Hubbry Logo
Extension (semantics)Extension (semantics)Main
Open search
Extension (semantics)
Community hub
Extension (semantics)
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Extension (semantics)
Extension (semantics)
Extension (semantics)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In any of several fields of study that treat the use of signs — for example, in linguistics, logic, mathematics, semantics, semiotics, and philosophy of language — the extension of a concept, idea, or sign consists of the things to which it applies, in contrast with its comprehension or intension, which consists very roughly of the ideas, properties, or corresponding signs that are implied or suggested by the concept in question.

In philosophical semantics or the philosophy of language, the 'extension' of a concept or expression is the set of things it extends to, or applies to, if it is the sort of concept or expression that a single object by itself can satisfy. Concepts and expressions of this sort are monadic or "one-place" concepts and expressions.

So the extension of the word "dog" is the set of all (past, present and future) dogs in the world: the set includes Fido, Rover, Lassie, Rex, and so on. The extension of the phrase "Wikipedia reader" includes each person who has ever read Wikipedia, including you.

The extension of a whole statement, as opposed to a word or phrase, is defined (since Gottlob Frege's "On Sense and Reference") as its truth value. So the extension of "Lassie is famous" is the logical value 'true', since Lassie is famous.

Some concepts and expressions are such that they don't apply to objects individually, but rather serve to relate objects to objects. For example, the words "before" and "after" do not apply to objects individually—it makes no sense to say "Jim is before" or "Jim is after"—but to one thing in relation to another, as in "The wedding is before the reception" and "The reception is after the wedding". Such "relational" or "polyadic" ("many-place") concepts and expressions have, for their extension, the set of all sequences of objects that satisfy the concept or expression in question. So the extension of "before" is the set of all (ordered) pairs of objects such that the first one is before the second one.

Mathematics

[edit]
Main article: Extension (predicate logic)

In mathematics, the 'extension' of a mathematical concept is the set that is specified by . (That set might be empty, currently.) In terms of quantifiers, extension is (for all), as opposed to intention which is (there exists).

For example, the extension of a function is a set of ordered pairs that pair up the arguments and values of the function; in other words, the function's graph. The extension of an object in abstract algebra, such as a group, is the underlying set of the object. The extension of a set is the set itself. That a set can capture the notion of the extension of anything is the idea behind the axiom of extensionality in axiomatic set theory.

This kind of extension is used so constantly in contemporary mathematics based on set theory that it can be called an implicit assumption. A typical effort in mathematics evolves out of an observed mathematical object requiring description, the challenge being to find a characterization for which the object becomes the extension.

Computer science

[edit]

In computer science, some database textbooks use the term 'intension' to refer to the schema of a database, and 'extension' to refer to particular instances of a database.

Metaphysical implications

[edit]

There is an ongoing controversy in metaphysics about whether or not there are, in addition to actual, existing things, non-actual or nonexistent things. If there are—if, for instance, there are possible but non-actual dogs (dogs of some non-actual but possible species, perhaps) or nonexistent beings (like Sherlock Holmes, perhaps)—then these things might also figure in the extensions of various concepts and expressions. If not, only existing, actual things can be in the extension of a concept or expression. Note that "actual" may not mean the same as "existing". Perhaps there exist things that are merely possible, but not actual. (Maybe they exist in other universes, and these universes are other "possible worlds"—possible alternatives to the actual world.) Perhaps some actual things are nonexistent. (Sherlock Holmes seems to be an actual example of a fictional character; one might think there are many other characters Arthur Conan Doyle might have invented, though he actually invented Holmes.)

A similar problem arises for objects that no longer exist. The extension of the term "Socrates", for example, seems to be a (currently) non-existent object. Free logic is one attempt to avoid some of these problems.

General semantics

[edit]

Some fundamental formulations in the field of general semantics rely heavily on a valuation of extension over intension. See for example extension, and the extensional devices.

