Show item record

dc.contributor.advisorSeymour, Michel
dc.contributor.authorBazinet, Charles
dc.date.accessioned2012-05-15T19:28:46Z
dc.date.availableNO_RESTRICTIONen
dc.date.available2012-05-15T19:28:46Z
dc.date.issued2012-05-03
dc.date.submitted2011-08
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1866/7091
dc.subjectRecanatien
dc.subjectWittgensteinen
dc.subjectSémantiqueen
dc.subjectSemanticen
dc.subjectPragmatiqueen
dc.subjectPragmaticen
dc.subjectContextualismeen
dc.subjectContextualismen
dc.subjectMinimalismeen
dc.subjectMinimalismen
dc.subjectPsychologismeen
dc.subjectPsychologismen
dc.subjectConventionnalismeen
dc.subjectConventionalismen
dc.subjectIndéterminationen
dc.subjectIndeterminacyen
dc.subject.otherPhilosophy / Philosophie (UMI : 0422)en
dc.titleWittgenstein et le conventionnalisme : une critique du contextualisme sémantique de François Recanatien
dc.typeThèse ou mémoire / Thesis or Dissertation
etd.degree.disciplinePhilosophieen
etd.degree.grantorUniversité de Montréalfr
etd.degree.levelMaîtrise / Master'sen
etd.degree.nameM.A.en
dcterms.abstractDans Literal Meaning, François Recanati cherche à montrer que ce qui est dit lorsqu’une phrase est prononcée correspond à un contenu fondamentalement pragmatique. À cet effet, il propose deux arguments généraux qui consistent à faire valoir que ce qui est dit est indéterminé si l'on s'en tient aux règles de la sémantique. Le premier de ces deux arguments tente d’établir que dans bien des cas, le contenu sémantique supposément associé à une phrase ne correspond pas à ce qui est dit. Le second est plutôt une élaboration de la thèse wittgensteinienne suivant laquelle la signification des types linguistiques est indéterminée. Pour ma part, je soutiens que si nous adoptons effectivement une conception wittgensteinienne de la signification, certains des exemples supposés illustrer le premier de ces deux arguments peuvent et doivent être critiqués.en
dcterms.abstractIn Literal Meaning, François Recanati argues that what is said when a sentence is uttered corresponds to a content that is fundamentally pragmatic. To this end, he proposes two general arguments according to which what is said will be indeterminate if we stick to the rules of semantics. The first of these two arguments tries to establish that in many cases, the semantic content supposedly associated with a sentence does not correspond to what is said. The second one is rather an elaboration of Wittgenstein’s thesis to the effect that the meaning of linguistic types is indeterminate. As for me, I claim that if we indeed adopt a wittgensteinian conception of meaning, some of the examples that are supposed to illustrate the first of these two arguments can and should be criticized.en
dcterms.languagefraen


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show item record

This document disseminated on Papyrus is the exclusive property of the copyright holders and is protected by the Copyright Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42). It may be used for fair dealing and non-commercial purposes, for private study or research, criticism and review as provided by law. For any other use, written authorization from the copyright holders is required.