Philosophy of Language - Iep

8/13/2019 Philosophy of Language - Iep

1/30

The Internet Encyclopedia of

Philosophy

Philosophy of Language

Those who use the term philosophy of language typically use it to refer to work within the

field of Anglo-American analytical philosophyand its roots in German and Austrian philosophy

of the early 20thcentury. Many philosophers outside this tradition hae iews on the nature and

use of language! and the "order "etween analytical and continental philosophy is

"ecoming more porous with time! "ut most who speak of this field are appealing to a specificset of traditions! canonical authors and methods. The article takes this more narrow focus in

order to descri"e a tradition#s history! "ut readers should "ear in mind this restriction of

scope.

The history of the philosophy of language in the analytical tradition "egins with adances in

logic and with tensions within traditional accounts of the mind and its contents at the end of

the $%thcentury. A reolution of sorts resulted from these deelopments! often known as the

&inguistic Turn in philosophy. 'oweer! its early programs ran into serious difficulties "y

mid-century! and significant changes in direction came a"out as a result. (ection $ "elowaddresses the precursors and early stages of the &inguistic Turn! while (ection 2 addresses its

deelopment "y the &ogical )ositiists and others. (ection * outlines the sudden shifts that

resulted from the works of +uine and ,ittgenstein! and (ection charts the maor approaches

and figures that hae followed from mid-century to the present.

Table of Contents

$. /rege! ussell and the &inguistic Turn

a. eferential Theories of Meaning". /rege on (ense and eference

c. ussell

2. 1arly Analytical )hilosophy of &anguage

a. The Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

". The ienna 3ircle and the &ogical )ositiists

c. Tarski#s Theory of Truth
http://www.iep.utm.edu/http://www.iep.utm.edu/http://www.iep.utm.edu/analytichttp://www.iep.utm.edu/lang-phi/#H1http://www.iep.utm.edu/lang-phi/#SH1ahttp://www.iep.utm.edu/lang-phi/#SH1bhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/lang-phi/#SH1chttp://www.iep.utm.edu/lang-phi/#H2http://www.iep.utm.edu/lang-phi/#SH2ahttp://www.iep.utm.edu/lang-phi/#SH2ahttp://www.iep.utm.edu/lang-phi/#SH2ahttp://www.iep.utm.edu/lang-phi/#SH2bhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/lang-phi/#SH2chttp://www.iep.utm.edu/http://www.iep.utm.edu/http://www.iep.utm.edu/analytichttp://www.iep.utm.edu/lang-phi/#H1http://www.iep.utm.edu/lang-phi/#SH1ahttp://www.iep.utm.edu/lang-phi/#SH1bhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/lang-phi/#SH1chttp://www.iep.utm.edu/lang-phi/#H2http://www.iep.utm.edu/lang-phi/#SH2ahttp://www.iep.utm.edu/lang-phi/#SH2bhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/lang-phi/#SH2c


2/30

*. Mid-century eolutions

a. +uine and the Analytic4(ynthetic 5istinction

". The &ater ,ittgenstein

. Maor Areas in the 3ontemporary /ield

a. Truth-3onditional Theories of Meaning". Meaning and 6se

c. (peech Act Theory and )ragmatics

7. /uture 5irections and 1merging 5e"ates

8. eferences and /urther eading

1. Frege, Russell and the Linguistic Turn

a. eferential Theories of Meaning

Much of the stage-setting for the so-called &inguistic Turn in Anglo-American philosophy took

place in the mid $%thcentury. Attention turned to language as many came to see it as a focal

point in understanding "elief and representation of the world. &anguage came to "e seen as

the medium of conceptuali9ation! as ,ilfrid (ellars would later put it. :dealists working in

;ant#s wake had deeloped more sophisticated transcendental accounts of the conditions for

the possi"ility of e*! $! 2! sec. 7B. Mill#s empiricism led him to think that for meaning to hae

any significance for our thought and understanding! we must e


3/30

as we often think of proper names sering simply as la"els for the things they denote. Mill also

tended to use meaning in talking a"out connotation! and might hae reserations with saying

that proper names had meanings! though this is not to deny that they denote things.B Thus!

