Whither Experimental Semantics?

Michael Devitt

THEORIA An International Journal for Theory History and Foundations of Science · 2012 · 119 citations · 58 references

DOIFull text

Open access

Concepts

TL;DR

Critics claim the author misunderstood their goals in “Semantics, Cross‑Cultural Style” and that many arguments are largely irrelevant. The paper aims to propose a methodology for reference theory that foregrounds experiments and to defend the earlier work “Experimental Semantics” against critiques from Machery, Mallon, Nichols, and Stich. The methodology emphasizes testing linguistic usage via experiments, drawing on philosophers’ intuitions, corpora, elicited production, and occasionally folk intuitions, with elicited production being the most novel and central component. The author maintains that the critics’ charges are baseless.

Abstract

The main goal of the paper is to propose a methodology for the theory of reference in which experiments feature prominently. These experiments should primarily test linguistic usage rather than the folk's referential intuitions. The proposed methodology urges the use of: (A) philosophers' referential intuitions, both informally and, occasionally, scientifically gathered; (B) the corpus, both informally and scientifically gathered; (C) elicited production; and, occasionally, (D) folk's referential intuitions. The most novel part of this is (C) and that is where most of the experimental work should be. The secondary goal of the paper is to defend my earlier paper "Experimental Semantics" from the criticisms of Machery, Mallon, Nichols, and Stich in "If Folk Intuitions Vary, Then What?" They charge that I have seriously misunderstood their goal in "Semantics, Cross-Cultural Style" and that many of my arguments are "largely irrelevant". I argue that these charges are baseless.

References

58