Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:07:28.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why it isn't syntax that unifies the proposition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Logan Fletcher
Logan Fletcher*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Maryland, College Park, MD20742, United States
*
*Email: loganf@umd.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

King develops a syntax-based account of propositions based on the idea that propositional unity is grounded in the syntactic structure of the sentence. This account faces two objections: a Benacerraf objection and a grain-size objection. I argue that the syntax-based account survives both objections, as they have been put forward in the existing literature. I go on to show, however, that King equivocates between two distinct notions of ‘propositional structure’ when explaining his account. Once the confusion is resolved, it is clear that the syntax-based account suffers from both Benacerraf and grain-size problems after all. I conclude by showing that King's account can be revised to avoid these problems, but only if it abandons its motivating idea that it is syntax that unifies the proposition.

Keywords

metaphysics of propositionssemanticsstructured propositionssyntaxunity of the proposition
Type
On Act- and Language-Based Conceptions of Propositions
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 43 , Issue 5-6: Special issue: Essays on the Nature of Propositions , December 2013 , pp. 590 - 611
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Benacerraf, P. 1965. “What numbers could not be.” Philosophical Review 74 (1): 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caplan, B, and Tillman, C.. 2012. “Benacerraf's revenge.” Philosophical Studies. 10.1007/s11098-012-0064-8.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Collins, J. 2007. “Syntax, More or Less.” Mind 116 (464): 805–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, P. 2009. “Recent Work on Propositions.” Philosophy Compass 4 (3): 469–486. 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00208.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J. C. 1995. “Structured Propositions and Complex Predicates.” Noûs 29 (4): 516–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J. C. 2007. The Nature and Structure of Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J. C. 2009. “XIII—Questions of Unity.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 109 (3): 257–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J. C. 2013a. “On fineness of grain.” Philosophical Studies 163 (3): 763–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J. C. 2013b. “Propositional unity: what's the problem, who has it and who solves it?” Philosophical Studies 165 (1): 71–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B. (1903) 2009. Principles of Mathematics. Reprint. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Salmon, N. 1986. Frege's Puzzle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Soames, S. 1987. “Direct Reference, Propositional Attitudes, and Semantic Content.” Philosophical Topics 15 (1): 47–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speaks, J. 2011. “Facts, properties, and the nature of the proposition.” Unpublished ms. http://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/papers/facts-properties-propositions.pdf.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. 1976. “Possible Worlds.” Noûs 10 (1): 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar