What can polysemy tell us about theories of explanation?

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

What can polysemy tell us about theories of explanation? / Serban, Maria.

In: European Journal for Philosophy of Science, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2017, p. 41-56.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Serban, M 2017, 'What can polysemy tell us about theories of explanation?', European Journal for Philosophy of Science, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 41-56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-016-0142-4

APA

Serban, M. (2017). What can polysemy tell us about theories of explanation? European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 7(1), 41-56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-016-0142-4

Vancouver

Serban M. What can polysemy tell us about theories of explanation? European Journal for Philosophy of Science. 2017;7(1):41-56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-016-0142-4

Author

Serban, Maria. / What can polysemy tell us about theories of explanation?. In: European Journal for Philosophy of Science. 2017 ; Vol. 7, No. 1. pp. 41-56.

Bibtex

@article{5a67a394ad84492f8147bdc481d6c18e,
title = "What can polysemy tell us about theories of explanation?",
abstract = "Philosophical accounts of scientific explanation are broadly divided into ontic and epistemic views. This paper explores the idea that the lexical ambiguity of the verb to explain and its nominalisation supports an ontic conception of explanation (Salmon 1989; Craver 2007). I analyse one argument which challenges this strategy by criticising the claim that explanatory talk is lexically ambiguous (Wright, European Journal of Philosophy of Science 2(3), 375–394, 2012). I propose that the linguistic mechanism of transfer of meaning (Nunberg, Journal of Semantics 12(2), 109–132, 1995) provides a better account of the lexical alternations that figure in the systematic polysemy of explanatory talk, and evaluate the implications of this proposal for the debate between ontic and epistemic conceptions of scientific explanation.",
keywords = "Faculty of Humanities, scientific explanation, mechanism, polysemy",
author = "Maria Serban",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1007/s13194-016-0142-4",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "41--56",
journal = "European Journal for Philosophy of Science",
issn = "1879-4912",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - What can polysemy tell us about theories of explanation?

AU - Serban, Maria

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Philosophical accounts of scientific explanation are broadly divided into ontic and epistemic views. This paper explores the idea that the lexical ambiguity of the verb to explain and its nominalisation supports an ontic conception of explanation (Salmon 1989; Craver 2007). I analyse one argument which challenges this strategy by criticising the claim that explanatory talk is lexically ambiguous (Wright, European Journal of Philosophy of Science 2(3), 375–394, 2012). I propose that the linguistic mechanism of transfer of meaning (Nunberg, Journal of Semantics 12(2), 109–132, 1995) provides a better account of the lexical alternations that figure in the systematic polysemy of explanatory talk, and evaluate the implications of this proposal for the debate between ontic and epistemic conceptions of scientific explanation.

AB - Philosophical accounts of scientific explanation are broadly divided into ontic and epistemic views. This paper explores the idea that the lexical ambiguity of the verb to explain and its nominalisation supports an ontic conception of explanation (Salmon 1989; Craver 2007). I analyse one argument which challenges this strategy by criticising the claim that explanatory talk is lexically ambiguous (Wright, European Journal of Philosophy of Science 2(3), 375–394, 2012). I propose that the linguistic mechanism of transfer of meaning (Nunberg, Journal of Semantics 12(2), 109–132, 1995) provides a better account of the lexical alternations that figure in the systematic polysemy of explanatory talk, and evaluate the implications of this proposal for the debate between ontic and epistemic conceptions of scientific explanation.

KW - Faculty of Humanities

KW - scientific explanation

KW - mechanism

KW - polysemy

U2 - 10.1007/s13194-016-0142-4

DO - 10.1007/s13194-016-0142-4

M3 - Journal article

VL - 7

SP - 41

EP - 56

JO - European Journal for Philosophy of Science

JF - European Journal for Philosophy of Science

SN - 1879-4912

IS - 1

ER -

ID: 172263818