document_title: Terraria

question_text: when did terraria come out on xbox 360

question_tokens: when did terraria come out on xbox 360

text: Terraria

text: Gameplay

text: Terraria is a sandbox 2D game with gameplay that revolves around exploration, building, and combat.[1][2] The game has a 2D sprite tile-based graphical style reminiscent of the 16-bit sprites found on the Super NES.[2] The game is noted for its classic exploration-adventure style of gameplay, similar to titles such as the Metroid series and Minecraft.[2][3][4]

text: The game starts in a procedurally generated world. The player starts with three basic tools: a pickaxe for mining, a shortsword for combat, and an axe for woodcutting.[1] Many resources, notably ores, can be found while mining or exploring underground caves. The player begins with a limited amount of health and magic points, which can both be increased by finding certain items by exploring.[1] Some resources, and most items, may only be found in certain areas of the map, stored in common and rare containers, or dropped by certain enemies.[1] The player uses resources to craft new items and equipment at an appropriate crafting station for that recipe. For example, tables or other items can be crafted at a work bench, and bars can be smelted from ore at a furnace. Several advanced items in Terraria require multiple crafting operations where the product of one recipe is used as an ingredient for another.

text: The player can encounter many different enemies in Terraria, such as simple slimes, zombies, demon eyes, and various region-specific enemies. The occurrence of certain enemies depends on several factors including time, location, random events, and player interactions.[1] The player can fight against enemies with swords, bows, guns, magic spells, and other weapons. The player may also battle boss monsters during the game with a number of different combat mechanics that can drop rare items and large amounts of in-game currency. All bosses can be summoned by using certain items, destroying blocks through the world, or randomly when certain criteria are met. Several of the bosses can spawn naturally in certain places and times. The defeat of these bosses is often tied to in-game progression. For example, the Dungeon is inaccessible before Skeletron's defeat.

text: By completing specific goals (such as defeating a boss or obtaining a gun), players can attract non-player characters (NPCs) to occupy structures or rooms they have built, such as a merchant, nurse, or wizard.[1] Some NPCs can be acquired by finding them throughout the world and will then reside in the player's house. Players may then buy or sell items and certain services from NPCs with coins found in the world. Some NPCs cannot currently be found in the mobile versions of the game. The game includes a currency system in the form of coins that can be primarily used to complete transactions with NPCs. Coins can be obtained by slaying monsters, finding treasure, and selling items to NPCs.

text: The game recognizes many different biomes and areas, defined by the blocks that exist in the vicinity, each home to a unique set of enemies. If the player journeys to the Underworld and summons and defeats a boss there called the Wall of Flesh, the game enters "hard mode", which adds many new and much stronger enemies throughout the world, as well as new NPCs, bosses, ores, and items.[5]

text: The game also features an expert mode difficulty.[6] Enabled when creating a world, expert mode increases the difficulty of the game by doubling the health and attack of monsters and bosses, further increasing the strength of weaker enemies after hardmode, giving the bosses new attack patterns, decreasing the effectiveness of life regeneration, and other tweaks. To deal with the higher attack damages of expert mode the defense statistic is more effective than in normal mode. In addition to the higher difficulty level, expert mode increases the chance for enemies to drop rare items, and adds new items that can only be obtained by defeating the bosses on expert mode.

text: In addition to standard gameplay, Terraria has a modding community.[7][8]

text: Development and release

text: Terraria was developed by Re-Logic beginning in January 2011,[9] and is built on the Microsoft XNA framework.[10] Re-Logic was composed of Andrew Spinks, who designed and programmed the game, Finn Brice, who along with Spinks did the graphic design for the game, and Jeremy Guerrette, who was a production assistant at Re-Logic, but left shortly after the game's release.[citation needed] The music was composed by Scott Lloyd Shelly.[11] The game was released for Microsoft Windows on May 16, 2011.[12]

text: Post-launch, the game has been updated on multiple occasions. In December 2011, Re-Logic updated Terraria to version 1.1, adding new monsters, bosses, NPCs, and items. The update also included improvements to the game's world generation technology and lighting system.[13] In February 2012, the developers announced that they would not be continuing active development, but would release a final bug-fix patch.[14] However, development resumed in 2013 with Spinks asking the community for ideas and features to include in a future content update.[15]

text: In September 2012, Spinks announced that Engine Software and 505 Games would be porting Terraria to Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.[16] The game was released for Xbox 360 via Xbox Live Arcade on March 27, 2013.[17] The PlayStation 3 version was released via the PlayStation Network in North America on March 26, 2013[17] and in Europe and Australia on May 15, 2013.[18] Shortly after the initial console release, 505 Games announced Terraria for PlayStation Vita;[19] it was released in Europe on December 11, 2013, and in North America on December 17, 2013.[20] Spike Chunsoft localized the PlayStation 3 and Vita versions for release in Japan, including exclusive items such as a costume based on Monokuma from Danganronpa: Trigger Happy Havoc.[21][22] In May 2013, 505 Games announced a mobile version of Terraria ported by Dutch studio Codeglue for Android, iOS, and Windows Phone.[23] It was released for iOS on August 29, 2013,[24] and for Android on September 13, 2013.[25] The Windows Phone version was released on September 12, 2014.[26][unreliable source?]

text: In October 2013, Re-Logic released version 1.2 for Terraria on Windows after nine months in development. The update added a host of new mechanics, gameplay changes, and graphics adjustments.[27] After the 1.2 update was released the game returned to receiving continuous updates, including Halloween and Christmas updates which expanded the endgame significantly.[28][29] The console and mobile versions received update 1.2 in 2014.[30][31] Terraria became DRM-free on October 2, 2014, when it was released on GOG.com.[32]

text: A downloadable version of Terraria was released for PlayStation 4 on November 11, 2014, and Xbox One on November 14, 2014,[33][34] with a retail release on December 2, 2014.[35] In September 2014, Re-Logic announced that Terraria would be coming to OS X and Linux.[36] They were both released on August 12, 2015.[37] The Nintendo 3DS version was first released on the Nintendo eShop on December 10, 2015.[38] A Wii U version was released on the eShop in June 2016.[39]

text: It was announced that version 1.3, the game's third major content update, would be the last on which Spinks would work personally, and that the developers Yorai Omer and Skiphs would take over programming, and Whitney "Cenx" Baird, would take over as lead designer.[citation needed] Version 1.3 was released on June 30, 2015, adding even more items, events, enemies, bosses, and gameplay features. During July 2016, Cenx announced that 1.3 for the mobile platforms would be coming in 2017.[40]

text: On July 25, 2016, 505 Games announced that the 1.3 update would not be ported to Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, or PlayStation Vita, citing issues with the consoles' performance. It was also announced that Engine Software and Codeglue would no longer be working on the console and mobile versions respectively and that a new studio, Pipeworks, would take over the development of those versions.[41] In February 2017, 505 Games announced that Terraria would be ported to Nintendo Switch. The release of the 1.3 update for Xbox One and PlayStation 4 was initially scheduled for Q2 2017,[41] but was later delayed until Q3 2017.[42]

text: Reception

text:
Reception

Aggregate score

Aggregator
Score

Metacritic
83/100 (PC)[43]
81/100 (PS3)[44]
81/100 (X360)[45]
82/100 (iOS)[46]
85/100 (Vita)[47]
71/100 (3DS)[48]
84/100 (XB1)[49]
83/100 (PS4)[50]

Review scores

Publication
Score

Destructoid
8/10[51]

GameSpot
8/10[1]

GameZone
9/10[52]

IGN
9/10[53]

PC Gamer (US)
79%[54]

text: Terraria received generally favorable reviews from critics, according to review aggregator Metacritic.[43][44][45][46] A review for Destructoid included praise for Terraria as "full of depth".[55] Another reviewer praised Terraria's integration of some of Minecraft's concepts into two dimensions.[56]

text: GameSpot praised Terraria's exploration and feeling of accomplishment but criticized its lack of tutorial or explicit directions.[1] IGN praised the game, claiming that Terraria: "expands on the familiar sandbox gameplay with a greater emphasis on combat and adventure."[53] Terraria received the #1 of 2011 Indie of the Year Player Choice on IndieDB.[57]

text: Despite using 2D graphics, Terraria was described as a Minecraft clone by various video gaming media outlets.[53][58][59][60][61][62]

text: Sales

text: Terraria sold 200,000 copies in the first nine days following its initial release, where it remained on Steam's top sellers for the first week of its release.[63] Within a month, Terraria had sold over 432,000 copies.[64] By the time of the 1.3 update in June 2015, over 12 million copies of Terraria were sold across all platforms,[65] with that number increasing to over 20 million by February 2017.[66]

text: Sequels

text: In October 2013, Spinks announced that he was planning Terraria 2, stating that the game was planned to have an unlimited number of worlds, and would be significantly different from the original game.[67][68]

text: Another game set in the Terraria universe, Terraria: Otherworld was announced in February 2015.[69] Otherworld tasks the player with trying to purify the world of the Corruption. This is to be achieved mainly by finding and activating "purifying towers" that push back the spread of the Corruption. Otherworld will include more strategy and role-playing elements, such as a new tower defense gameplay element, a skill tree, and a plot to follow. In April 2017, Re-Logic announced that the previous partner on the project, Engine Software, would be dropped in favor of a new studio, Pipeworks.[70] The reasoning given was due to the game being well behind schedule, as it was originally meant to be released in 2015.[70][71]

text: Notes

text: Jump up ^ Ported to mobile platforms by Codeglue and to consoles by Engine Software

tag: ol


document_title: Philosophy of language

question_text: who broadened the doctrine of philosophy of language

question_tokens: who broadened the doctrine of philosophy of language

root

text: Philosophy of language

text: Major topics and sub-fields[edit]

text: Composition and parts[edit]

text:
Essential terms

Concepts

Categories

Sets

Classes

Genus and Species

Property

Entity

Proposition

Sentence

tag: table

text: It has long been known that there are different parts of speech. One part of the common sentence is the lexical word, which is composed of nouns, verbs, and adjectives. A major question in the field – perhaps the single most important question for formalist and structuralist thinkers – is, "How does the meaning of a sentence emerge out of its parts?"