See also

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Extension (semantics)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In semantics, particularly within the , extension refers to the set of entities in the actual world (or a ) to which a linguistic expression applies, serving as a counterpart to , which captures the conceptual or abstract meaning that determines the extension. For instance, the extension of the predicate "is a " is the collection of all dogs, while the extension of a proper name like "" is the individual Barack Obama himself; for declarative sentences, the extension is simply the (true or false) based on whether the holds in the relevant world. This distinction allows semantic theories to account for how expressions can share the same extension (e.g., "has a kidney" and "has a heart" both extend to all mammals) yet differ in meaning, highlighting the limitations of purely extensional approaches in capturing full linguistic significance. The concept traces its roots to 19th-century philosophy, where John Stuart Mill introduced related ideas through his terms "denotation" and "connotation" in A System of Logic (1843), describing denotation as the direct reference to objects (e.g., the name "man" denotes individual humans) and connotation as the attributes implied by the name (e.g., rationality and corporeity). Mill's framework laid the groundwork for later developments, influencing Gottlob Frege's distinction between Sinn (sense, akin to intension) and Bedeutung (reference, akin to extension) in his 1892 paper "On Sense and Reference," where reference denotes the object or truth value contributed by an expression to the truth conditions of larger sentences. In the 20th century, formal semanticists like Alfred Tarski and Richard Montague formalized extension within model-theoretic semantics, treating it as the interpretation of expressions relative to a model, which enables compositional analysis of meaning through truth-conditional semantics. Extension plays a central role in addressing challenges like co-extensionality, where synonymous expressions must align in both extension and to avoid issues in belief contexts or (e.g., "the morning star" and "the evening star" share the extension but differ historically in perceived ). Contemporary applications extend to possible-worlds semantics, where an expression's is a function from worlds to extensions, accommodating context-sensitivity and counterfactuals, as explored in works by philosophers like David Lewis and . This framework remains foundational in , , and , though debates persist over whether extension alone suffices for natural language understanding or requires integration with pragmatic factors.

Philosophical and Linguistic Foundations

Definition and Core Concepts

In semantics, the extension of a linguistic expression refers to the set of entities in the actual world to which that expression applies or denotes. For instance, the extension of the term "" is the of all prime numbers, such as {2, 3, 5, 7, ...}, comprising those positive integers greater than 1 that have no positive divisors other than 1 and themselves. This concept captures the referential aspect of meaning, focusing on the concrete objects, individuals, or values that satisfy the expression rather than its abstract conceptual content. A core distinction exists between extension and intension, where extension concerns the "what"—the actual referents or denotations—while pertains to the "how," encompassing the properties, conditions, or meanings that determine those referents. For predicates or terms, the extension is typically a set or class of entities; for example, the extension of "red" in is the collection of all red objects in the world, such as apples, sunsets, or painted surfaces that possess the of redness. Similarly, the extension of the predicate "is even" is the set of all even numbers, like {..., -4, -2, 0, 2, 4, ...}, determined by the mathematical condition of divisibility by 2. For sentences, the extension simplifies to a : true if the holds in the actual world, or false otherwise, as in the extension of "Snow is white" being true given empirical facts about . Extensions are fundamentally anchored in worldly facts and empirical realities, independent of mere conceptual or linguistic conventions, ensuring that semantic evaluation relies on verifiable denotations rather than subjective interpretations. This principle underscores the extensional nature of semantics in straightforward contexts, where substitutivity of co-extensional terms preserves truth. In , the formalizes a related idea by stating that two sets are identical if they contain precisely the same elements, aligning with how extensions define collections by their members.

Historical Origins

The roots of the concept of extension in semantics trace back to classical antiquity, where philosophers began exploring how terms apply to entities in the world. Aristotle, in his Categories (circa 350 BCE), laid foundational groundwork by classifying predicates into ten categories—such as substance, quantity, and quality—that determine their applicability to objects, serving as an early precursor to the idea of a term's extension as the set of things it denotes. This framework emphasized semantic relations between words and their referents, influencing later developments in how meanings extend over classes of beings. Porphyry, in his Isagoge (circa 268–305 CE), further elaborated on Aristotle's categories through a hierarchical "tree of Porphyry," which illustrated the predicative applicability of genera and species, branching from substance to specific differences and thereby prefiguring extension as the range of applicability for universal terms. In the , the distinction between extension and gained explicit formulation in . , in A System of Logic (1843), differentiated the denotation of a term—its extension, or the class of objects it directly applies to—from its connotation, or , which specifies the attributes defining that class; for instance, "white" denotes all white things while connoting the attribute of whiteness. This binary became a for semantic analysis, shifting focus from mere naming to the referential scope of expressions. The late 19th century marked a pivotal "Fregean turn" toward formal semantics. In his 1892 paper "On Sense and Reference," introduced Bedeutung (reference or extension) as the objective referent of a , distinct from Sinn ( or ), which captures the mode of presentation; a classic example is "the Morning Star" and "," which share the same extension (the planet ) but differ in due to their contextual descriptions. This innovation resolved puzzles in identity statements and established extension as central to truth evaluation in logical contexts. Building on this, Alfred Tarski's 1933 semantic theory of truth, detailed in "The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages," connected extensions of sentences to their truth conditions by defining truth recursively through satisfaction in models, ensuring that a sentence's extension (its ) aligns with the extensions of its components. (English translation in Tarski 1956) Twentieth-century refinements integrated these ideas into modal frameworks. , in Meaning and Necessity (1947), formalized extensions as the sets of entities a designator picks out in a given state-description (), contrasting them with intensions as functions determining extensions across worlds; this approach systematized Frege's for and necessity. These developments—from Aristotelian applicability to Carnapian possible worlds—collectively shaped extension as a core semantic notion linking language to reality.

