@article {12338,
	title = {Meaning-Constitutive Inferences},
	journal = {Organon F},
	volume = {24},
	number = {1},
	year = {2017},
	pages = {85-104},
	type = {State},
	abstract = {A traditional objection to inferentialism states that not all inferences can be meaning-constitutive and therefore inferentialism has to comprise an analytic-synthetic distinction. As a response, Peregrin argues that meaning is a matter of inferential rules and only the subset of all the valid inferences for which there is a widely shared corrective behaviour corresponds to rules and so determines meaning. Unfortunately, Peregrin does not discuss what counts as {\textquotedblleft}widely shared{\textquotedblright}. In the paper, I argue for an empirical plausibility of Peregrin{\textquoteright}s proposal. The aim of the paper is to show that we can find examples of meaning-constitutive linguistic action, which sustain Peregrin{\textquoteright}s response. The idea is supported by examples of meaning modulation. If Peregrin is right, then we should be able to find specific meaning modulations in which a new meaning is publicly available and modulated in such a way that it has a potential to be widely shared. I believe that binding modulations {\textendash} a specific type of meaning modulations {\textendash} satisfy this condition.},
	keywords = {Inferentialism, meaning, meaning modulation, meaning-constitutive inferences, normative inferentialism},
	url = {http://www.klemens.sav.sk/fiusav/doc/organon/2017/1/85-104.pdf},
	author = {Drob{\v n}{\'a}k, Matej}
}