tag: p

text: Many aspects of the problem of the composition of sentences are addressed in the field of linguistics of syntax. Philosophical semantics tends to focus on the principle of compositionality to explain the relationship between meaningful parts and whole sentences. The principle of compositionality asserts that a sentence can be understood on the basis of the meaning of the parts of the sentence (i.e., words, morphemes) along with an understanding of its structure (i.e., syntax, logic).[1] Further, syntactic propositions are arranged into 'discourse' or 'narrative' structures, which also encode meanings through pragmatics like temporal relations and pronominals.[2]

text: It is possible to use the concept of functions to describe more than just how lexical meanings work: they can also be used to describe the meaning of a sentence. Take, for a moment, the sentence "The horse is red". We may consider "the horse" to be the product of a propositional function. A propositional function is an operation of language that takes an entity (in this case, the horse) as an input and outputs a semantic fact (i.e., the proposition that is represented by "The horse is red"). In other words, a propositional function is like an algorithm. The meaning of "red" in this case is whatever takes the entity "the horse" and turns it into the statement, "The horse is red."[3]

text: Linguists have developed at least two general methods of understanding the relationship between the parts of a linguistic string and how it is put together: syntactic and semantic trees. Syntactic trees draw upon the words of a sentence with the grammar of the sentence in mind. Semantic trees, on the other hand, focus upon the role of the meaning of the words and how those meanings combine to provide insight onto the genesis of semantic facts.

text: The nature of meaning[edit]

text: Generally speaking, there have been at least seven distinctive explanations of what a linguistic "meaning" is. Each has been associated with its own body of literature.

text:
Idea theories of meaning, most commonly associated with the British empiricist tradition of Locke, Berkeley and Hume, claim that meanings are purely mental contents provoked by signs.[4] Although this view of meaning has been beset by a number of problems from the beginning (see the main article for details), interest in it has been renewed by some contemporary theorists under the guise of semantic internalism.[5]
Truth-conditional theories hold meaning to be the conditions under which an expression may be true or false. This tradition goes back at least to Frege and is associated with a rich body of modern work, spearheaded by philosophers like Alfred Tarski and Donald Davidson.[6][7]
Theories of language use, for example theories by the later Wittgenstein, helped inaugurate the idea of "meaning as use", and a communitarian view of language. Wittgenstein was interested in the way in which the communities use language, and how far it can be taken.[8] It is also associated with P. F. Strawson, John Searle, Robert Brandom, and others.[9]
Constructivist theories of language are connected to the revolutionary idea claiming that speech is not only passively describing a given reality, but it can change the (social) reality it is describing through speech acts, which for linguistics was as revolutionary a discovery as for physics was the discovery that measurement itself can change the measured reality itself. Speech act theory was developed by J. L. Austin, although other previous thinkers have had similar ideas.[10]
Reference theories of meaning, also known collectively as semantic externalism, view meaning to be equivalent to those things in the world that are actually connected to signs. There are two broad subspecies of externalism: social and environmental. The first is most closely associated with Tyler Burge and the second with Hilary Putnam, Saul Kripke and others.[11][12][13]
Verificationist theories of meaning are generally associated with the early 20th century movement of logical positivism. The traditional formulation of such a theory is that the meaning of a sentence is its method of verification or falsification. In this form, the thesis was abandoned after the acceptance by most philosophers of the Duhem–Quine thesis of confirmation holism after the publication of Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism.[14] However, Michael Dummett has advocated a modified form of verificationism since the 1970s. In this version, the comprehension (and hence meaning) of a sentence consists in the hearer's ability to recognize the demonstration (mathematical, empirical or other) of the truth of the sentence.[15]
A pragmatist theory of meaning is any theory in which the meaning (or understanding) of a sentence is determined by the consequences of its application. Dummett attributes such a theory of meaning to Charles Sanders Peirce and other early 20th century American pragmatists.[15]

text: Other theories exist to discuss non-linguistic meaning (i.e., meaning as conveyed by body language, meanings as consequences, etc.)[16]

text: Reference[edit]

text: Investigations into how language interacts with the world are called theories of reference. Gottlob Frege was an advocate of a mediated reference theory. Frege divided the semantic content of every expression, including sentences, into two components: sense and meaning. The sense of a sentence is the thought that it expresses. Such a thought is abstract, universal and objective. The sense of any sub-sentential expression consists in its contribution to the thought that its embedding sentence expresses. Senses determine reference and are also the modes of presentation of the objects to which expressions refer. Referents are the objects in the world that words pick out. The senses of sentences are thoughts, while their referents are truth values (true or false). The referents of sentences embedded in propositional attitude ascriptions and other opaque contexts are their usual senses.[17]

text: Bertrand Russell, in his later writings and for reasons related to his theory of acquaintance in epistemology, held that the only directly referential expressions are, what he called, "logically proper names". Logically proper names are such terms as I, now, here and other indexicals.[18][19] He viewed proper names of the sort described above as "abbreviated definite descriptions". Hence Donald J. Trump may be an abbreviation for "the current President of the United States and husband of Melania Trump." Definite descriptions are denoting phrases (see On Denoting) which are analyzed by Russell into existentially quantified logical constructions. Such phrases denote in the sense that there is an object that satisfies the description. However, such objects are not to be considered meaningful on their own, but have meaning only in the proposition expressed by the sentences of which they are a part. Hence, they are not directly referential in the same way as logically proper names, for Russell.[20][21]

text: On Frege's account, any referring expression has a sense as well as a referent. Such a "mediated reference" view has certain theoretical advantages over Mill's view. For example, co-referential names, such as Samuel Clemens and Mark Twain, cause problems for a directly referential view because it is possible for someone to hear "Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens" and be surprised – thus, their cognitive content seems different.

text: Despite the differences between the views of Frege and Russell, they are generally lumped together as descriptivists about proper names. Such descriptivism was criticized in Saul Kripke's Naming and Necessity.

text: Kripke put forth what has come to be known as "the modal argument" (or "argument from rigidity"). Consider the name Aristotle and the descriptions "the greatest student of Plato", "the founder of logic" and "the teacher of Alexander". Aristotle obviously satisfies all of the descriptions (and many of the others we commonly associate with him), but it is not necessarily true that if Aristotle existed then Aristotle was any one, or all, of these descriptions. Aristotle may well have existed without doing any single one of the things for which he is known to posterity. He may have existed and not have become known to posterity at all or he may have died in infancy. Suppose that Aristotle is associated by Mary with the description "the last great philosopher of antiquity" and (the actual) Aristotle died in infancy. Then Mary’s description would seem to refer to Plato. But this is deeply counterintuitive. Hence, names are rigid designators, according to Kripke. That is, they refer to the same individual in every possible world in which that individual exists. In the same work, Kripke articulated several other arguments against "Frege-Russell" descriptivism.[13]

text: It is worth noting that the whole philosophical enterprise of studying reference has been critiqued by linguist Noam Chomsky in various works,[22]

text: "[W]e find that human language appears to have no reference relation, in the sense stipulated in the study of formal systems, and presupposed – mistakenly I think – in contemporary theories of reference for language in philosophy and psychology, which take for granted some kind of word-object relation, where the objects are extra-mental. What we understand to be a house, a river, a person, a tree, water, and so on, consistently turns out to be a creation of what 17th century investigators called the "cognoscitive powers," which provide us with rich means to refer to the outside world from certain perspectives. The objects of thought they construct are individuated by mental operations that cannot be reduced to a "peculiar nature belonging" to the thing we are talking about, as David Hume summarized a century of inquiry. There need be no mind-independent entity to which these objects of thought bear some relation akin to reference, and apparently is none in many simple cases (probably all). In this regard, internal conceptual symbols are like the phonetic units of mental representations, such as the syllable [ba]; every particular act externalizing this mental entity yields a mind-independent entity, but it is idle to seek a mind-independent construct that corresponds to the syllable." [p. 27].[24]

text: Mind and language[edit]

text: Innateness and learning[edit]

text: Some of the major issues at the intersection of philosophy of language and philosophy of mind are also dealt with in modern psycholinguistics. Some important questions are How much of language is innate? Is language acquisition a special faculty in the mind? What is the connection between thought and language?

text: There are three general perspectives on the issue of language learning. The first is the behaviorist perspective, which dictates that not only is the solid bulk of language learned, but it is learned via conditioning. The second is the hypothesis testing perspective, which understands the child's learning of syntactic rules and meanings to involve the postulation and testing of hypotheses, through the use of the general faculty of intelligence. The final candidate for explanation is the innatist perspective, which states that at least some of the syntactic settings are innate and hardwired, based on certain modules of the mind.[25][26]

text: There are varying notions of the structure of the brain when it comes to language. Connectionist models emphasize the idea that a person's lexicon and their thoughts operate in a kind of distributed, associative network.[27] Nativist models assert that there are specialized devices in the brain that are dedicated to language acquisition.[26] Computation models emphasize the notion of a representational language of thought and the logic-like, computational processing that the mind performs over them.[28] Emergentist models focus on the notion that natural faculties are a complex system that emerge from simpler biological parts. Reductionist models attempt to explain higher-level mental processes in terms of the basic low-level neurophysiological activity of the brain.[29]

text: Language and thought[edit]

text: An important problem which touches both philosophy of language and philosophy of mind is to what extent language influences thought and vice versa. There have been a number of different perspectives on this issue, each offering a number of insights and suggestions.

text: Linguists Sapir and Whorf suggested that language limited the extent to which members of a "linguistic community" can think about certain subjects (a hypothesis paralleled in George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four).[30] In other words, language was analytically prior to thought. Philosopher Michael Dummett is also a proponent of the "language-first" viewpoint.[31]

text: The stark opposite to the Sapir–Whorf position is the notion that thought (or, more broadly, mental content) has priority over language. The "knowledge-first" position can be found, for instance, in the work of Paul Grice.[31] Further, this view is closely associated with Jerry Fodor and his language of thought hypothesis. According to his argument, spoken and written language derive their intentionality and meaning from an internal language encoded in the mind.[32] The main argument in favor of such a view is that the structure of thoughts and the structure of language seem to share a compositional, systematic character. Another argument is that it is difficult to explain how signs and symbols on paper can represent anything meaningful unless some sort of meaning is infused into them by the contents of the mind. One of the main arguments against is that such levels of language can lead to an infinite regress.[32] In any case, many philosophers of mind and language, such as Ruth Millikan, Fred Dretske and Fodor, have recently turned their attention to explaining the meanings of mental contents and states directly.

text: Another tradition of philosophers has attempted to show that language and thought are coextensive – that there is no way of explaining one without the other. Donald Davidson, in his essay "Thought and Talk", argued that the notion of belief could only arise as a product of public linguistic interaction. Daniel Dennett holds a similar interpretationist view of propositional attitudes.[33] To an extent, the theoretical underpinnings to cognitive semantics (including the notion of semantic framing) suggest the influence of language upon thought.[34] However, the same tradition views meaning and grammar as a function of conceptualization, making it difficult to assess in any straightfoward way.

