And+ significance from or significance by transformation (offer assistance