$B The cat sat on the refrigerator.

should "e understood as a comple< arrangement of signs. The cat denotes or refers to a

particular furry domesticated Euadruped! the refrigerator denotes something! and so forth.

(ome further ela"oration would "e needed for er"s! logical oca"ulary and other categories of

terms! "ut most philosophers took the "ack"one of an account of meaning to "e denotation!

and language use to "e a process of the management of signs. These signs might denote

o"ects directly! or they might do so indirectly "y standing for something within our minds!

following &ocke! who descri"ed words as signs of ideas $8%0! :::! $B.

Accounts that emphasi9ed the reference of terms as constitutie of the meaning of most

e


4/30

:f Atlantis does not e


5/30

information would in turn determine a referent for each e


6/30

is false! especially in cases where &i9 does not knowthat 1lis 3ostello is 5eclan McManus! or

neer learns the latter name at all. ,hat has happened hereH Cote that ?B and >B "oth

include strings of words that could "e sentences in their own right 1lis 3ostello was "orn in

&ierpool and 5eclan McManus was "orn in &ierpoolB and &i9 knows thatI e>B for a thorough attack on psychologistic accounts of

meaning.B Cor were they the causal and mechanical o"ects of natural science! reduci"le to

accounts of lawlike regularity. They were entities playing a logical and cognitie role! and

would "e "oth e


7/30

5enoting $%07B. =oth men were mathematicians "y training and shared a concern with the

foundations of arithmetic. 'oweer! ussell shared a sense with some earlier philosophers that

at least some e


8/30

the property N is false! and we hae a means to analy9e non-denoting e


9/30

any sentence that did not yield to such analysis would not hae a sense at all. 1erything that

can "e thought at all can "e thought clearly. 1erything that can "e said can "e said clearly.

$%22! P.$$8B ,ittgenstein#s claim here is not that we cannot string together words in unclear

waysD indeed! we do that all the time. ather! in doing so! we do not e


10/30

phenomenalist strains of =ritish empiricism as a more suita"le epistemological foundation for

such goals. 3arnap adopted the insights of /rege#s work and "rought tremendous sophistication

to the analytical enterprise! particularly in his The Logical Structure of the World$%2>B. The

&ogical )ositiists also took inspiration from ,ittgenstein#s Tractatus! "ut their fidelity to his

more a"struse aims is tenuous at "est. They shared ,ittgenstein#s iew that logical proofswere true in irtue of internal relations among their propositions! not "y irtue of any actual

facts a"out the world! and parsed this as support for a renewed ersion of the

analytic4synthetic distinction. Analytic sentences were those true solely in irtue of the

meanings of their constituent e>B

=y gien here! (chlick alluded to the stream of sense-data that come "efore us. /ew if any

sentences were understood in such ways "y most speakers! so the work of philosophy was

logical analysis and definition of the concepts of the natural sciences into erificationist terms.

,hile one could imagine empirical erification of many things in the physical sciences for

e


11/30

theoretical identity to eEuate the entities of! say! psychology with the entities of the physical

sciences and thus translate the terms of older theories into new ones. Again! in some cases

the preferred mode would "e to eEuate them directly with sense-data.B ,here this could not

"e done! the )ositiists took it that the sentences in Euestion were meaningless! and they

adocated the elimination of many canonical concepts! sentences and theories! derisielylumped under the term metaphysics. A sentence like God e

the language natural or formalB that is our target for analysis! while the metalanguage is the

language in which we conduct our analysis. Metalanguage is the language that we use to studyanother language! and the o"ect language is the language that we study. /or instance!

children learning a second language typically take classes conducted in their mother tongue

that treat the second language as an o"ect to "e studied. Thus! copies of all the sentences of

the o"ect language should "e included in the metalanguage and the metalanguage should

include sufficient resources to descri"e the synta< of the o"ect language! as well. :n effect! an

o"ect language would not contain its own truth predicateOthis could only occur in a
http://www.iep.utm.edu/truthhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/truth


12/30

metalanguage! since it reEuires speakers to talk a"out sentences themseles! rather than

actually using them. There is great controersy a"out the shape that a metalanguague would

hae to take to ena"le analysis of a natural language! and Tarski openly dou"ted that these

methods would transfer easily from formal to natural languages! "ut we will not dele into

these issues here.