text: Some thinkers, like the ancient sophist Gorgias, have questioned whether or not language was capable of capturing thought at all.

text:
“
...speech can never exactly represent perceptibles, since it is different from them, and perceptibles are apprehended each by the one kind of organ, speech by another. Hence, since the objects of sight cannot be presented to any other organ but sight, and the different sense-organs cannot give their information to one another, similarly speech cannot give any information about perceptibles. Therefore, if anything exists and is comprehended, it is incommunicable.[35]
”

text: There are studies that prove that languages shape how people understand causality. Some of them were performed by Lera Boroditsky. For example, English speakers tend to say things like "John broke the vase" even for accidents. However, Spanish or Japanese speakers would be more likely to say "the vase broke itself." In studies conducted by Caitlin Fausey at Stanford University speakers of English, Spanish and Japanese watched videos of two people popping balloons, breaking eggs and spilling drinks either intentionally or accidentally. Later everyone was asked whether they could remember who did what. Spanish and Japanese speakers did not remember the agents of accidental events as well as did English speakers.[36] In another study, English speakers watched the video of Janet Jackson's infamous "wardrobe malfunction", accompanied by one of two written reports. The reports were identical except in the last sentence where one used the agentive phrase "ripped the costume" while the other said "the costume ripped." The people who read "ripped the costume" blamed Justin Timberlake more.[citation needed]

text: Russian speakers, who make an extra distinction between light and dark blue in their language, are better able to visually discriminate shades of blue. The Piraha, a tribe in Brazil, whose language has only terms like few and many instead of numerals, are not able to keep track of exact quantities.[37]

text: In one study German and Spanish speakers were asked to describe objects having opposite gender assignment in those two languages. The descriptions they gave differed in a way predicted by grammatical gender. For example, when asked to describe a "key"—a word that is masculine in German and feminine in Spanish—the German speakers were more likely to use words like "hard," "heavy," "jagged," "metal," "serrated," and "useful," whereas Spanish speakers were more likely to say "golden," "intricate," "little," "lovely," "shiny," and "tiny." To describe a "bridge," which is feminine in German and masculine in Spanish, the German speakers said "beautiful," "elegant," "fragile," "peaceful," "pretty," and "slender," and the Spanish speakers said "big," "dangerous," "long," "strong," "sturdy," and "towering." This was the case even though all testing was done in English, a language without grammatical gender.[38]

text: In a series of studies conducted by Gary Lupyan, people were asked to look at a series of images of imaginary aliens.[39] Whether each alien was friendly or hostile was determined by certain subtle features but participants were not told what these were. They had to guess whether each alien was friendly or hostile, and after each response they were told if they were correct or not, helping them learn the subtle cues that distinguished friend from foe. A quarter of the participants were told in advance that the friendly aliens were called "leebish" and the hostile ones "grecious", while another quarter were told the opposite. For the rest, the aliens remained nameless. It was found that participants who were given names for the aliens learned to categorize the aliens far more quickly, reaching 80 per cent accuracy in less than half the time taken by those not told the names. By the end of the test, those told the names could correctly categorize 88 per cent of aliens, compared to just 80 per cent for the rest. It was concluded that naming objects helps us categorize and memorize them.

text: In another series of experiments [40] a group of people was asked to view furniture from an IKEA catalog. Half the time they were asked to label the object - whether it was a chair or lamp, for example - while the rest of the time they had to say whether or not they liked it. It was found that when asked to label items, people were later less likely to recall the specific details of products, such as whether a chair had arms or not. It was concluded that labeling objects helps our minds build a prototype of the typical object in the group at the expense of individual features.[41]

text: Social interaction and language[edit]

text: A common claim is that language is governed by social conventions. Questions inevitably arise on surrounding topics. One question is, "What exactly is a convention, and how do we study it?", and second, "To what extent do conventions even matter in the study of language?" David Kellogg Lewis proposed a worthy reply to the first question by expounding the view that a convention is a rationally self-perpetuating regularity in behavior. However, this view seems to compete to some extent with the Gricean view of speaker's meaning, requiring either one (or both) to be weakened if both are to be taken as true.[31]

text: Some have questioned whether or not conventions are relevant to the study of meaning at all. Noam Chomsky proposed that the study of language could be done in terms of the I-Language, or internal language of persons. If this is so, then it undermines the pursuit of explanations in terms of conventions, and relegates such explanations to the domain of "meta-semantics". Metasemantics is a term used by philosopher of language Robert Stainton to describe all those fields that attempt to explain how semantic facts arise.[3] One fruitful source of research involves investigation into the social conditions that give rise to, or are associated with, meanings and languages. Etymology (the study of the origins of words) and stylistics (philosophical argumentation over what makes "good grammar", relative to a particular language) are two other examples of fields that are taken to be meta-semantic.

text: Not surprisingly, many separate (but related) fields have investigated the topic of linguistic convention within their own research paradigms. The presumptions that prop up each theoretical view are of interest to the philosopher of language. For instance, one of the major fields of sociology, symbolic interactionism, is based on the insight that human social organization is based almost entirely on the use of meanings.[42] In consequence, any explanation of a social structure (like an institution) would need to account for the shared meanings which create and sustain the structure.

text: Rhetoric is the study of the particular words that people use to achieve the proper emotional and rational effect in the listener, be it to persuade, provoke, endear, or teach. Some relevant applications of the field include the examination of propaganda and didacticism, the examination of the purposes of swearing and pejoratives (especially how it influences the behavior of others, and defines relationships), or the effects of gendered language. It can also be used to study linguistic transparency (or speaking in an accessible manner), as well as performative utterances and the various tasks that language can perform (called "speech acts"). It also has applications to the study and interpretation of law, and helps give insight to the logical concept of the domain of discourse.

text: Literary theory is a discipline that some literary theorists claim overlaps with the philosophy of language. It emphasizes the methods that readers and critics use in understanding a text. This field, an outgrowth of the study of how to properly interpret messages, is unsurprisingly closely tied to the ancient discipline of hermeneutics.

text: Language and continental philosophy[edit]

text: In continental philosophy, language is not studied as a separate discipline, as it is in analytic philosophy. Rather, it is an inextricable part of many other areas of thought, such as phenomenology, semiotics, hermeneutics, Heideggerean ontology, existentialism, structuralism, deconstruction and critical theory. The idea of language is often related to that of logic in its Greek sense as "Logos", meaning discourse or dialectic. Language and concepts are also seen as having been formed by history and politics, or even by historical philosophy itself.

text: The field of hermeneutics, and the theory of interpretation in general, has played a significant role in 20th century continental philosophy of language and ontology beginning with Martin Heidegger. Heidegger combines phenomenology with the hermeneutics of Wilhelm Dilthey. Heidegger believed language was one of the most important concepts for Dasein. Heidegger believed that language today is worn out because of overuse of important words, and would be inadequate for in-depth study of Being (Sein). For example, Sein (being), the word itself, is saturated with multiple meanings. Thus, he invented new vocabulary and linguistic styles, based on Ancient Greek and Germanic etymological word relations, to disambiguate commonly used words. He avoided words like consciousness, ego, human, nature, etc. and instead talked holistically of Being-in-the-world, Dasein.

text: With such new concepts as Being-in-the-world, Heidegger constructs his theory of language, centered on speech. He believed speech (talking, listening, silence) was the most essential and pure form of language. Heidegger claims writing is only a supplement to speech, because even a reader constructs or contributes one's own "talk" while reading. The most important feature of language is its projectivity, the idea that language is prior to human speech. This means that when one is "thrown" into the world, his existence is characterized from the beginning by a certain pre-comprehension of the world. However, it is only after naming, or "articulation of intelligibility", can one have primary access to Dasein and Being-in-the-World.[43]

text: Hans-Georg Gadamer expanded on these ideas of Heidegger and proposed a complete hermeneutic ontology. In Truth and Method, Gadamer describes language as "the medium in which substantive understanding and agreement take place between two people."[44] In addition, Gadamer claims that the world is linguistically constituted, and cannot exist apart from language. For example, monuments and statues cannot communicate without the aid of language. Gadamer also claims that every language constitutes a world-view, because the linguistic nature of the world frees each individual from an objective environment: "... the fact that we have a world at all depends upon [language] and presents itself in it. The world as world exists for man as for no other creature in the world."[44]

text: Paul Ricœur, on the other hand, proposed a hermeneutics which, reconnecting with the original Greek sense of the term, emphasized the discovery of hidden meanings in the equivocal terms (or "symbols") of ordinary language. Other philosophers who have worked in this tradition include Luigi Pareyson and Jacques Derrida.[45]

text: Semiotics is the study of the transmission, reception and meaning of signs and symbols in general. In this field, human language (both natural and artificial) is just one among many ways that humans (and other conscious beings) are able to communicate. It allows them to take advantage of and effectively manipulate the external world in order to create meaning for themselves and transmit this meaning to others. Every object, every person, every event, and every force communicates (or signifies) continuously. The ringing of a telephone for example, is the telephone. The smoke that I see on the horizon is the sign that there is a fire. The smoke signifies. The things of the world, in this vision, seem to be labeled precisely for intelligent beings who only need to interpret them in the way that humans do. Everything has meaning. True communication, including the use of human language, however, requires someone (a sender) who sends a message, or text, in some code to someone else (a receiver). Language is studied only insofar as it is one of these forms (the most sophisticated form) of communication. Some important figures in the history of semiotics, are Charles Sanders Peirce, Roland Barthes, and Roman Jakobson. In modern times, its best-known figures include Umberto Eco, A.J. Greimas, Louis Hjelmslev, and Tullio De Mauro.[45] Investigations on signs in non-human communications are subject to biosemiotics, a field founded in the late 20th century by Thomas Sebeok and Thure von Uexküll.

