Quine on Shared Language and Linguistic Communities

History and Philosophy of Logic, 1999

The Polish logicians' propositional calculi, which consist in a distinct synthesis of the Fregean and Boolean approaches to logic, in¯uencedW. V. Quine's early work in formal logic. This early formal work of Quine's, in turn, can be shown to serve as one of the sources of his holistic conception of natural language.

I argue that there are basic components of human language. These basic components might be considered deep structure or semantic rules. These components challenge Quine’s view on radical translation. This paper considers whether there are any necessary components of language that all languages must have in order to be languages. If there are necessary components, it would be reasonable to infer that they are translatable. This would be true even if there were no pre-existing comparable words in the lexicons. The functions are translatable; therefore an utterance can have a determinate sense. The paper examines Quine's assertion about 'inscrutability of reference'. Rival systems can lead to rival translations that are equally correct according to the the criteria of each system but can be patently contradictory. I argue that these limited system generating true contradictions does not imply that there are true contradictions and this does not justify the abandonment of the law of the excluded middle.

University of Toronto Law Journal, 2018

The concept of a ‘linguistic community’ plays a critical role in Canadian language rights law, appearing explicitly in both the Constitution and in statutory law as well as featuring prominently in the case law. Despite its ubiquity, however, this concept has never been explicitly defined, nor has it been subjected to sustained analysis by the courts or in legal scholarship. This is problematic, as the term can be interpreted in divergent ways, and the choice one makes in this respect has the potential to substantially alter the content of various constitutional and statutory provisions. Reduced to its simplest form, the problem is that the word ‘community’ can be interpreted in one of two ways: (a) as designating a collective entity of some kind or (b) as nothing more than a shorthand for labelling a certain class of individuals based on their linguistic competency and geographic location. This article examines which of these options ought to be preferred when construing references to a ‘linguistic community’ in constitutional or statutory provisions or in the relevant case law. Part ii of the article examines the concept of a community from a philosophical perspective and outlines a theoretical framework for distinguishing between cases where a collection of people should be viewed as a mere aggregate of individuals and those where it should be conceptualized as a collective entity with interests distinct from its individual members. Part iii then explores how this framework can be used to better understand the somewhat murky conceptual foundations of the leading language rights cases. I argue that these foundations can be explicated or completed by combining the concept of a ‘community’ developed in Part ii with ideas drawn from the social scientific research on the relationship between language, culture, and identity. Full article: https://www.utpjournals.press/eprint/yzSy2w5UKd6X7ymRVbpu/full

Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio , 2022

This paper examines how the idea that there are different languages is treated by approaches that employ the notion of «languaging», focusing on Love and Cowley. It seems that within their critical reconsideration of the traditional view of what «language» is the importance of languages (i.e., linguistic diversity) is downplayed. Against this view, this paper argues that languages are indeed a relevant factor in shaping people's actions, perception, thinking, etc. Arguments in support of thesis can be found in the most recent studies in linguistic relativity. They are focused on the interactional and situated features of human linguistic activity, just like «languaging» is concerned with embodied coordinated interactivity. However, points of theorical divergence remain. Moreover, the ontological tenets in languaging seem to get in the way of a reconciliation.

Disputatio, 2012

This special issue collects a selection of the papers presented at the International Colloquium Word and Object, 50 Years Later, which took place in Rome on May 28-29, 2010. In the fiftieth year since the publication of Word and Object, the conference aimed at celebrating one of the most famous and influential philosophers and mathematicians of the 20 th Century: Willard Van Orman Quine. The purpose of the conference, organised by the University of Rome 'La Sapienza' and the Research Group APhEx (Analytical and Philosophical Explanation), was to discuss and explore some of the major Quinean theses. This volume collects the contributions of , who were speakers at the conference. The papers are unified by a common thread that is represented by the Quinean philosophical heritage and take their stance within the different areas of the current philosophical debate on this issue.

Revista Filosofia Unisinos, 2021

The authors of *Linguistic Bodies* appeal to shared know-how to explain the social and participatory interactions upon which linguistic skills and agency rest. However, some issues lurk around the notion of shared know-how and require attention and clarification. In particular, one issue concerns the agent behind the shared know-how, a second one concerns whether shared know-how can be reducible to individual know-how or not. In this paper, I sustain that there is no single answer to the first issue; depending on the case, shared know-how can belong to the participants of a social activity or to the system the participants bring forth together. In relation to the second issue, I sustain, following the authors, a non-reductive account of shared know-how. I also suggest that responsiveness to others, which is a fundamental element of shared know-how, can be extended by perceptual learning.