Tarski argued that a definition of truth would hae to "e formally correct or as he put it

$B /or allx! True


13/30

modern logic was "oth within their grasp and immensely rewarding.

!. "id#century Re$olutions

=y the middle of the 20thcentury! the approach spawned "y /rege! Moore and ussell had

taken root with the &ogical )ositiists. The (econd ,orld ,ar did a great deal to scatter the

most talented philosophers from the 3ontinent! and many settled at uniersities in Great

=ritain and the 6nited (tates! spreading their iews and influencing generations of philosophers

to come. 'oweer! the analytical tradition always had a ro"ust streak of criticism from within!

and some of the pillars of the early orthodo


14/30

empiricists or worry a"out such empirical content! "ut rather that no indiidual sentence or

e


15/30

that we should not prefer some translations oer others! "ut our grounds for doing so are

usually pragmatic concerns a"out simplicity and efficiency! ,e should also note that each

speaker is in much the same position when it comes to understanding other speakers een in

her mother tongueD we hae only the o"sera"le "ehaiors of other speakers and familiarity

with our own usage of such terms! and we must make ongoing assessments of other speakers inconersation in ust these ways. 5onald 5aidson! +uine#s student! would continue to deelop

these ideas een further in +uine#s wake! emphasi9ing that the interpretation we do on an

eeryday "asis was no less radical than his mentor was suggesting of the field linguist see his

$%>B.

+uine#s work inspired many! "ut also came under sharp attack. The "ehaiorism at the heart of

his account has fallen out of faor with the maority of philosophers and cognitie scientists.

Much of Coam 3homsky#s $%7%B critiEue of =./ (kinner may "e said to apply to +uine#s work.

The emphasis on innateness and tacit knowledge in 3homsky#s work has "een su"ect tointense criticism as well! "ut this criticism has not pointed philosophers and linguists "ack

towards the sort of strongly "ehaiorist empiricism on which +uine#s account was founded.

(till! most contemporary philosophers of language owe some de"t to +uine for dismantling the

dogmas of early analytical philosophy and opening new aenues of inEuiry.

". The &ater ,ittgenstein

,ittgenstein left 3am"ridge in the early $%20s and pursued proects outside academia for

seeral years. 'e returned in $%2% and "egan doing ery different sorts of work. :t is a matterof great de"ate! een among ,ittgenstein acolytes! how much affinity there is "etween these

stages. Many philosophers of language will speak of the later ,ittgenstein as though the

earlier iews were wholly different and incompati"le! while others insist that there is strong

continuity of themes and methods. Though his early work was widely misunderstood at the

time! there can "e little dou"t that some important changes took place! and these are worth

noting here.

:n the posthumously pu"lished Philosophical !nvestigations$%7*B! ,ittgenstein "roke with

some of the theoretical aspirations of analytical philosophy in the first half of the century.,here analytical philosophers of language had stried for elegant! parsimonious logical

systems! the !nvestigationssuggested that language was a dierse! mercurial collection of

language gamesOgoal-directed social actiities for which words were ust so many tools to

get things done! rather than fi


16/30

ushered in a new concern for the pragmatic dimensions of language usage. To speak of the

pragmatic significance of an e0

and 200$B read this as a call to social conentionalism a"out meaning! Mc5owell $%>B

e


17/30

remem"ering in that caseH 6ntil we say how a priate episode could esta"lish a pattern of

correct usage! memory is "eside the point. To alleiate this difficulty! ,ittgenstein turned his

attention to the realm of pu"lic phenomena! and suggested that those who make the same

moes with the rules share a le"ensform or form of life! which most hae taken to "e

one#s culture or the sum total of the social practices in which one takes part. ;ripke $%>2Boffered a nota"le interpretation of ,ittgenstein#s priate language argument! though opinions

ary on its fidelity to ,ittgenstein#s work. (u"seEuent generations of philosophers on "oth

sides of the Atlantic would "e profoundly influenced "y this argument and struggle with its

implications for decades to come.