text: Problems in philosophy of language[edit]

text: Vagueness[edit]

text: One issue that has troubled philosophers of language and logic is the problem of the vagueness of words. The specific instances of vagueness that most interest philosophers of language are those where the existence of "borderline cases" makes it seemingly impossible to say whether a predicate is true or false. Classic examples are "is tall" or "is bald", where it cannot be said that some borderline case (some given person) is tall or not-tall. In consequence, vagueness gives rise to the paradox of the heap. Many theorists have attempted to solve the paradox by way of n-valued logics, such as fuzzy logic, which have radically departed from classical two-valued logics.[46]

text: Problem of universals and composition[edit]

text: One debate that has captured the interest of many philosophers is the debate over the meaning of universals. One might ask, for example, "When people say the word rocks, what is it that the word represents?" Two different answers have emerged to this question. Some have said that the expression stands for some real, abstract universal out in the world called "rocks". Others have said that the word stands for some collection of particular, individual rocks that we associate with merely a nomenclature. The former position has been called philosophical realism, and the latter nominalism.[47]

text: The issue here can be explicated if we examine the proposition "Socrates is a Man".

text: From the radical realist's perspective, the connection between S and M is a connection between two abstract entities. There is an entity, "man", and an entity, "Socrates". These two things connect in some way or overlap.

text: From a nominalist's perspective, the connection between S and M is the connection between a particular entity (Socrates) and a vast collection of particular things (men). To say that Socrates is a man is to say that Socrates is a part of the class of "men". Another perspective is to consider "man" to be a property of the entity, "Socrates".

text: There is a third way, between nominalism and radical realism, usually called "moderate realism" and attributed to Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Moderate realists hold that "man" refers to a real essence or form that is really present and identical in Socrates and all other men, but "man" does not exist as a separate and distinct entity. This is a realist position, because "Man" is real, insofar as it really exists in all men; but it is a moderate realism, because "Man" is not an entity separate from the men it informs.

text: Nature of language[edit]

text: Many philosophical discussions of language begin by clarifying terminology. One item which has undergone significant scrutiny is the idea of language itself. Those philosophers who have set themselves to the task ask two important questions: "What is language in general?" and "What is a particular, individual language?"

text: Some semiotic outlooks have stressed that language is the mere manipulation and use of symbols in order to draw attention to signified content. If this were so, then humans would not be the sole possessors of language skills.[45] On the other hand, many works by linguist Noam Chomsky have emphasized the role of syntax as a characteristic of any language.[48]

text: More puzzling is the question of what it is that distinguishes one particular language from another. What is it that makes "English" English? What's the difference between Spanish and French? Chomsky has indicated that the search for what it means to be a language must begin with the study of the internal language of persons, or I-languages, which are based upon certain rules (or principles and parameters) which generate grammars. This view is supported in part by the conviction that there is no clear, general, and principled difference between one language and the next, and which may apply across the field of all languages. Other attempts, which he dubs E-languages, have tried to explain a language as usage within a specific speech community with a specific set of well-formed utterances in mind (markedly associated with linguists like Bloomfield).[49]

text: Formal versus informal approaches[edit]

text: Another of the questions that has divided philosophers of language is the extent to which formal logic can be used as an effective tool in the analysis and understanding of natural languages. While most philosophers, including Frege, Alfred Tarski and Rudolf Carnap, have been more or less skeptical about formalizing natural languages, many of them developed formal languages for use in the sciences or formalized parts of natural language for investigation. Some of the most prominent members of this tradition of formal semantics include Tarski, Carnap, Richard Montague and Donald Davidson.[50]

text: On the other side of the divide, and especially prominent in the 1950s and 60s, were the so-called "Ordinary language philosophers". Philosophers such as P. F. Strawson, John Langshaw Austin and Gilbert Ryle stressed the importance of studying natural language without regard to the truth-conditions of sentences and the references of terms. They did not believe that the social and practical dimensions of linguistic meaning could be captured by any attempts at formalization using the tools of logic. Logic is one thing and language is something entirely different. What is important is not expressions themselves but what people use them to do in communication.[51]

text:
Hence, Austin developed a theory of speech acts, which described the kinds of things which can be done with a sentence (assertion, command, inquiry, exclamation) in different contexts of use on different occasions.[52] Strawson argued that the truth-table semantics of the logical connectives (e.g.,

∧

{\displaystyle \land }

,

∨

{\displaystyle \lor }

 and

→

{\displaystyle \rightarrow }

) do not capture the meanings of their natural language counterparts ("and", "or" and "if-then").[53] While the "ordinary language" movement basically died out in the 1970s, its influence was crucial to the development of the fields of speech-act theory and the study of pragmatics. Many of its ideas have been absorbed by theorists such as Kent Bach, Robert Brandom, Paul Horwich and Stephen Neale.[9]

text: While keeping these traditions in mind, the question of whether or not there is any grounds for conflict between the formal and informal approaches is far from being decided. Some theorists, like Paul Grice, have been skeptical of any claims that there is a substantial conflict between logic and natural language.[54]

text: Translation and interpretation[edit]

text: Translation and interpretation are two other problems that philosophers of language have attempted to confront. In the 1950s, W.V. Quine argued for the indeterminacy of meaning and reference based on the principle of radical translation. In Word and Object, Quine asks readers to imagine a situation in which they are confronted with a previously undocumented, primitive tribe and must attempt to make sense of the utterances and gestures that its members make. This is the situation of radical translation.[55]

text: He claimed that, in such a situation, it is impossible in principle to be absolutely certain of the meaning or reference that a speaker of the primitive tribe's language attaches to an utterance. For example, if a speaker sees a rabbit and says "gavagai", is she referring to the whole rabbit, to the rabbit's tail, or to a temporal part of the rabbit. All that can be done is to examine the utterance as a part of the overall linguistic behaviour of the individual, and then use these observations to interpret the meaning of all other utterances. From this basis, one can form a manual of translation. But, since reference is indeterminate, there will be many such manuals, no one of which is more correct than the others. For Quine, as for Wittgenstein and Austin, meaning is not something that is associated with a single word or sentence, but is rather something that, if it can be attributed at all, can only be attributed to a whole language.[55] The resulting view is called semantic holism.

text: Inspired by Quine's discussion, Donald Davidson extended the idea of radical translation to the interpretation of utterances and behavior within a single linguistic community. He dubbed this notion radical interpretation. He suggested that the meaning that any individual ascribed to a sentence could only be determined by attributing meanings to many, perhaps all, of the individual's assertions, as well as their mental states and attitudes.[7]

text: History[edit]

text: Antiquity[edit]

text: Linguistic speculation in India is attested since the Vedic period (Iron Age), beginning with the deification of vāk "speech" and the role of language (utterance, shabda) in ritual. Sanskrit grammatical tradition gives rise to linguistic philosophy beginning in the final centuries BC and early centuries AD, notably in the philosophical schools of Nyaya and Mimamsa.

text: In the West, inquiry into language stretches back to the 5th century BC with Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics.[56] Both in India and in Greece, linguistic speculation predates the emergence of grammatical traditions of systematic description of language, which emerged around the 5th century BC in India (see Yāska), and around the 3rd century BC in Greece (see Rhianus).

text: In the dialogue Cratylus, Plato considered the question of whether the names of things were determined by convention or by nature. He criticized conventionalism because it led to the bizarre consequence that anything can be conventionally denominated by any name. Hence, it cannot account for the correct or incorrect application of a name. He claimed that there was a natural correctness to names. To do this, he pointed out that compound words and phrases have a range of correctness. He also argued that primitive names had a natural correctness, because each phoneme represented basic ideas or sentiments. For example, for Plato the letter l and its sound represented the idea of softness. However, by the end of the Cronic, he had admitted that some social conventions were also involved, and that there were faults in the idea that phonemes had individual meanings.[57]

text: Aristotle interested himself with the issues of logic, categories, and meaning creation. He separated all things into categories of species and genus. He thought that the meaning of a predicate was established through an abstraction of the similarities between various individual things. This theory later came to be called nominalism.[58] However, since Aristotle took these similarities to be constituted by a real commonality of form, he is more often considered a proponent of "moderate realism".

text: The Stoic philosophers made important contributions to the analysis of grammar, distinguishing five parts of speech: nouns, verbs, appellatives (names or epithets), conjunctions and articles. They also developed a sophisticated doctrine of the lektón associated with each sign of a language, but distinct from both the sign itself and the thing to which it refers. This lektón was the meaning (or sense) of every term. The lektón of a sentence is what we would now call its proposition. Only propositions were considered "truth-bearers" or "truth-vehicles" (i.e., they could be called true or false) while sentences were simply their vehicles of expression. Different lektá could also express things besides propositions, such as commands, questions and exclamations.[59]

text: Middle Ages[edit]

text: Medieval philosophers were greatly interested in the subtleties of language and its usage. For many scholastics, this interest was provoked by the necessity of translating Greek texts into Latin. There were several noteworthy philosophers of language in the medieval period. According to Peter J. King, (although this has been disputed), Peter Abelard anticipated the modern ideas of sense and reference.[60] Also, William of Ockham's Summa Logicae brought forward one of the first serious proposals for codifying a mental language.[61]

text: The scholastics of the high medieval period, such as Ockham and John Duns Scotus, considered logic to be a scientia sermocinalis (science of language). The result of their studies was the elaboration of linguistic-philosophical notions whose complexity and subtlety has only recently come to be appreciated. Many of the most interesting problems of modern philosophy of language were anticipated by medieval thinkers. The phenomena of vagueness and ambiguity were analyzed intensely, and this led to an increasing interest in problems related to the use of syncategorematic words such as and, or, not, if, and every. The study of categorematic words (or terms) and their properties was also developed greatly.[62] One of the major developments of the scholastics in this area was the doctrine of the suppositio.[63] The suppositio of a term is the interpretation that is given of it in a specific context. It can be proper or improper (as when it is used in metaphor, metonyms and other figures of speech). A proper suppositio, in turn, can be either formal or material accordingly when it refers to its usual non-linguistic referent (as in "Charles is a man"), or to itself as a linguistic entity (as in "Charles has seven letters"). Such a classification scheme is the precursor of modern distinctions between use and mention, and between language and metalanguage.[63]

text: There is a tradition called speculative grammar which existed from the 11th to the 13th century. Leading scholars included, among others, Martin of Dace and Thomas of Erfurth.

text: Early modern period[edit]

text: Linguists of the Renaissance and Baroque periods such as Johannes Goropius Becanus, Athanasius Kircher and John Wilkins were infatuated with the idea of a philosophical language reversing the confusion of tongues, influenced by the gradual discovery of Chinese characters and Egyptian hieroglyphs (Hieroglyphica). This thought parallels the idea that there might be a universal language of music.

text: European scholarship began to absorb the Indian linguistic tradition only from the mid-18th century, pioneered by Jean François Pons and Henry Thomas Colebrooke (the editio princeps of Varadarāja, a 17th-century Sanskrit grammarian, dating to 1849).

