Linguistics and Philosophy· 2026Q1
Multiplicities of meaning: Waismann on open texture, vagueness, and ambiguity
- 0citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
Friedrich Waismann's concept of 'open texture' is not the possibility of vagueness (Sorites paradoxes), but rather the possibility of polysemy, according to this analysis.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Waismann contrasted 'open texture' with 'vagueness', stating open terms can become unstable while vague terms fluctuate.
- A common interpretation links Waismann's open texture to the possibility of vagueness in Sorites paradoxes (degree vagueness).
- This paper argues that open texture is not the possibility of degree vagueness.
- The analysis suggests open texture is more plausibly the possibility of polysemy, based on Waismann's examples.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Abstract Across his writings, Friedrich Waismann articulates his notion of “open texture” by contrasting it with a phenomenon he calls “vagueness”, claiming that while vague terms fluctuate in their actual usage, open terms may be stable, and that while vagueness can be “remedied” through the provision of more precise rules, open texture is ineliminable. He qualifies this contrast by stating that open texture is “something like possibility of vagueness”, i.e. that open terms can always come to fluctuate in their actual usage despite previous periods of stability. Due to his use of the examples “pink” and “heap” there is a strong temptation to read Waismann as claiming that open texture is the possibility of that vagueness that forms the foundation of Sorites paradoxes, i.e. that open texture is the possibility of something like “degree” vagueness. I argue that this temptation is a mistake. As his own examples of open texture make evident, open texture cannot be the possibility of degree vagueness in particular. Indeed, once we pay attention to his many illuminating examples of various semantic indeterminacies, we find instead, I argue, that open texture is the possibility of no form of vagueness as we understand the notion today. Instead, open texture emerges more plausibly as the possibility of polysemy.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Linguistics and Philosophy, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: History and Philosophy of Science
History and Philosophy of ScienceArts and Humanities