The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Conceptual role semantics.
Open accessAbstract
In this paper, I will attempt to say something about a number of issues that arise in connection with "conceptual role semantics," the approach to semantics for which I have the most sympathy.On this occasion I will be able only to sketch aspects of this view without being able to give detailed arguments. What is conceptual role semantics?A theory of conceptual role semantics involves the following two claims:1.The meanings of linguistic expressions are determined by the contents of the concepts and thoughts they can be used to express.2. The contents of concepts and thoughts are determined by their functional role in a person's psychology."Thoughts" here include beliefs, hopes, desires, fears, and other attitudes, in addition to thoughts properly so called."Functional role" includes any special roles a concept may play in perception and in inference or reasoning, including practical reasoning that leads to action.Conceptual role semantics represents one thing that might be meant by the slogan "meaning is use".But a proper appreciation of the point requires distinguishing (at least) two uses of symbols, their use in calculation, as in adding a column of figures, and their use in communication, as in telling someone the result. Two uses of symbols: communication and calculationSymbols that are being used in calculation are typically not being used at that time for communication.When you add a column of figures you are not normally communicating anything even to yourself.A similar point holds in reverse.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Under this account, the meaning of a symbol is derived (mostly or entirely) from its relation to other symbols, i.e. its role in the thoughts and inferences in which it participates.”
From Symbols and grounding in large language models (2023) · cites this paper as [76]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, the claim that the meaning of a symbol is defined by (i.e. as opposed to merely related to) its role in communication is not universally endorsed.”
From Symbols and grounding in large language models (2023) · cites this paper as [76]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Under CRS, the meaning of a symbol (word) is a function of the contexts in which it occurs, where communication is just one (possibly small) part of this context.”
From Symbols and grounding in large language models (2023) · cites this paper as [76]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Within CRS, it is possible to argue, for example, that the role of a symbol in communication has a negligible effect on its meaning compared to the much more substantive effect of e.g. the role of the symbol in inference.”
From Symbols and grounding in large language models (2023) · cites this paper as [76]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The competing view argues that symbols derive much, or even all, of their core meaning via their role in internal computations. [76] Summarizes this distinction:”
From Symbols and grounding in large language models (2023) · cites this paper as [76]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Lakoff, G. P., & Johnson, M. L. (2003) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001 · Cited by 25,466
Grice, H. P. (1975) · Speech Acts · doi:10.1163/9789004368811_003 · Cited by 23,221
Nagel, T. (1974) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2183914 · Cited by 7,440
Searle, J. R. (1980) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00005756 · Cited by 6,954
(1960) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 5,851
Putnam, H. (2010) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511625251.014 · Cited by 3,821
Wittgenstein, L. (1969) · Cited by 2,146
Färber, M., & Ayer, A. J. (1938) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2180985 · Cited by 2,118
Hare, R. M. (1963) · doi:10.1093/0198810776.001.0001 · Cited by 1,291
Davidson, D. (1967) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/bf00485035 · Cited by 984
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Grice, H. P., "Meaning," Philosophical Review, vol. 68 (1959), pp. 377-388.
- Harman, G., "Logical form," Foundations of Language, vol. 9 (1972), pp. 38-65.
- Harman, G., "Meaning and semantics," in Semantics and Philosophy, eds., M. K. Munitz and P. Unger, New York University Press, New York, 1974.
- Harman, G., "Problems with probabilistic semantics," to appear in Developments in Semantics, eds., A. Orenstein et al., Haven Press, New York.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Advertisement for a Semantics for Psychology
Block, N., & Philosophy Documentation Center (1986) · Midwest Studies in Philosophy · doi:10.1111/j.1475-4975.1987.tb00558.x · Cited by 775
Horwich, P. (1998) · doi:10.1093/019823824x.001.0001 · Cited by 636
Horwich, P. (1998) · doi:10.1093/0198752237.001.0001 · Cited by 608
Harman, G. H. (1999) · doi:10.1093/0198238029.001.0001 · Cited by 411
Self-citationField, H. H. (2001) · doi:10.1093/0199242895.001.0001 · Cited by 375
Metadata
- Authors
- Harman, G.
- Corresponding author
- Harman, Gilbert
- Venue
- Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic
- Publisher
- Duke University Press
- Published
- 1982-04-01
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 242-256
- ISSN
- 0029-4527 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-0726
- OpenAlex
- W3125137382
- Cited by
- 355
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 2.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic (publishedVersion)
- Project Euclid (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Keywords
- conceptual role semantics, meaning as use, practical reasoning, perception
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