%. "a&or reas in the Conte'porary Field

After the seminal works of +uine and ,ittgenstein at mid-century! the maority of iews

e


18/30

referents! to which the rest of a sentence attri"utes something! ery roughly speaking. Truth-

conditional theories of meaning hae also "een attractie to those who would prefer a

naturalistic and reductionist semantics! appealing to nothing outside the natural world as an

e


19/30

reductionist elements of these theories leae us with an implausi"ly direct and unmediated

account of reference that must "e refined or replaced 5ummett $%?B! Mac=eth $%%7B and

,olf 2008BB.

". Meaning and 6se

erificationist theories fell out of faor after +uine! "ut were reinigorated "y Michael

5ummett#s work on meaning and logic as well as his e2 and $%>?B! =lock $%>8 and $%>?B! and
http://www.iep.utm.edu/dummetthttp://www.iep.utm.edu/dummetthttp://www.iep.utm.edu/freg-lanhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/apriorihttp://www.iep.utm.edu/apriorihttp://www.iep.utm.edu/dummetthttp://www.iep.utm.edu/dummetthttp://www.iep.utm.edu/freg-lanhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/apriori


20/30

=random $%%B hae all pursued an inferential role or conceptual role semantics that

characteri9ed a grasp of the meaning of sentences as a grasp of the inferences one would make

to and from that sentence. =lock and 'arman hae e


21/30

often leads to special attention to the goals that a speaker might achiee "y uttering a

sentence in a particular way in that conte


22/30

diided these implicatures into two large categories conentional implicatures and

conersational implicatures. 3onentional implicatures are those assigned to utterances "ased

on the conentional meanings of the words used! though not in the ways familiar from ordinary

logical entailments. /or instance

$?B Michael is an Frioles fan! "ut he doesn#t lie in =altimore.

$>B Michael is an Frioles fan! and he doesn#t lie in =altimore.

$%B Michael#s "eing an Frioles fan is une


23/30

presupposition! as well. As the name would suggest! the discussion of this su"ect focuses on

the sorts of information reEuired as "ackground for arious sorts of logical and conersational

features to o"tain. The well-worn e


24/30

there are no conte


25/30

?! $?-72.

5eitt! Michael. $%>$B &esignation. Cew Nork 3olum"ia 6niersity )ress.

5eitt! M. and (terelny! ;. $%%%B Language and *eality. 3am"ridge! MA The M:T

)ress.

5ummett! M. $%8*B ealism. :n 5ummett $%?>B! pp. $7-$87. 5ummett! M. $%?*B The )hilosophical =asis of :ntuitionistic &ogic. :n 5ummett

$%?>B! pp. 2$7-2?.

5ummett! M. $%?B The (ocial 3haracter of Meaning. :n 5ummett $%?>B! pp. 20-

*0.

5ummett! M. $%?7B /rege#s 5istinction =etween (ense and eference. :n 5ummett

$%?>B! pp. $$8-$.

5ummett! M. $%?8B ,hat :s a Theory of MeaningH ::B :n Truth and +eaning) #ssays

in Semantics/G. 1ans and @. Mc5owell. 1ds.B FB Truth and Other #nigmas. 3am"ridge! MA 'arard 6niersity

)ress.

1ans! G. $%>*B The .arieties of *eference. F.

/odor! @ and 1. &epore. $%%%B All at (ea in (emantic (pace 3hurchland on Meaning

(imilarity.1ournal of Philosophy%8! *>$-0*.

/rege! G. $>%2B Fn (ense and eference. :n The 3rege *eader. =eaney! M. 1d.B

&ondon )enguin )ress! $%%?.

/rege! G. $>>B The 3oundations of (rithmetic) ( Logico-+athematical #n2uiry into

the 'oncept of "umber. @. Austin Trans.B 1anston Corthwestern 6niersity )ress!

$%>0.

Grice! ). $%?7B &ogic and 3onersation. :n Studies in the Way of Words! pp. 22-0.

3am"ridge! MA 'arard 6niersity )ress! $%>%.

'arman! G. $%>2B 3onceptual ole (emantics. "otre &ame 1ournal of 3ormal Logic

2*! 22-78. 'arman! G. $%>?B Con-solipsisticB 3onceptual ole (emantics. :n "ew &irections in

Semantics. 1. &epore. 1d.B &ondon Academic )ress.