text: In the early 19th century, the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard insisted that language ought to play a larger role in Western philosophy. He argues that philosophy has not sufficiently focused on the role language plays in cognition and that future philosophy ought to proceed with a conscious focus on language:

text: If the claim of philosophers to be unbiased were all it pretends to be, it would also have to take account of language and its whole significance in relation to speculative philosophy ... Language is partly something originally given, partly that which develops freely. And just as the individual can never reach the point at which he becomes absolutely independent ... so too with language.[64]

text: Hence, language began to play a central role in Western philosophy in the late 19th century, especially with Port Royal in France, and in the English-speaking world and other parts of Europe. The foundational work was Ferdinand de Saussure's Cours de linguistique générale, published posthumously in 1916.

text: The philosophy of language then became so pervasive that for a time, in analytic philosophy circles, philosophy as a whole was understood to be a matter of philosophy of language. In the 20th century, "language" became an even more central theme within the most diverse traditions of philosophy. The phrase "the linguistic turn" was used to describe the noteworthy emphasis that modern-day philosophers put upon language.[65]

text: Notes[edit]

text:
Jump up ^ Pagin, P. "Are Holism and Compositionality Compatible?" In Olismo. ed. Massimo dell'Utri. Macerata:Quodlibet. 2002. ISBN 88-86570-85-6
Jump up ^ Syntax: An Introduction, Volume 1 Talmy GivónJohn Benjamins Publishing, 2001
^ Jump up to: a b Stainton, Robert J. (1996). Philosophical perspectives on language. Peterborough, Ont., Broadview Press.
Jump up ^ Penco, C. "Filosofia del Linguaggio". In Enciclopedia Garzantina della Filosofia. ed. Gianni Vattimo. 2004. Milian:Garzanti Editori. ISBN 88-11-50515-1
Jump up ^ Block, Ned. "Conceptual Role Semantics." The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Forthcoming. [1]
Jump up ^ Tarski, Alfred. (1944). The Semantical Conception of Truth. online PDF
^ Jump up to: a b Davidson, D. (2001) Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford:Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-924629-7
Jump up ^ Wittgenstein, L. (1958) Philosophical Investigations. Third edition. trans. G.E.M. Anscombe. New York:MacMillan Publishing Co.
^ Jump up to: a b Brandom, R. (1994) Making it Explicit. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-54330-0
Jump up ^ Kordić, Snježana (1990). "Filozofija jezika i pragmatika" [Philosophy of language and pragmatics] (PDF). Revija (in Serbo-Croatian). 30 (7): 99. ISSN 0034-6888. Archived from the original on 10 September 2012. Retrieved 6 June 2015.  (NSK).
Jump up ^ Burge, Tyler. 1979. Individualism and the Mental. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 4: 73-121.
Jump up ^ Putnam, H. (1975) "The Meaning of 'Meaning'". In Language, Mind and Knowledge. ed. K. Gunderson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 88-459-0257-9
^ Jump up to: a b Kripke, S. (1980) Naming and Necessity. Oxford:Basil Blackwell. ISBN 88-339-1135-7
Jump up ^ Voltolini, A. (2002) "Olismi Irriducibilmente Indipendenti?". In Olismo ed. Massimo Dell'Utri. Macerata: Quodlibet. ISBN 88-86570-85-6
^ Jump up to: a b Dummett, M. (1991) The Logical Basis of Metaphysics. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. ISBN 88-15-05669-6
Jump up ^ Grice, Paul. "Meaning". Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language. (2000) ed. Robert Stainton.
Jump up ^ Frege, G. (1892) "On Sense and Reference". In Frege:Senso, Funzione e Concetto. eds. Eva Picardi and Carlo Penco. Bari: Editori Laterza. 2001. ISBN 88-420-6347-9
Jump up ^ Stanley, Jason. (2006). Philosophy of Language in the Twentieth Century. Forthcoming in the Routledge Guide to Twentieth Century Philosophy.
Jump up ^ Gaynesford, M. de I: The Meaning of the First Person Term, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006.
Jump up ^ Russell, B. (1905) On Denoting. Published in "Mind".online text, Neale, Stephen (1990) Descriptions, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Jump up ^ Russell, B. (1903) I Principi della Matematica. Original title: The Principles of Mathematics. Italian trans. by Enrico Carone and Maurizio Destro. Rome:Newton Compton editori. 1971. ISBN 88-8183-730-7
Jump up ^ Chomsky, Noam. New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Jump up ^ Piattelli-Palmarini, Massimo, Juan Uriagereka, and Pello Salaburu, eds. Of Minds and Language: A Dialogue with Noam Chomsky in the Basque Country. Oxford University Press, 2009.
Jump up ^ Piattelli-Palmarini, Massimo, Juan Uriagereka, and Pello Salaburu, eds. Of Minds and Language: A Dialogue with Noam Chomsky in the Basque Country: A Dialogue with Noam Chomsky in the Basque Country. Oxford University Press, 2009.
Jump up ^ Fodor, Jerry A. (1983). The Modularity of Mind:An Essay in Faculty Psychology. The MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-56025-9.
^ Jump up to: a b Pinker, S. (1994) L'Istinto del Linguaggio. Original title: The Language Instinct. 1997. Milan:Arnaldo Mondadori Editori. ISBN 88-04-45350-8
Jump up ^ Churchland, P. (1995) Engine of Reason, Seat of the Soul: A Philosophical Journey Into the Brain. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Jump up ^ Fodor, J and E. Lepore. (1999) "All at Sea in Semantic Space: Churchland on Meaning Similarity." Journal of Philosophy 96, 381–403.
Jump up ^ Hofstadter,D.R. (1979)Godel, Escher, Bach:An Eternal Golden Braid. New York:Random House. ISBN 0-394-74502-7
Jump up ^ Kay, P. and W. Kempton. 1984. "What is the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis?" American Anthropologist 86(1): 65–79.
^ Jump up to: a b c Bunnin, Nicholas; Tsui-James, E. P. The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 97, 120–121.
^ Jump up to: a b Fodor, J. The Language of Thought, Harvard University Press, 1975, ISBN 0-674-51030-5.
Jump up ^ Gozzano, S. "Olismo, Razionalità e Interpretazione". In Olismo ed. Massimo dell'Utri. 2002. Macerata:Quodlibet. ISBN 88-86570-85-6
Jump up ^ Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-46804-6.
Jump up ^ Giorgias (c. 375 BCE) translated by Kathleen Freeman. In Kaufmann, W. Philosophic Classics: Thales to Ockham. New Jersey:Prentice Hall, Inc. 1961, 1968.
Jump up ^ http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/Proceedings/2009/papers/559/paper559.pdf
Jump up ^ Boroditsky, Lera (2010-07-23). "Lost in Translation. New cognitive research suggests that language profoundly influences the way people see the world; a different sense of blame in Japanese and Spanish by Lera Boroditsky". Online.wsj.com. Retrieved 2011-12-10.
Jump up ^ "How Does Our Language Shape The Way We Think?". Edge.org. Retrieved 2011-12-10.
Jump up ^ http://sapir.psych.wisc.edu/papers/lupyan_rakison_mcClelland_2007.pdf
Jump up ^ https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/lupyan/web/lupyan_2008_jepG.pdf
Jump up ^ "What's in a name? The words behind thought by David Robson". Newscientist.com. 2010-09-06. Retrieved 2011-12-10.
Jump up ^ Teevan, James J. and W.E. Hewitt. (2001) Introduction to Sociology: A Canadian Focus. Prentice Hall: Toronto. p.10
Jump up ^ Heidegger, Martin.(1996) Being and Time. New York: Blackwell, ISBN 0-631-19770-2
^ Jump up to: a b Gadamer, Hans G. (1989)Truth and Method, New York:Crossroad, 2nd ed., ISBN 0-8264-0401-4
^ Jump up to: a b c Volli,U. (2000) Manuale di Semiotica. Rome-Bari:Editori Laterza. ISBN 88-420-5953-6
Jump up ^ Sorensen, Roy. (2006) "Vagueness". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vagueness/#3
Jump up ^  Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). "Nominalism, Realism, Conceptualism". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
Jump up ^ Chomsky, N. (1985)The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory/ Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Jump up ^ Chomsky, Noam. "Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use." Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language. (2000) ed. Robert Stainton.
Jump up ^ Partee, B. Richard Montague (1930–1971). In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd Ed., ed. Keith Brown. Oxford: Elsevier. V. 8, pp. 255–57, 2006
Jump up ^ Lycan, W. G. (2000). Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction. New York: Routledge.
Jump up ^ Austin, J.L. (1962). ed. J.O. Urmson., ed. How to Do Things With Words: The William James Lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-674-41152-8. CS1 maint: Extra text: editors list (link)
Jump up ^ P. F. Strawson, "On Referring". Mind, New Series, Vol. 59, No. 235 (Jul., 1950), pp. 320–344
Jump up ^ Grice, Paul. "Logic and Conversation". Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language. (2000) ed. Robert Stainton.
^ Jump up to: a b Quine, W.V. (1960) Word and Object. MIT Press; ISBN 0-262-67001-1.
Jump up ^ Blackburn,S. "History of the Philosophy of Language". In Oxford Companion to Philosophy. ed. Ted Honderich. Oxford:Oxford University Press. 1995. ISBN 0-19-866132-0
Jump up ^ Plato, Cratylus(c. 360 BCE) Series: Cambridge Studies in the Dialogues of Plato. Trans. David Sedley. Cambridge:University of Cambridge Press. 2003. ISBN 978-0-521-58492-0 also available from Project Gutenberg
Jump up ^ Steven K. Strange, (1992) Porphyry: On Aristotle, Categories. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-2816-5.
Jump up ^ Mates, B. (1953) Stoic Logic. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-02368-4
Jump up ^ King, Peter. Peter Abelard. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abelard/#4
Jump up ^ Chalmers, D. (1999) "Is there Synonymy in Occam's Mental Language?". Published in The Cambridge Companion to Ockham, edited by Paul Vincent Spade. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-58244-5
Jump up ^ Marconi, D. "Storia della Filosofia del Linguaggio". In L'Enciclopedia Garzantina della Filosofia. ed. Gianni Vattimo. Milan:Garzanti Editori. 1981. ISBN 88-11-50515-1
^ Jump up to: a b Kretzmann, N., Anthony Kenny & Jan Pinborg. (1982) Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-22605-8
Jump up ^ Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855). In Cloeren, H. Language and Thought. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988.
Jump up ^ Philosophy of Language in Africa. See John Aglo,"Norme et Symbole. Les Fondements philosophiques de l'obligation, L'Harmattan, Paris. See Aglo, John (2001). Les Fondements philosophiques de la morale dans une société à tradition orale. Paris: L'Harmattan. ; and Aglo, John (2002). La Vie et le Vivre ensemble. Paris: L'Harmattan. .