Formal Applications

In Mathematics and Logic

In mathematics, the extension of a concept is formalized as the set of entities that satisfy the concept, providing a set-theoretic foundation for semantics. This approach aligns with the in Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZF), which states that two sets are equal if and only if they have the same elements, expressed as ∀x(x∈A↔x∈B)  ⟹  A=B\forall x (x \in A \leftrightarrow x \in B) \implies A = B. This axiom ensures that sets are determined solely by their extensions, eliminating distinctions based on internal structure or representation, and underpins much of modern by treating concepts as indistinguishable when their extensions coincide. In logic, the extension of a predicate is defined as the of the domain (or of discourse) consisting of those elements for which the predicate holds true. For a unary predicate PP, its extension is the set {x∈D∣P(x)}\{x \in D \mid P(x)\}, where DD is the domain. This set-theoretic interpretation allows predicates to be treated as characteristic functions or relations over the domain, facilitating the of logical formulas in terms of their referential content rather than mere syntax. For n-ary predicates, the extension generalizes to subsets of the DnD^n, capturing the relations they denote. The extension of a function or relation is similarly captured by its graph, a set of ordered pairs that exhaustively represents the mapping. For a function f:A→Bf: A \to B, the extension is the set {(a,b)∣a∈A,b∈B,f(a)=b}\{(a, b) \mid a \in A, b \in B, f(a) = b\}, which uniquely identifies the function within set theory. Relations, including binary predicates, are treated as their full graphs over the domain, emphasizing extensional equivalence where two relations are identical if they share the same pairs. This formulation supports rigorous proofs of functional properties, such as injectivity or surjectivity, by examining the structure of the graph set. In , extensions are formalized through interpretations in (models), where the extension of a term or is its designated element or within the model's domain. For a constant cc in a model MM, the extension is M(c)∈M(c) \in the domain, while for predicates and functions, interpretations assign subsets of DkD^k or partial functions on DD, respectively. These assignments define the semantics of a in a given , enabling the evaluation of formulas based on how their components' extensions satisfy logical conditions. thus extends set-theoretic notions to study classes and elementary equivalence, where models agree on extensions of sentences if they share the same truth values. A pivotal development in this framework is Alfred Tarski's definition of truth, which relies on the satisfaction relation for open formulas (sentential functions) by assignments of objects from the domain to variables, with truth for closed determined recursively via these extensions. In Tarski's semantics, the extension of an is checked against the interpretations of its predicates and terms, propagating through connectives and quantifiers to define overall satisfaction, thereby grounding truth in the concrete extensions of linguistic elements. This approach resolves paradoxes by distinguishing object language from and ensures that truth is materially adequate, mirroring the extensions in the interpreted domain.

In Computer Science

In , the extension of a relation refers to the actual set of tuples (rows) stored in the database at any given time, representing the current instance of the data, while the corresponds to the , which defines the , constraints, and permissible content independent of time. This distinction, introduced in the , ensures that the extension can change dynamically through insertions, updates, or deletions without altering the underlying schema. For example, in a like those implemented in systems such as or , the extension of a table named "Employees" consists of the specific records containing employee details, such as names and salaries, populating the table at runtime. In and programming languages, the extension of a type is the set of all values that belong to that type, providing a concrete interpretation of the type's in computational terms. This concept underpins type systems by distinguishing the abstract definition of a type (its ) from the inhabitable values (its extension), enabling static analysis and runtime safety. For instance, in , the extension of the Int type comprises all integers that can be represented within the language's fixed-size memory allocation, typically ranging from -2^31 to 2^31 - 1 on 32-bit systems, though this is implementation-dependent. Such extensions are finite in practice due to hardware limits, contrasting with theoretically infinite sets in . Formal semantics of programming languages, particularly through denotational approaches, treat the extension of an expression as its computed or mathematical value in a semantic domain. In , pioneered by and , expressions map to their extensions via functions from syntactic constructs to domain elements, abstracting away implementation details to focus on observable behavior. For , a foundational model for , the extension of a term denoting a function is the set of input-output pairs it relates, formally represented as a relation in the domain of partial functions. This framework influences languages like Scheme and ML, where semantic extensions ensure compositional reasoning about program meanings. Query languages such as SQL operationalize these concepts by retrieving or manipulating extensions based on intensional specifications in the . A SELECT statement, for example, filters and projects the extension of one or more relations according to predicates defined by the , yielding a new relation whose extension is the result set. This aligns with the principle, which separates physical and logical storage details () from the actual data content (extension), allowing schema modifications without impacting applications or . In modern systems, including databases like and , extensions manifest as dynamic, schema-flexible collections that evolve with unstructured or ingestion. Unlike rigid relational extensions, these allow varying document structures within the same collection, prioritizing over strict intensional constraints, while still supporting queries that operate on current extensions. This adaptability facilitates handling massive, volumes in distributed environments.

