Arthur Pap on meaning rules

Abstract

IN HIS important book Semantics and Necessary Truth I Professor Pap asks (p. 409): "In what sense is the proposition that the relation warmer is necessarily (not contingently) asymmetrical-a 'nonsemiotic' mode of speech which Carnap himself has sanctioned-a rule?" The answer is that it is not a rule, but a (in this case) material-mode surrogate2 for a rule. The rule itself would be stated in the metalanguage in one of a number of alternative forms, e.g., "If the two place predicate a takes as an argument the ordered pair (a, #), then it must not take as an argument (,3, a), where 'n' designates 'warmer than' and a and /8 are the names of any individual constants" (or more simply, "The statement '(x) (y) (xWy D ~ yWx)' is A-true). Surely this is a semiotic rule, albeit it does not have the simple form of "'P' designates P." Concerning the meaning postulate '(x) (B x D ~Mx),' Pap says (p. 409): "But surely Carnap's implicit translation of 'B and M are incompatible properties' into 'the English words "bachelor" and "married" are used incompatibly' is no more plausible than its translation into 'the German words "Junggeselle" and "verheiratet" are used incompatibly.'" From this context alone, it is not clear just what Pap intends us to infer from this. But, borrowing from other contexts, I think we can expand his argument as follows: The translation of 'bachelor and married are incompatible properties' into German is 'Junggeselle und verheiratet sind unvereinbare Eigenschaften.' This shows that the first statement (in English) is not about the words 'bachelor' and 'married' (since these words do not appear in its German translation). This ("Church translation") argument derives a great deal of its force from an uncritical use of the troublesome word 'about.' Be that as it may, the contention is not that the statement is "about" the words 'bachelor' and 'married,' but that it is true by virtue of linguistic rules. It is true that, for most contexts in which the English sentence would occur, the relevant rule-as opposed to its object-language surrogate, i.e., the sentence itself-would be a rule "about" the English language and, indeed, about the words 'bachelor' and 'married.' However, as soon as translation (e.g., into German) is considered, the context becomes such that additional linguistic rules come into play, i.e., translation rules. It is, then, by virtue of both rules of English and rules for translating