document_title: List of The Fosters characters

question_text: what's emma's real name from the fosters

question_tokens: what 's emma 's real name from the fosters

text: List of The Fosters characters

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Actor

Character

Seasons

1

2

3

4

5

Main cast

Teri Polo

Stephanie "Stef" Adams Foster

Main

Sherri Saum

Lena Adams Fosters

Main

Jake T. Austin

Jesus Adams Foster

Main

Noah Centineo

Main

Hayden Byerly

Jude Adams Fosters

Main

David Lambert

Brandon Foster

Main

Maia Mitchell

Callie Adams Foster

Main

Danny Nucci

Mike Foster A

Main

Cierra Ramirez

Mariana Adams Foster

Main

text: A  In season 5, Danny Nucci is only credited on the episodes in which Mike appears but still in the opening titles.

tag: ul

text: Main characters[edit]

text: Stef Adams Foster[edit]

text: Stefanie "Stef" Marie Adams Foster (season 1–present) is a police officer. She and Mike Foster, her partner at work, are Brandon's biological parents. They divorced shortly after Stef met Lena and realized she's a lesbian and wanted to be with her. In a flashback in episode 9, when she first met the twins, it is shown that she has a very caring nature despite her tough appearance. At the end of episode 1x10, Stef and Lena are officially married, legally cementing their long-term union of ten years. Stef is very strong and tough, but is also very funny and loving. Callie initially doesn't feel comfortable around her due to her position as a cop, but gradually forms a close bond with her. While Stef likes to act tough around everyone, especially Lena, it is shown that she cares a great deal about her wife and family, although she won't hesitate to discipline her kids if need be.

text: Lena Adams Foster[edit]

text: Lena Elizabeth Adams Foster (season 1–present) is Stef's wife, Brandon's stepmother, and the other children's adoptive/foster mother. While neither she or Stef are really the dominant one in their relationship, Lena has a more motherly nature. She is good with kids and tries often to reason with her kids more so than punish them, despite Stef's usually "quick to act" nature. She is the biracial vice principal of the charter school the kids attend. In episode 8, she and Stef get into a fight about Lena wanting to be married and never discussing it, showing that while she is more a lover than a fighter she will defend herself, but more so around Stef than anyone else. It was Lena who decided to take Callie in after she was released from the juvenile detention center. Lena is very aware of the people around her and takes on the role of caring mother to all of the kids. She is artificially inseminated with co-worker Timothy's sperm, desiring to have a biological child of her own, and finds out she is pregnant shortly afterwards in the season 1 finale. However, in season 2, she is diagnosed with life-threatening preeclampisa and, consequently, loses the baby.Lena and Stef are thinking of adopting Ana's  baby (Maraina and Jesus birth monther) but they don't and now Ana has the baby (her name is Isabella). Stef and Lena are getting a divorce to save their house. Then they get married again.

text: Jesus Adams Foster[edit]

text: Jesus Adams Foster "(season 1–present) 16, was one of the twins that Lena and Stef fostered as children and eventually adopted. He is the more laid-back of the twins. He had ADHD, for which he took medication. After a fainting spell caused by his pills in "House and Home", he decided with the suggestion of Mike to join the wrestling team to cope with negative effects of ADHD. He is close with his sister as they were both in the foster care system and he acted as her protector; however their personalities and values clash occasionally, causing many arguments. He even went as far to take the blame for her selling his pills to have money for their birth mom, Ana, who he feels disgust and resentment towards because she chose drugs over him and his sister. He starts dating Mariana's childhood best friend Lexi, in "Consequently" after defending her from a guy. He falls out with his sister in "Quinceanera" when she finds out he's been secretly dating Lexi and feels betrayed by Jesus for doing so. They make up in "The Fall-Out". He has sex with Lexi once in "The Morning After". His relationship with Lexi is on hold when she moves back to Honduras because her grandmother is sick and her family cannot find a way back as they are undocumented immigrants. He eventually moves on from their relationship and falls into a love triangle between wrestling mate Emma and popular girl Hayley.

text: Jude Adams Foster[edit]

text: Jude Adams Foster (season 1–present) is Callie's 13-year-old half brother, who Callie and Brandon rescue from an abusive foster home. He is a quiet child with somewhat more optimistic views on foster homes than Callie, though he has been moved from foster home to foster home along with his sister and been abused as well. Once he is moved into the Fosters' home, he quickly begins to adjust to the new lifestyle and becomes more talkative and energetic. At school, he develops a close friendship with a handsome and kind-hearted boy named Connor, a growing relationship which prompts Jude to begin questioning his sexuality.[6][7] As the series progresses, Jude turns 13 and is subsequently adopted by Lena and Stef, although a technicality regarding Callie's birth certificate prevents her from being adopted along with him. He deals with the emotional impact of Callie becoming close to her biological family, but realizes that she will always be with him no matter what. He later develops a romance with his best friend, Connor, and the two begin dating in the season 2 finale. In the mid-season 3 finale the two admit they love each other for the first time after Connor considers moving to Los Angeles to live with his more accepting mother. Then a little more after that Taylor asked if Jude wanted to go to church then meets a boy named Noah then he asks Jude if he wants to try pot so they are not allowed to see each other but now they are. Jude and Noah are have some trouble.

text: Brandon Foster[edit]

text: Brandon Foster (season 1–present) is the 22-year-old son of Stef and her ex-husband, Mike. He is one of Callie's love interests. He is very talented musically, specifically with the piano, and writes piano pieces which he presents for chances at scholarships. He has been shown to have an unsteady relationship with his father, Mike, due to the fact that Mike is a struggling alcoholic and has disappointed him many times through his childhood and teen years. At the start of Season 1, Brandon has a girlfriend named Talya, but breaks up with her because of his growing feelings for Callie and his annoyance and anger at her harassment and jealousy directed at Callie. For most of the first season, Brandon continues to pursue Callie romantically, even though she warned him that she could be kicked out of the house if they got involved. Brandon continues to make reckless decisions, included violating a restraining order, in order to be with Callie. Ultimately, he accepts that Callie needs a family more than a relationship, and eventually agrees to a mutual break up. He eventually joins a band and begins a relationship with bandmate Lou.

text: Callie Adams Foster[edit]

text: Callie Adams Foster (season 1–present), 17, is one of the Foster family's new foster children. Callie is headstrong and tough as a result of being in the foster system since she was a child, but holds a soft spot for her younger brother Jude. She was sent to Juvie for destroying a car in order to protect him from their foster father's abuse. After she is released from Juvie and placed with the Fosters, Callie and Brandon rescue Jude, who is subsequently fostered by the Foster family as well. Callie has had a hard life— her mother is dead and her father is in jail and she has been abused in many ways in the foster care system. She initially has trouble opening herself up to her new family, but she slowly comes to love and accept them as her "forever" family. Initially, Callie opens up mainly to Brandon, and the two develop a romantic relationship, although it is forbidden by the rules of the foster system, which soon meets a heartbreaking end. Callie also holds an on-again, off-again relationship with a classmate named Wyatt. Unfortunately, after the Fosters decide to adopt Callie and Jude, Callie learns that the man she thought was her father (Donald Jacob) is not. She then pursues to meet her biological father, as well as her half-sister who looks as if she could be her identical twin. In the episode "Lucky" from season 3, she is officially adopted and an "Adams Foster."

text: Mike Foster[edit]

text: Michael "Mike" Foster (season 1–present) is a San Diego police sergeant, Brandon's father, and Stef's ex-husband and ex-police patrol partner. As the series progresses, it is revealed that Mike has a drinking problem, but joins AA to cope with it. A frequent visitor to the Foster household, Mike is familiar with his son's family. Toward the end of the first season, he started dating Dani, who helped him to keep his sobriety. However, he soon discovers that Dani had sex with a drunken Brandon one night and arrests her for statutory rape. Since then, Mike helps Ana come to terms with her addiction and live a clean life.

text: Mariana Adams Foster[edit]

text: Mariana Adams Foster (season 1–present) is Jesus's 16-year-old twin sister. She was fostered as a young child, and eventually adopted, by Lena and Stef. She is very smart and girly, and cares about her appearance very much. She is popular and social, likes to gossip, and speaks Spanish fluently. She is naive when it comes to certain topics - especially her birth mother, but she smartens up about her when finally realizing she was using her for money. She changes herself for guys and friends like in "The Morning After" when she sees that an old friend, Garrett is cute now and writes poetry, she goes to a Poetry Slam with him, and pierces her nose herself for him since he was hanging out with a girl who was dressed much edgier than Mariana. Also, in season 2, she dyes her hair blonde to fit in when making it on a dance team only to overhear the other girls say she only did because she is Latina. However, she eventually gains the confidence in herself to not give in to what other people say and make her feel. Mariana has a thing for the bad boys later on in the seasons and she gets caught up into some trouble. Her ex-boyfriend Nick gets put into a mental hospital because he was hearing voices.

text: Recurring and minor characters[edit]