Philosophical Debates and Extensions

Metaphysical Implications

The problem of nonexistent entities poses significant ontological challenges for the concept of extension in semantics, particularly concerning whether terms referring to fictional or imaginary objects, such as "," possess an extension at all. In Meinongian theories, such entities are granted a form of subsistence, allowing them to have extensions as abstract objects that exist independently of actual existence, thereby accommodating intentional reference without requiring real-world instantiation. This contrasts with Bertrand Russell's approach in his , which restricts extensions to existent objects and treats references to nonexistents as empty or false definite descriptions, avoiding commitment to any ontology of the nonexistent. For instance, the statement " is a " is analyzed by Russell as failing to denote any actual , thus having no extension in the domain of real objects, while Meinongians would posit a subsistent extension for the fictional character. Possible worlds semantics further complicates the metaphysical status of extensions by rendering them relative to different possible worlds, raising questions about the nature of existence across modal scenarios. Saul Kripke's framework, developed in his semantical considerations for modal logic, models extensions as varying with respect to accessibility relations between worlds, where a term's referent may exist in some worlds but not others. David Lewis extended this in his analysis of counterfactuals, treating possible worlds as concrete alternatives with their own full extensions, implying that extensions are not fixed but world-dependent entities in a pluralistic ontology. A seminal illustration is Hilary Putnam's Twin Earth thought experiment, where the term "water" has an extension of H₂O in the actual world but XYZ in the Twin Earth world, demonstrating how environmental factors across possible worlds determine extensional content and challenging the idea of absolute, mind-independent extensions. Debates on in metaphysics question whether semantic meanings can be purely extensional, encompassing only the set of objects satisfying a term without modal or intensional depth. Willard Van Orman Quine's critique of analyticity in "" argues that distinctions between analytic and synthetic truths blur under extensional , suggesting meanings are tied to empirical extensions rather than necessary structures, yet this invites counterarguments for incorporating modal considerations to account for necessities beyond mere extensional equivalence. Such views imply that purely extensional semantics risks ontological , flattening metaphysical diversity into observable extensions while overlooking how possible worlds reveal deeper commitments to alternate realities. Free logic emerges as a metaphysical alternative to , permitting singular terms with empty extensions—such as those for nonexistent entities—without presupposing existential commitment, thus allowing true statements about nonexistents while preserving extensional relations. In this system, atomic formulas involving empty terms can be assigned truth-values independently of domain existence, addressing ontological puzzles by decoupling from being and enabling extensions for fictions or possibilities without inflating the . Kripke's "" reinforces these implications by introducing rigid designators, proper names that refer to the same object across all possible worlds in which it exists, ensuring fixed extensions for individuals despite modal variations. This rigidity underscores a metaphysical , where extensions of names like "" remain constant, constraining possible worlds to those compatible with the object's identity and challenging extensional variability in favor of necessary connections.