'empel! 3. $%70B )ro"lems and 3hanges in the 1mpiricist 3riterion of Meaning.

*evenue !nternationale de Philosophie$$! $-8*.

;itcher! ). and M. (tanford. 2000B efining the 3ausal Theory of eference for


26/30

Catural ;ind Terms. Philosophical Studies%?! %%-$2%.

;ripke! (. $%?2B "aming and "ecessity! 3am"ridge! MA 'arard 6niersity )ress.

;ripke! (. $%>2B Wittgenstein on *ules and Private Language. 3am"ridge! MA 'arard

6niersity )ress.

&ance! M. and F#&eary-'awthorne! @. $%%?B The 4rammar of +eaning. 3am"ridge! 6;3am"ridge 6niersity )ress.

&angendoen! 5.T. and (ain! '.=. $%?$B The )roection )ro"lem for )resuppositions.

:n 3.@. /illmore and 5.T. &angendoen 1ds.B Studies in Linguistic Semantics. Cew Nork

'olt! einhart and ,inston.

&ewis! 5. $%?2B General (emantics. :n G. 'arman and 5. 5aidson 1ds.B Semantics

of "atural Language. 5ordrecht 5. eidel )u".

&ewis! 5. $%%8B 1lusie ;nowledge.(ustralasian 1ournal of Philosophy?B! 7%-

8?.

&ocke! @. $8%0B(n #ssay 'oncerning %uman 5nderstanding/). Cidditch. 1d.B FB ,ittgenstein on /ollowing a ule. Synthese7>*B! *27-*8.

Meinong! A. $%0B U"er Gegenstandstheorie. :n A. Meinong ed.B! 5ntersuchungen

6ur 4egenstandstheorie und Psychologie! &eip9ig =arth.

Mill! @.(. $>*B System of Logic) *atiocinative and !nductive. (tockton! 3A 6niersity

)ress of the )acific! 2002.

Ceurath! F. $%**B )rotocol (entences. G. (hick. Trans.B :n A. Ayer 1d.B Logical

Positivism! pp. $%%-20>. Cew Nork The /ree )ress! $%7%.

)utnam! '. $%?*B Meaning and eference. The1ournal of Philosophy ?0! 8%%-?$$.

)utnam! '. $%?7B The Meaning of Meaning. :n +ind0 Language and *eality! pp. 2$7-

2?$. 3am"ridge 3am"ridge 6niersity )ress.

ockwell! T. 2007B Attractor (paces as Modules A (emi-1liminatie eduction of

(ym"olic A: to 5ynamic (ystems Theory. +inds and +achines$7$B! 2*-%7.

umelhart! 5. and Mc3lelland! @. and the )5) esearch Group. 2008B Parallel&istributed Processing) #xplorations in the +icrostructure of 'ognition0 .ol/ 7)

Psychological and $iological +odels. 3am"ridge! MA The M:T )ress.

ussell! =. $%07B Fn 5enoting. +ind$! ?%-%*.

ussell! =. $%$%B 5escriptions. :n !ntroduction to +athematical Philosophypp. $8?-

$>0. &ondon George Allen and 6nEin &td.


27/30

+uine! ,..F. $%7*B Two 5ogmas of 1mpiricism. :n 3rom a Logical Point of .iew!

pp. 20-8. 3am"ridge! MA 'arard 6niersity )ress.

+uine! ,..F. $%80B Word and Obect. 3am"ridge! MA The M:T )ress.

+uine! ,..F. $%8%B Fntological elatiity. :n Ontological *elativity and Other

#ssays0 pp 28-8>. Cew Nork 3olum"ia 6niersity )ress. (chlick! M. $%**B )ositiism and ealism. 5. ynin. Trans.B. :n A. Ayer 1d.B Logical

Positivism! pp. >2-$0?. Cew Nork The /ree )ress! $%7%.

(earle! @. $%8%B Speech (cts) (n #ssay in the Philosophy of Language. 3am"ridge! 6;

3am"ridge 6niersity )ress.

(ellars! ,. $%8?B Science and +etaphysics. Atascasdero! 3A idgeiew )ress.