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Actor

Character

Seasons

1

2

3

4

5

Recurring and Guest cast

Alexandra Barreto

Ana Gutierrez

Recurring

Daffany Clark

Daphne Keene

Recurring

Guest

Gavin MacIntosh

Connor Stevens

Recurring

Guest

Amanda Leighton

Emma Kurtzman

Recurring

Guest

Recurring

Alex Saxon

Wyatt

Recurring

Guest

Guest

Jay Ali

M. Timothy

Recurring

Guest

Marla Sokoloff

Danielle "Dani" Kirkland

Recurring

Rosie O'Donnell

Rita Hendricks

Recurring

Guest

Recurring

Tom Phelan

Cole

Recurring

Guest

Guest

Cherinda Kincherlow

Kiara

Recurring

Guest

Alicia Sixtos

Carmen Cruz

Recurring

Guest

Annamarie Kennoyer

Becka

Recurring

Guest

Reiley McClendon

Vico Cerar

Recurring

Guest

Madisen Beaty

Talya Banks

Recurring

Guest

Bianca A. Santos

Lexi Rivera

Recurring

Guest

April Parker-Jones

Captain Roberts

Recurring

Guest

Anne Winters

Kelsey

Recurring

Julian de la Celle

Zachary Rogers

Recurring

Lorraine Toussaint

Dana Adams

Guest

Annie Potts

Sharon Elkin

Guest

Sam McMurray

Frank Cooper

Recurring

Guest

Adam Kang

Aiden

Guest

Guest

Michael Traynor

Craig

Guest

Guest

Brandon W. Jones

Liam Olmstead

Guest

Michael Patrick McGill

Coach Spears

Guest

Annika Marks

Monte Porter

Recurring

Jordan Rodrigues

Mat Tan

Recurring

Guest

Kerr Smith

Robert Quinn

Recurring

Guest

Ashley Argota

Lucy "Lou" Chan

Recurring

Guest

Bailee Madison

Sophia Quinn

Recurring

Guest

Jack DePew

Jasper Landry

Recurring

Guest

Caitlin Carver

Hayley Heinz

Recurring

Guest

Valerie Dillman

Jill Quinn

Recurring

Guest

Chris Bruno

Adam Stevens

Recurring

Guest

Hannah Kasulka

Kaitlyn Reihl

Recurring

Samantha Logan

Tia Stephens

Recurring

Izabela Vidovic

Taylor Shaw

Guest

Recurring

Marlene Forte

Elena Gutierrez

Guest

Madison Pettis

Daria

Guest

Tony Plana

Victor Gutierrez

Guest

Guest

Judy Kain

Lauren

Guest

Guest

Alberto De Diego

Rafael

Guest

Tom Williamson

AJ Hensdale

Recurring

Brandon Quinn

Gabriel "Gabe" Duncroft

Recurring

Denyse Tontz

Cortney Strathmore

Recurring

Guest

Louis Hunter

Nick Stratos

Recurring

Guest

Chris Warren

Ty Hensdale

Recurring

Guest

Tanner Buchanan

Jack Downey

Recurring

Guest

Keean Johnson

Tony

Recurring

Kelli Williams

Justina Marks

Recurring

Pepi Sonuga

Sally Benton

Recurring

Benjamin and Alexander Freitas

Mason Strathmore

Guest

Recurring

Guest

Mark Totty

Craig Stratos

Guest

Recurring

Guest

Various babies

Isabella Gutierrez

Guest

Anna Grace Barlow

Zoey

Guest

Elliot Fletcher

Aaron Baker

Recurring

Kalama Epstein

Noah

Recurring

Alex Skuby

Joe Gray

Recurring

Guest

Meg DeLacy

Grace Mullen

Guest

Recurring

Jared Ward

Drew Turner

Guest

Recurring

Adam Irigoyen

Kyle Snow

Guest

Mercedes Colon

Margo Velasquez

Guest

Lisseth Chavez

Ximena Sinfuego

Recurring

Reggie Austin

Dean Bayfield

Recurring

Kristen Ariza

Teresa "Tess" Bayfield

Recurring

Christopher Meyer

Logan Bayfield

Recurring

Nandy Martin

Poppy Sinfuego

Recurring

Nick Fink

Shawn

Recurring

Nia Peeples

Susan Mullen

Guest

Abigail Cowan

Eliza

Recurring

Dallas Young

Corey

Recurring

text: Characters[edit]

text:
Annika Marks as Monte Porter (season 2-present), the principal at Anchor Beach Community Charter School. An attractive, personable professional woman, Monte wants to focus on administration, budget and finance, giving Lena control over student curriculum.
Bianca A. Santos as Lexi Rivera (season 1, season 3): Mariana's best friend and Jesus' ex-girlfriend who moves to Honduras in "Honeymoon". She is also an undocumented immigrant.[5]
Jordan Rodrigues as Mat (season 2-present): A guitarist in Lou's band. Mariana has a small crush on him and they soon begin a relationship together.[8]
Alex Saxon as Wyatt (season 1-present): Callie's friend and on-again, off-again boyfriend. In "I Do" Wyatt reveals that his mother is moving him to Indiana to live with his grandmother.[9] He returns in "Metropolis" and resumes his relationship with Callie.
Madisen Beaty as Talya Banks (season 1, season 3): Brandon's girlfriend in the beginning of the series before the two broke up. Brandon broke up with her due to her intense jealousy over Callie. After this, she remains Callie's enemy.
Alexandra Barreto as Ana Gutierrez (season 1-present): Mariana and Jesus' biological mother. She is a drug addict, and repeatedly tries to manipulate Mariana into giving her money to support her addiction. She even suggests that Mariana steal something from her parents in order to obtain more money for herself. Mike helps her to finally become sober and it is later revealed that she is pregnant and hopes to be a better mother than she was to Mariana and Jesus.
April Parker Jones as Captain Roberts (season 1, season 4): Stef and Mike's boss.
Anne Winters as Kelsey (season 1): A girl who is sent to a rehab after having problems with drugs. She is a friend of Mariana's, and after coming back from rehab, becomes her enemy because they both liked the same guy.[10]
Brandon W. Jones as Liam Olmstead (season 1-present): A boy from one of Callie's previous foster homes. Liam raped Callie while she was living with his family as a foster child and lied that she came onto him, resulting in her and Jude being forced out of the home.[11][12]
Justina Machado as Sofía "Sophia" Rivera (season 1): Lexi's protective and religious mother. Despite being religious, she and her husband support the LGBT community.[13]
Carlos Sanz as Ernesto Rivera (season 1): Sofia's husband and Lexi's father.
Gavin MacIntosh as Connor Stevens (season 1-season 3): Jude's classmate, best friend and, later, love interest, who accepts Jude as he is and encourages him to express his true personality. In season two, he informs Jude that his dad thinks Jude is gay and doesn't want him to spend time with Jude anymore because of it. Despite pressure from his dad, the two were able to maintain a friendship together. Later, it's revealed that the two boys kissed while on a school camping trip in their shared tent together, a moment they have ignored ever since. As their friendship continues to evolve, their relationship becomes complicated. In the episode "Now Hear This", they kiss on-screen for the first time and at the end of the next episode, Connor is shot in the foot and, in the next episode, officially comes out to his father and Jude. After finally being able to see Jude, they begin to officially date. In the mid-season 3 finale, Connor decides to move to Los Angeles to live with his mother due to his father's continuing homophobia and inability to accept him. Though both are heartbroken, Connor and Jude agree to maintain a long-distance relationship and profess their love for each other for the first time.
Amanda Leighton as Emma (season 1-present): A girl on Jesus' wrestling team who is known to be independent, semi-bossy and tom-boyish. She is a love interest for Jesus and the two began dating, but broke up due to her bossiness in their relationship.
Julian De La Celle as Zac Rogers (season 1): A boy who worked on the school play with Mariana and was her first boyfriend. They dated until he had to move away to live with his dad when his mother was diagnosed with early on Alzheimer's.
Garrett Clayton as Chase (season 1, season 3): Mariana's former love interest and star of the high school play.
Jay Ali as Timothy (season 1-present): Callie's and Talya's literature teacher. They call him by his first name.[14] He was Stef and Lenas' new baby's biological father before the baby died due to pregnancy complications.
Mary Mouser as Sarah (season 1-2): A foster child in Callie's foster child support group who was staying with Liam and his family. Callie became worried for her safety upon learning Liam was with her. She was then taken out of Liam's home after Callie confessed to Lena and Stef about Liam assaulting her.
Sam McMurray as Frank Cooper (season 1, season 5): Stef's late father, who struggled to accept Stef's relationship with Lena. He dies in "Family Day", deeply affecting Stef who regretted never making amends with him. A vision of Frank appears to Stef in season 5.
Annie Potts as Sharon Elkin (season 1-present): Stef's supportive mother and ex-wife of Frank.
Lorraine Toussaint as Dana Adams (season 1-present): Lena's mother who is oblivious to Lena's biracial struggles. The two have something of a rocky relationship, due to Dana not seeing Lena as a "real" African American woman, but Dana is there for Lena when she needs it.
Stephen Collins/Bruce Davison as Reverend Stuart Adams (season 1-present): Lena's father.
Daffany Clark as Daphne (season 1-present): A girl in Callie's group home who becomes one of her best friends. She has a young daughter who she intends to get back one day.
Rosie O'Donnell as Rita Hendricks (season 1-present): A leader of a group home who befriends Callie.
Tom Phelan as Cole (season 1-present): A transgender boy in Callie's group home.
Cherinda Kincherlow as Kiara (season 1-present): Callie's roommate as well as house sponsor while Callie is at Girls United. She offers Callie advice on how to survive at Girls United.
Marla Sokoloff as Dani (season 1-2): Mike's girlfriend and recovering alcoholic. She wants to help Brandon out in his daily struggles, even supporting his relationship with Callie until she breaks up with him. After she and Mike break up, she ends up having sex with a drunken Brandon. After this, she later gets back together with Mike. Despite trying to convince him to keep their one night stand a secret, Brandon confesses about having sex with her, therefore getting Dani arrested for statutory rape.
Romy Rosemont as Amanda Rogers (season 1): Zac's mother who suffers from Early-onset Alzheimer's disease.
Reiley McClendon as Vico (season 1-2): A boy on the wrestling team that brings Brandon in on the fake ID's. After Brandon scares away all of his customers, he seeks revenge by jumping Brandon at night and breaking his hand. He is now attending military school and is on probation.
Caitlin Carver as Hayley Heinz (season 2-present): A dancer with Mariana on the dance team who has a secret relationship with Jesus before being dumped by him.
Kerr Smith as Robert Quinn (season 2-present): Callie's biological father. He grows attached to Callie after getting to know her and, despite promising to hand her over to the Fosters, finds himself unable to give her up. He soon refuses to sign his abandonment papers, devastating Callie.
Bailee Madison as Sophia Quinn (season 2-present): Robert Quinn's other daughter and Callie's biological paternal half-sister, who wants to meet her. They develop a close relationship. In the summer finale, she reveals that when Robert tried to send the adoption papers, she ripped them up and threw them out so Callie couldn't get adopted. After an upset Callie yells at Sophia, calling her a "spoiled little brat", Sophia locks herself in the bathroom in tears.
Ashley Argota as Lou (season 2-present): An attractive singer in whom Brandon takes an interest.[15]


document_title: List of largest empires

question_text: who took over the most land in history

question_tokens: who took over the most land in history

text: List of largest empires

text: Measurement[edit]

text: This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (March 2017)

text: Both what constitutes an empire and the calculation of the land area of a particular empire are controversial subjects. Rein Taagepera has defined an empire as "any relatively large sovereign political entity whose components are not sovereign" and its size as the area over which the empire has some undisputed military and taxation prerogatives.[1]

text: Also, some empires have had large areas of land without having many people or a strong economic influence.

