Löst Brandoms Inferentialismus bedeutungsholistische Kommunikationsprobleme?

Translated title of the contribution: Does Brandom's inferentialism solve meaning-holistic communication problems?

Axel Mueller*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


This article analyzes whether Brandom's ISA (inferential-substitutional- Ana- phoric) semantics as presented in Making It Explicit (MIE) and Articulating Reasons (AR) can cope with problems resulting from inferentialism's near-implied meaning holism. Inferentialism and meaning holism entail a radically perspectival conception of content as significance for an individual speaker. Since thereby its basis is fixed as idiolects, holistic inferentialism engenders a communication problem. Brandom considers the systematic difference in information among individuals as the "point" of communication and thus doesn't want to diminish these effects of inferentialism. Instead, explains communication with a model of "navigating among perspectives without sharing contents". The crucial element in this navigation-model is the functioning of anaphoric connections between tokens uttered in discourse that can be used by every individual speaker in their own perspectival semantic substitution-economies. The heart of Brandom's semantics is the thesis of the purely inferential, hence non-referential nature of anaphora, coupled with the claim that anaphoric-inferential semantic mechanisms yield sufficient conditions for mutually successful "information-extraction" or interpretation. This article disputes the thesis and denies the claim. Regarding the former it is observed that all of Brandom's plausible reconstructions of anaphoric discourse-structures rely on covert "reference-infiltrations" that can't be eliminated. Regarding the latter, a new argument based on context-sensitive semantic phenomena in anaphoric settings shows that the crucial distinction between initiator or anaphoric antecedent and anaphoric dependent cannot be drawn according to Brandom's own premises without overt and irreducible referential premises. The article concludes that either Brandom's semantics can offer determinate contents, but then must accept genuinely referential semantic primitives, or else it leaves utterance-contents undeterminable and hence cannot explain commu-nication.

Translated title of the contributionDoes Brandom's inferentialism solve meaning-holistic communication problems?
Original languageGerman
Pages (from-to)141-186
Number of pages46
JournalZeitschrift fur Semiotik
Issue number3-4
StatePublished - 2014

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cultural Studies
  • Language and Linguistics
  • Philosophy
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Literature and Literary Theory


Dive into the research topics of 'Does Brandom's inferentialism solve meaning-holistic communication problems?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this