Naomi Osorio-Kupferblum

Language utterances are meaningful because they mean something to someone. This truism motivates regarding linguistic meaning as a response-dependent property of language utterances. But the properties called ‘response-dependent’ in the literature differ substantially. This paper discusses three kinds with respect to their metaphysics, calling them by their more precise bynames ‘judgment-dependent’, ‘response-dispositional’, and (genuinely) ‘response-dependent’. Looking at what it takes for something to have such a property, we can devise a test to determine which of the three kinds of property we are dealing with. This test is then used to corroborate Goldberg’s (2012) finding that Davidson’s two accounts of linguistic meaning, the Radical Interpretation (RI) account and the account from Language Learning (LL) by triangulation, while both response-dependent (in the broad sense), differ in kind. The test shows that (RI) is an account of meaning as a judgment-dependent property, (LL) as a response-dependent property. But whereas Goldberg argued for giving up (LL) and retaining (RI) in order to have a single account of linguistic meaning, this paper argues in favour of (LL) over (RI). It shows that (i) (RI) cannot exist without (LL), and (ii) (LL) covers more ground than (RI) because it can account for both speaker and listener meaning. So, while (RI) may evolve out of (LL) and has its place in some situations, (LL) is the basis we need in order to account for linguistic meaning.

Carnap's Logical Syntax of Language (1937) contains an unfortunate passage, the ‘Babylon passage’, explaining what it is for a linguistic expression to be about a subject matter. Past criticism has only addressed Carnap's mistaken claim that the occurrence of a denoting term is necessary and sufficient for a linguistic expression to be about the denotatum. But the passage contains further problems: a form‐object confusion due to the ambiguity of ‘lecture’; a use‐mention problem with the word ‘Babylon’; and finally, the fact that its key sentence S1 is a counterexample to Carnap's own definition of aboutness. These flaws notwithstanding, the passage's ‘non‐formal consideration’ that a statement's truth or falsity should matter to our knowledge about the subject matter's properties, is an important contribution to aboutness theory. This paper discusses all these pros and cons of the passage in depth with a view to their consequences for current work on subject matter.

Response-dependent (R-D) properties have a big epistemological advantage: when we are the responders, they give us real knowledge of what their bearers can do or cause. But accounts vary substantially with respect to the underlying metaphysics, and the epistemological advantage is easily lost. In this paper, I explain how this occurs in Pettit’s influential account. I begin by outlining the epistemological motivation for dealing with R-D properties, in particular for some, more demanding, empiricist theories of knowledge. I then explain how dispositional accounts of R-D properties, like Johnston’s, invite in accounts involving judgments, like Pettit’s. In Pettit’s account, responses are effectively judgments of salient similarities between objects, and thereby second-order, so that it is not the properties, but our concepts of the properties that are “response-privileging” and thereby ultimately R-D. This account is then extended to all concepts. Pettit thus gives us a R-D genealogy of concepts, but relinquishes the epistemological asset inherent in (first-order) accounts of R-D properties as consisting in (“real”) response events.

Nelson Goodman’s paper ‘About’ (1961) was a milestone in aboutness theory. Although it has been much discussed, an interesting fact about it has so far been completely ignored: the important debt it owes to two papers it cites by Gilbert Ryle. With Ryle’s ‘About’ (1933) it shares much more than the title – it, too, offers a three-fold account of different ways a sentence can relate to a subject matter and a separate account for fictitious objects. More importantly, although Goodman’s approach is quite different, the inspiration for the crucial element in his account, ‘differential consequence’, may well have come from a parenthetical suggestion of entailment in Ryle’s ‘About’. The second essential tool Goodman uses, viz. compound predicates which incorporate the (fictitious) object, is also the crucial element in Ryle’s ‘Imaginary Objects’ (also 1933). Goodman turns them into a predicate schema for fictitious subject matters as well as for a nominalist version of his account.

Divine names, i.e. the names religions use to speak of their god(s), pose a special problem to semantics. It is not only disputed whether they are proper names, descriptions, or names of kinds, the dispute between believers and non-believers over the ontological status of their bearers is a further obstacle to offering a single theory that can account for all divine names. But aboutness theory can come to the rescue here. Whatever terms divine names are, they pick out a subject matter, and whereas ontology is relevant to reference, subject matters need no corresponding object in the world. Believers and non-believers can therefore agree on the name bearers’ status as topics of their conversation.

Machery et al.’s 2004 x-phi project has been widely criticised for ambiguities contained in the expression ‘talk about’. Interestingly, although ‘about’ plays a prominent part in the debate, aboutness has not been a topic. This paper discusses this aspect. Alas, it must thereby add a further ambiguity to the list, the ambiguity between aboutness and reference, and thus also between subject matter and referent. It explains the distinction between intra-categorical aboutness which makes no ontological demands, and cross-categorical reference which requires the referent to exist. It then analyses the 4-fold embedding contained in Machery et al.’s study and shows how the aboutness-reference distinction bears on it.

In this article the authors identify and analyse points of agreement and disagreement between Michael Ayers and Charles Travis, starting from their views on ‘things before us’. The authors then try to spell out what separates these philosophers in matters concerning perception, knowledge and language. In spite of their both being self-professed realists, equally critical of conceptualism and representationalism, Ayers’ empiricism and Travis’ anti-empiricism lead them to different positions in these three areas. It is shown that in the case of Ayers they hinge on “ordinary” objects and a KK principle (knowledge that and how we know), whereas in the case of Travis they are articulated around occasion-sensitivity and anti-psychologism.

This paper attempts a conceptualisation of authority intended to be useful across all areas where the concept is relevant. It begins by setting off authority against power, on the one hand, and respect, on the other, and then spells out S1’s authority as consisting in S2’s voluntary action performed in the belief that S1 would approve of it. While this definition should hold for authority generally, a distinction is made between three different kinds of authority according to what grounds them: personal, acquired and bestowed authority. Authority thus defined is then used as an example to argue that there is a kind of property that is response-dependent , but, consisting in all and only a response, is ontologically different from both secondary qualities and value judgments. While secondary qualities are interactive in that they depend on both the object and the perceiver and on what they are like, genuinely R-D qualities depend ontologically and metaphysically only on the responder. And whil..