Relation to Intension and Sense

In semantic theory, the extension of an expression refers to its or the set of entities it picks out in the actual world, whereas the captures the internal, conceptual content or that governs how the extension varies across possible scenarios. This distinction allows for cases where two expressions share the same extension but differ in , such as "creature with a heart" and "creature with kidneys," which denote the same biological entities yet convey distinct conceptual properties. The contrast highlights how extension provides the external reference, while encodes the meaning that determines reference. Gottlob Frege's framework further refines this by introducing (Sinn) as the mode of presentation through which an expression connects to its reference (Bedeutung), which aligns with extension. In Frege's semantic triangle, a linguistic expression points to a , which in turn determines the reference or extension; for instance, "" and "" both refer to (same extension) but differ in , as one presents it as and the other as the morning star. This explains cognitive differences in understanding identical referents, emphasizing that functions as an intermediary layer akin to . Hyperintensional contexts, such as propositional attitudes like , reveal limitations where terms with the same (and thus same extension across all possible worlds) are not interchangeable; for example, one may believe that is a without believing that is, despite their co-intensionality. Alonzo Church's test addresses synonymy in such cases, stipulating that if substituting a term in a belief report via alters its , the terms are not synonymous, thereby probing finer-grained semantic differences beyond extension and . This test underscores hyperintensionality's challenge to standard intensional semantics. The relation between extension and also intersects with the analytic-synthetic distinction, where analytic truths have extensions fixed solely by their intensions through logical or definitional relations, as in "" denoting unmarried adult males, determinable a priori without empirical survey. In contrast, synthetic truths, such as those for natural kinds like "," rely on empirical extensions that may not align predictably with intensions, requiring to confirm . This interplay shows how intensions can rigidly determine extensions in logical domains but leave room for empirical variation elsewhere. David Kaplan's two-dimensional semantics (1989) extends this by distinguishing character—an intension-like function from context to propositional content—from content itself, which operates extension-like within a world or across possible worlds. For indexicals like "I," the character determines the extension relative to the speaker's context, while the content yields the referent at a given circumstance, bridging direct reference with intensional variability.

Specialized Interpretations

In General Semantics

In , as developed by , extension refers to the concrete, observable referents of —the silent, non-verbal levels of experience such as sensory data, events, or unique individuals that ground abstractions in empirical reality. In contrast, encompasses the abstract, verbal levels, including labels, definitions, and higher-order meanings that simplify but often distort this reality by omitting infinite characteristics. This distinction forms the core of Korzybski's non-Aristotelian system, outlined in his 1933 work Science and Sanity, where is treated as a tool for survival-oriented evaluation rather than absolute truth. A foundational principle in this framework is "the map is not the territory," underscoring that verbal representations (maps) differ structurally from the objective world (territory), and confusing the two leads to semantic disorders like over-identification or delusional thinking. Extensions serve to anchor language in verifiable facts, promoting an "extensional orientation" that prioritizes silent levels to avoid the pitfalls of intensional absolutism, thereby fostering clearer and . Korzybski applied this through multi-ordinal mappings, where terms acquire varying extensions based on contextual levels, preventing rigid generalizations. For instance, the phrase "to be silent" can denote literal auditory silence at a basic sensory level, semantic restraint from over-verbalizing at an evaluative level, or philosophical awareness of un-speakable realities at a higher order, illustrating how shifts the referents to enhance precision and reduce conflict. The structural differential diagram visually captures this , depicting extension as the foundational "silent levels" (e.g., infinite event characteristics) branching into intensional "verbal levels" (e.g., descriptive labels), with omitted traits represented as hanging elements to highlight abstraction's incompleteness. This tool emphasizes the need for of abstracting to maintain alignment between words and world. Korzybski stressed extensional orientation as essential for , arguing it integrates cortical and thalamic processes to alleviate affective tensions, delusions, and semantic blockages by aligning evaluations with observable extensions rather than intensional projections. Rooted in scientific insights, this approach remains foundational, influencing fields like neuro-linguistic programming through its emphasis on language-reality distinctions for therapeutic change.