(oames! (. 2002B$eyond *igidity) The 5nfinished Semantic (genda of "aming and

"ecessity. F$.

,ittgenstein! &. $%22B Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. 3. Fgden. Trans.B Cew Nork

5oer )u".! $%%%.

,ittgenstein! &. $%7*B Philosophical !nvestigations) The 4erman Text0 With a *evised

#nglish Translation. Anscom"e! G. and Anscom"e! 1. Trans.B. F


28/30

3alifornia (tate 6niersity! /resno

&ast updated on May $2! 200% W 3ategories )hilosophy of &anguage

Friginally pu"lished on (eptem"er4>42008

+earch the IEP

ro-se by Title

A

=

3

5

1

/

G

'

:

@

;

&

M

C

F

)

+

(

T

6
http://www.iep.utm.edu/category/m-and-e/language/http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/http://www.iep.utm.edu/c/http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/http://www.iep.utm.edu/g/http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/http://www.iep.utm.edu/i/http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/http://www.iep.utm.edu/k/http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/http://www.iep.utm.edu/m/http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/http://www.iep.utm.edu/q/http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/http://www.iep.utm.edu/u/http://www.iep.utm.edu/v/http://www.iep.utm.edu/category/m-and-e/language/http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/http://www.iep.utm.edu/c/http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/http://www.iep.utm.edu/g/http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/http://www.iep.utm.edu/i/http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/http://www.iep.utm.edu/k/http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/http://www.iep.utm.edu/m/http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/http://www.iep.utm.edu/q/http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/http://www.iep.utm.edu/u/http://www.iep.utm.edu/v/


29/30

,

X

N

Y

ro-se by Topic

'istory of )hilosophy

Metaphysics Z 1pistemology

o 1pistemology

o Metaphysics

o Mind Z 3ognitie (cience

o )hilosophy of &anguageo )hilosophy of eligion

)hilosophical Traditions

(cience! &ogic! Z Mathematics

alue Theory

Recent rticles

Ciet9sche! /riedrich

elia"ilism

[\ntidea

'ome

A"out

(taff

5esired Articles

(u"mit

olunteer

(itemap

] 3opyright :nformation
http://www.iep.utm.edu/w/http://www.iep.utm.edu/x/http://www.iep.utm.edu/y/http://www.iep.utm.edu/z/http://www.iep.utm.edu/category/m-and-e/epistemology/http://www.iep.utm.edu/category/m-and-e/metaphysics/http://www.iep.utm.edu/category/m-and-e/mind-cog/http://www.iep.utm.edu/category/m-and-e/language/http://www.iep.utm.edu/category/m-and-e/religion/http://www.iep.utm.edu/nietzsch/http://www.iep.utm.edu/reliabil/http://www.iep.utm.edu/santideva/http://www.iep.utm.edu/home/http://www.iep.utm.edu/home/about/http://www.iep.utm.edu/iep-staff/http://www.iep.utm.edu/submit/100-most/http://www.iep.utm.edu/submit/http://www.iep.utm.edu/volunteer/http://www.iep.utm.edu/sitemap/http://www.utm.edu/research/iep-wp/?p=601http://www.iep.utm.edu/w/http://www.iep.utm.edu/x/http://www.iep.utm.edu/y/http://www.iep.utm.edu/z/http://www.iep.utm.edu/category/m-and-e/epistemology/http://www.iep.utm.edu/category/m-and-e/metaphysics/http://www.iep.utm.edu/category/m-and-e/mind-cog/http://www.iep.utm.edu/category/m-and-e/language/http://www.iep.utm.edu/category/m-and-e/religion/http://www.iep.utm.edu/nietzsch/http://www.iep.utm.edu/reliabil/http://www.iep.utm.edu/santideva/http://www.iep.utm.edu/home/http://www.iep.utm.edu/home/about/http://www.iep.utm.edu/iep-staff/http://www.iep.utm.edu/submit/100-most/http://www.iep.utm.edu/submit/http://www.iep.utm.edu/volunteer/http://www.iep.utm.edu/sitemap/http://www.utm.edu/research/iep-wp/?p=601


30/30

Philosophy of Language - Iep

Documents

Transcript of Philosophy of Language - Iep