| dc.description.abstract | This thesis discusses a range of strategies for explaining what is at stake in semantic disputes and for resolving them. We discuss a range of insights on this topic by philosophers of language and related fields including Carnap, Reichenbach, Kripke, Haslanger, Wittgenstein, Kuhn and others. We also add some insights of our own. In particular we will argue, with Reichenbach and Haslanger, that what is at stake in a semantic argument may be underdetermined from the outset. Lastly we will discuss the notion of a project relative to which semantic disputes may be understood and resolved. A project will be some kind of activity and theory aimed at something with its own terminology. A project specific word, or use of a word, generally relates to the rest of the project-specific terminology as well as to the general aims of the project. The aim of the project, and the constellation of the terminology the project has, gives direction to what kind of definitions we should use for certain purposes. | |
| dc.subject.keywords | semantic dispute, verbal dispute, Carnap, Reichenbach, Kuhn, Kripke, Haslanger, Wittgenstein, Kuhn, conceptual engineering, Cappelen, Putnam, Chalmers, Dupré, Austin, philosophy of language, Quine, analytic, definition, conceptual analysis, meaning, language game, paradigm, project, Ludlow, underdetermination, dynamic lexicon, Strawson, ameliorative analysis, explication, language planning, language, homonym, stipulate, institutions, semantic externalism, kinds, nominalism, linguistic phenomenology, natural language, system | |
