Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

The normativity of meaning defended

By Daniel Whiting


Meaning, according to a significant number of philosophers, is an intrinsically normative notion.1 For this reason, it is suggested, meaning is not conducive to a naturalistic explanation. In this paper, I shall not address whether this is indeed so. Nor shall I present arguments in support of the normativity thesis (see Glock 2005; Kripke 1982). Instead, I shall examine and respond to two forceful objections recently (and independently) raised against it by Boghossian (2005), Hattiangadi (2006) and Miller (2006). Although I shall argue that the objections are unsuccessful, they are worth attending to, not only because the normativity thesis is so widely accepted and is thought to have such ramifications but, most importantly, because doing so offers the opportunity to help clarify how it is to be understood

Topics: B1
Year: 2007
OAI identifier:
Provided by: e-Prints Soton

Suggested articles


  1. (2000). Illocutionary Acts and Sentence Meaning. doi
  2. (2006). Is meaning normative? doi
  3. (1994). Making it Explicit. doi
  4. (1994). Meaning and normativity. doi
  5. (2006). Meaning scepticism. doi
  6. (1998). Mind, Value, and Reality.
  7. (1992). Realism, Meaning and Truth. 2nd ed.
  8. (1991). Reality and Representation. doi
  9. (2005). Reflections on Meaning. doi
  10. (2001). Semantic primitivism and normativity. doi
  11. (1998). The Grammar of Meaning. Cambridge: doi
  12. (1984). The individual strikes back. doi
  13. (2005). The normativity of meaning made simple.
  14. (1989). The rule following considerations. doi
  15. (2003). The Voices of Wittgenstein, doi
  16. (2004). Wittgenstein: Understanding and Meaning. New ed. Oxford:

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.