Martin Montminy

Abstract: Despite all the critical scrutiny they have received recently, contextualist views in philosophy are still not well understood. Neither contextualists nor their opponents have been entirely clear about what contextualist theses amount to and what they are based on. In this article I show that there are actually two kinds of contextualist view that rest on two very different semantic phenomena, namely, semantic incompleteness and semantic indeterminacy . I explain how contextualist approaches can be used to dissolve certain debates in philosophy. According to such approaches, the same philosophical thesis can be correctly endorsed in some contexts and correctly denied in others: it is thus pointless to seek a context-independent solution to debates about this thesis. My purpose is not to defend particular contextualist views but to lay out the general framework on which they rest: this allows us to see more clearly the similarities and differences among contextualist views defended in various areas of philosophy.

Saul Kripke has raised a powerful skeptical objection to an account of meaning based on dispositions. He argues that attempts to explain meaning on the basis of dispositions, no matter how sophisticated, are bound to fail because meaning is normative, whereas dispositions are descriptive. I provide a clear account of the normativity objection, which has often been seen as obscure or been conflated with other objections Kripke raises. I offer a straight solution to the skeptical paradox based on a dispositional approach to meaning that survives the normativity objection. A key aspect of my approach is the assimilation of meaning to secondary properties such as color. I compare meaning attributions with reductive explanations of high-level phenomena in other areas, and argue that there are no differences in kind between the two. Consequently, skepticism about meaning is not better warranted than a similar skepticism about reductive explanations of other high-level phenomena

I examine in detail the argument vaguely suggested by Davidson to the effect that holism entails the irreducibility of the mental. I defend this argument against two objections often made against arguments that attempt to derive metaphysical theses from premises that concern our ordinary criteria for applying terms. I appeal to two-dimensional semantics to explain the links between these criteria and issues about reference and reduction. I show how the irreducibility of the mental follows from the holistic and flexible character of our criteria for attributing beliefs and intentional states.

Contextualism about vagueness holds that the content of vague predicates is context sensitive. I contrast this view with a similar view called nonindexical contextualism, and explain why my brand of contextualism should be preferred to it. I then defend contextualism against three objections that have been recently raised against it. I show that these objections are actually more damaging to rival views than to contextualism itself.Quanto ao fenômeno da vagueza, o contextualism defende a tese de que o conteúdo dos predicados vagos é sensível ao contexto. Contrasto essa visão com uma visão similar chamada contextualismo não-indexical, e explico por que minha versão dever ser preferida à outra. Depois, eu defendo o contextualismo contra três objeções que foram apresentadas recentemente contra ele. Argumento que essas objeções valem muito mais, na verdade, não contra o contextualismo, e sim contra as visões rivais

Donald Davidson considère qu'une théorie de l'interprétation doit êtreradicale, c'est-à-dire qu'elle ne doit présupposer aucune connaissance de la langue à interpréter. Cette exigence repose sur l'idée suivante: si une théorie de l'interprétation pour une langue L présuppose une certaine compréhension de L, alors elle perd son pouvoir explicatif et échoue à rendre compte de ce qui permet la compréhension de L. L'interpr'tation radicale a l'avantage de nous forcer à rendre explicite ce qui est à l'œuvre dans le processus d'interprétation du comportement verbal d'autrui. Elle nous permet aussi de nous concentrer sur la nature des données empiriques qui rendent possible la communication. Il importe de noter que Davidson ne veut aucunement suggérer qu'un interprète compétent de Lconnaϊtoupossèdeune théorie de l'interprétation pour L: la théorie set plutôt à donner une description de sa compétence.

W. V. Quine is commonly read as holding that there are no analytic truths and no a priori truths. I argue that this is a misreading. Quine’s view is that no sentence is determinately analytic or determinately a priori. I show that my reading is better supported by Quine’s arguments and general remarks about meaning and analyticity. I then briefly reexamine the debate between Quine and Carnap about analyticity, and show that the nature of their disagreement is different than what it is usually thought to be.

Il n’est pas facile de voir quel est l’objectif de ce livre. Au chapitreI, Rivenc annonce que ce qui l’intéresse est le lien chez Davidson entre le format d’une théorie de la signification pour les langues naturelles et le thème de l’interprétation radicale qui serait à l’œuvre dans tout échange linguistique. En fait, Rivenc ne dit à peu près rien sur ce lien. Son livre consiste plutôt en une suite de critiques disparates du programme de Davidson, qu’il emprunte à différents commentateurs de celui-ci. L’auteur omet de présenter les réponses à ces critiques qu’ont données les sympathisants de l’approche davidsonienne, et n’essaie pas de tirer des leçons plus générales de ces critiques concernant la sémantique des langues naturelles.