In Contemporary Semantics and AI

In contemporary semantics, the concept of extension has been formalized within , a framework developed in the that integrates and to model meanings compositionally. In this approach, the extension of a linguistic expression—such as its in a given model—is derived systematically from the extensions of its syntactic components through and , ensuring that the meaning of a complex sentence aligns with those of its parts. For instance, the extension of a like "love" is treated as a between individuals, which, when combined with extensions via lambda , yields the extension of a full sentence as true or false in a model. Cognitive linguistics has extended the notion of extension beyond crisp set-theoretic boundaries, incorporating as proposed by in 1975. Here, the extension of a lexical category, such as "," is viewed as a where membership degrees vary based on prototypicality—central examples like robins belong more strongly than peripheral ones like penguins—reflecting empirical patterns in human categorization judgments. This shift challenges classical extensions by emphasizing graded structures informed by perceptual and experiential salience, influencing semantic models that account for vagueness and context-dependence in language use. In (NLP), extensions are operationalized as vector embeddings in high-dimensional spaces, as exemplified by models introduced by Mikolov et al. in 2013, which capture through distributional patterns in corpora. These embeddings represent the extension of words or phrases as dense vectors where geometric proximity reflects relational meanings, enabling tasks like analogy resolution (e.g., king - man + woman ≈ queen). Complementing this, (SRL) assigns extensions to predicate arguments by identifying thematic roles—such as agent or —within sentence structures, as formalized in early statistical models by Gildea and Jurafsky in 2002. Modern neural SRL variants build on these to propagate extensions across dependency parses, enhancing machine comprehension of event structures. Machine learning applications further dynamize extensions through knowledge graphs, where RDF triples define entity extensions as subject-predicate-object relations with formal semantics grounded in description logics. For example, a triple like (Paris, capitalOf, France) extends the concept "capital" to include Paris within a graph's interpretable domain, supporting inference over interconnected facts. To handle uncertainty, probabilistic extensions incorporate Bayesian models or embedding techniques, allowing soft memberships in graph-based semantics for ambiguous or evolving knowledge. Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs), emerging post-2020, approximate extensions via , leveraging architectures to infer word and sentence meanings from vast co-occurrence statistics. Models like generate extensions dynamically through next-token prediction, achieving emergent compositional understanding without explicit rules. However, this approach faces challenges with hallucinations—outputs assigning incorrect or empty extensions to entities or relations—arising from training data biases and overgeneralization, as analyzed in surveys of LLM reliability. Mitigation strategies, such as retrieval-augmented generation, aim to ground extensions in verifiable external knowledge to reduce such errors.

References

  1. https://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~dbraun2/Research/BraunExtensionIntension.pdf
  2. https://philarchive.org/archive/YLIRAE
  3. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/27942/27942-h/27942-h.htm
  4. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-intensional/
  5. https://users.monash.edu.au/~kallan/papers/histsem.pdf
  6. https://inters.org/files/frege1892-1948.pdf
  7. https://authortomharper.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/1947-Meaning-and-Necessity-Carnap.pdf
  8. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zermelo-set-theory/
  9. https://www.princeton.edu/~hhalvors/teaching/phi201_s2005/handouts/semantics.pdf
  10. https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~hunter/intro_analysis_pdf/ch1.pdf
  11. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/model-theory/
  12. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tarski-truth/
  13. https://iep.utm.edu/s-truth/
  14. https://www.seas.upenn.edu/~zives/03f/cis550/codd.pdf
  15. http://www.csc.villanova.edu/~enwafor/database/lectures/lecture_2.pdf
  16. https://people.cs.ksu.edu/~schmidt/text/DenSem-full-book.pdf
  17. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nonexistent-objects/
  18. https://www.uvm.edu/~lderosse/courses/lang/Russell%281905%29.pdf
  19. https://www.filosoficas.unam.mx/~morado/Cursos/17Modal/Kripke1963.pdf
  20. https://perso.uclouvain.be/peter.verdee/counterfactuals/lewis.pdf
  21. http://www.ifac.univ-nantes.fr/IMG/pdf/Putnam_-_The_Meaning_of_Meaning.pdf
  22. https://www.theologie.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:ffffffff-fbd6-1538-0000-000070cf64bc/Quine51.pdf
  23. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-free/
  24. https://neuroself.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/naming-and-necessity-full-text.pdf
  25. https://ia804502.us.archive.org/0/items/meaningandnecess033225mbp/meaningandnecess033225mbp.pdf
  26. https://home.sandiego.edu/~baber/metaphysics/readings/Frege.SenseAndReference.pdf
  27. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
  28. https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/roberts.21/NYU/Kaplan.demonstratives.pdf
  29. https://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Science-and-Sanity.pdf
  30. https://generalsemantics.org/General-Semantics-Other-Fields
  31. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/montague-semantics/
  32. http://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/mkracht/html/montague.pdf
  33. https://commonweb.unifr.ch/artsdean/pub/gestens/f/as/files/4610/9778_083247.pdf
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079742106460035
  35. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267512473_Prototype_Theory_in_Cognitive_Linguistics
  36. https://www.cs.rochester.edu/~gildea/gildea-cl02.pdf
  37. https://web.stanford.edu/~jurafsky/slp3/21.pdf
  38. https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/
  39. https://www.ontotext.com/blog/knowledge-graphs-breaking-the-ice/
  40. https://direct.mit.edu/coli/article/43/3/593/1571/AutoExtend-Combining-Word-Embeddings-with-Semantic
  41. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3703155
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.