text: Largest empires by land area[edit]

text: For context, note that the total land area of the Earth is 148,940,000 km2 (57,500,000 sq mi).[2] This is a list of empires whose greatest extent exceeded 2% of that area.

text: Empires at their greatest extent[edit]

text: This section's factual accuracy is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on Talk:List of largest empires. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. (December 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text:
Empire
Max. land area (million km2)
Max. land area (million mi2)
% of world land area
Year

British Empire
35.5[3]
13.71
7001238400000000000♠23.84%
000000001920-01-01-00001920[3]

Mongol Empire
24.0[3][4]
9.27
7001161100000000000♠16.11%
000000001270-01-01-00001270[4] or 000000001309-01-01-00001309[3]

Russian Empire
22.8[3][4]
8.80
7001153100000000000♠15.31%
000000001895-01-01-00001895[3][4]

Qing dynasty
14.7[3][4]
5.68
7000986990000099999♠9.87%
000000001790-01-01-00001790[3][4]

Spanish Empire
13.7[3]
5.29
7000920000000099999♠9.20%
000000001810-01-01-00001810[3]

Second French colonial empire
11.5[3]
4.44
7000772000000000000♠7.72%
000000001920-01-01-00001920[3]

Abbasid Caliphate
11.1[3][4]
4.29
7000745000000000000♠7.45%
000000000750-01-01-0000750[3][4]

Umayyad Caliphate
11.1[3]
4.29
7000745000000000000♠7.45%
000000000720-01-01-0000720[3]

Yuan dynasty
11.0[3]
4.25
7000739000000000000♠7.39%
000000001310-01-01-00001310[3]

Xiongnu Empire
9.0[4][5]
3.47
7000604000000000000♠6.04%
-999999999824-01-01-0000176 BC[4][5]

Brazilian Empire
8.337[6]
3.22
7000560000000099999♠5.60%
000000001889-01-01-00001889[6]

Eastern Han dynasty
6.5[5]
2.51
7000436000000000000♠4.36%
000000000100-01-01-0000100[5]

Ming dynasty
6.5[3][4]
2.51
7000436000000000000♠4.36%
000000001450-01-01-00001450[3][4]

Rashidun Caliphate
6.4[3]
2.47
7000430000000000000♠4.30%
000000000655-01-01-0000655[3]

Göktürk Khaganate
6.0[4][5]
2.32
7000403000000000000♠4.03%
000000000557-01-01-0000557[4][5]

Golden Horde Khanate
6.0[3][4]
2.32
7000403000000000000♠4.03%
000000001310-01-01-00001310[3][4]

Western Han dynasty
6.0[4][5]
2.32
7000403000000000000♠4.03%
-999999999950-01-01-000050 BC[4][5]

Achaemenid Empire
5.5[4][5]
2.12
7000369000000000000♠3.69%
-999999999500-01-01-0000500 BC[4][5]

Portuguese Empire
5.5[3]
2.12
7000369000000000000♠3.69%
000000001820-01-01-00001820[3]

Tang dynasty
5.4[3][4]
2.08
7000363000000000000♠3.63%
000000000715-01-01-0000715[3][4]

Macedonian Empire
5.2[4][5]
2.01
7000349000000000000♠3.49%
-999999999677-01-01-0000323 BC[4][5]

Ottoman Empire
5.2[3][4]
2.01
7000349000000000000♠3.49%
000000001683-01-01-00001683[3][4]

Maurya Empire
5.0[4]
1.93
7000336000000000000♠3.36%
-999999999750-01-01-0000250 BC[4]

Roman Empire
5.0[4][5]
1.93
7000336000000000000♠3.36%
000000000117-01-01-0000117[4][5]

Tibetan Empire
4.6[3][4]
1.78
7000309000000000000♠3.09%
000000000800-01-01-0000800[3][4]

Timurid Empire
4.4[3][4]
1.70
7000295000000000000♠2.95%
000000001405-01-01-00001405[3][4]

Fatimid Caliphate
4.1[3][4]
1.58
7000275000000000000♠2.75%
000000000969-01-01-0000969[3][4]

Eastern Turkic Khaganate
4.0[5]
1.54
7000269000000000000♠2.69%
000000000624-01-01-0000624[5]

Hephthalite Empire
4.0[5]
1.54
7000269000000000000♠2.69%
000000000470-01-01-0000470[5]

Hunnic Empire
4.0[4][5]
1.54
7000269000000000000♠2.69%
000000000441-01-01-0000441[4][5]

Mughal Empire
4.0[3][4]
1.54
7000269000000000000♠2.69%
000000001690-01-01-00001690[3][4]

Great Seljuq Empire
3.9[3][4]
1.51
7000262000000000000♠2.62%
000000001080-01-01-00001080[3][4]

Seleucid Empire
3.9[4][5]
1.51
7000262000000000000♠2.62%
-999999999699-01-01-0000301 BC[4][5]

Italian Empire
3.798[7]
1.47
7000255000000099999♠2.55%
000000001938-01-01-00001938[7]

Ilkhanate
3.75[3][4]
1.45
7000252000000000000♠2.52%
000000001310-01-01-00001310[3][4]

Khwarazmian Empire
3.6[3]
1.39
7000242000000000000♠2.42%
000000001218-01-01-00001218[3]

Chagatai Khanate
3.5[3][4]
1.35
7000235000000000000♠2.35%
000000001310-01-01-00001310[3] or 000000001350-01-01-00001350[3][4]

Gupta Empire
3.5[4]
1.35
7000235000000000000♠2.35%
000000000400-01-01-0000400[4]

Sasanian Empire
3.5[4][5]
1.35
7000235000000000000♠2.35%
000000000550-01-01-0000550[4][5]

Western Turkic Khaganate
3.5[5]
1.35
7000235000000000000♠2.35%
000000000630-01-01-0000630[5]

First French colonial empire
3.4[3]
1.31
7000227990000099999♠2.28%
000000001670-01-01-00001670[3]

Ghaznavid Empire
3.4[3][4]
1.31
7000227990000099999♠2.28%
000000001029-01-01-00001029[3][4]

Delhi Sultanate (Tughlaq dynasty)
3.2[3][4]
1.24
7000215000000000000♠2.15%
000000001312-01-01-00001312[3][4]

German colonial empire
3.199[8][9]
1.24
7000215000000000000♠2.15%
000000001912-01-01-00001912[9]

Song dynasty
3.1[3][4]
1.20
7000208000000000000♠2.08%
000000000980-01-01-0000980[3][4]

Uyghur Khaganate
3.1[3][4]
1.20
7000208000000000000♠2.08%
000000000800-01-01-0000800[3][4]

Western Jin dynasty
3.1[5]
1.20
7000208000000000000♠2.08%
000000000280-01-01-0000280[5]

Khazar Khanate
3.0[4]
1.16
7000200999999999999♠2.01%
000000000850-01-01-0000850[4]

Sui dynasty
3.0[5]
1.16
7000200999999999999♠2.01%
000000000589-01-01-0000589[5]


document_title: India at the Asian Games

question_text: how many times has india hosted asian games

text: India at the Asian Games

text: Membership of Olympic Council of Asia[edit]

text: India is a member of the South Asian Zone of the Olympic Council of Asia, the governing body of all the sports in Asia, recognized by the International Olympic Committee as the continental association of Asia.[4][5][a] Being a member of South Asian Zone, India also participates in the South Asian Games, sub-regional Games for South Asia.[6]

text: The OCA organises five major continental-level multi-sport events: the Asian Summer Games (which are commonly known as the Asian Games), Asian Winter Games, Asian Indoor-Martial Arts Games, Asian Beach Games, and Asian Youth Games. Before 2009, Indoor and Martial Arts were two separate events for indoor and martial arts sports respectively. However, the OCA has since amalgamated them into a single event, the Asian Indoor-Martial Arts Games, which was debuted in 2013 in Incheon, South Korea.[7] As a member of OCA, India is privileged to participate in all these multi-sport events.

text: Hosted Games[edit]

text: New Delhi, the national capital of India, has hosted the Asian Games on two occasions: the inaugural 1951 Asian Games and the 1982 Asian Games.[8]

text: Asian Games[edit]

text: Medals by Games[edit]

text: India is one of the only seven countries that have competed in all the editions of the Asian Games. The other six are Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Singapore and Thailand. India has won at least one gold medal at every Asian Games, and always ranked within the top 10 nations of the medal table except in the 1990 Asian Games. After completing the 2014 Asian Games, India's medal count is as follows:

text:
Gold
  Silver
  Bronze

text: A tabular form of the details of the medals won by India is as follows:

text:
Games

Rank

 Gold

 Silver

 Bronze

Total

1951 New Delhi[9]
2
15
16
20
51

1954 Manila[9]
5
4
4
5
13

1958 Tokyo[9]
7
5
4
5
14

1962 Jakarta[9]
3
12
13
27
52

1966 Bangkok[9]
5
7
3
11
21

1970 Bangkok[9]
5
6
9
10
25

1974 Tehran[9]
7
4
12
12
28

1978 Bangkok[9]
6
11
11
6
28

1982 New Delhi[9]
5
13
19
25
57

1986 Seoul[9]
5
5
9
23
37

1990 Beijing[9]
11
1
8
14
23

1994 Hiroshima[9]
8
4
3
15
22

1998 Bangkok[9]
9
7
11
17
35

2002 Busan[9]
8
10
12
13
35

2006 Doha[9]
8
10
17
26
53

2010 Guangzhou[10]
6
14
17
34
65

2014 Incheon[9]
8
11
10
36
57

2018 Jakarta & Palembang
Future event

2022 Hangzhou
Future event

2026 Nagoya
Future event

Total
-
139
178
299
616

text: Medals by sport[edit]

text:
Gold
  Silver
  Bronze

text:
Sport

Rank

 Gold

 Silver

 Bronze

Total

 Athletics

3
72
77
84
233

 Wrestling

7
9
14
33
56

 Kabaddi

1
9
0
0
9

 Boxing

8
8
16
31
55

 Shooting

8
7
17
25
49

 Tennis

6
6
5
13
24

 Cue Sports

3
5
4
6
15

 Field hockey

3
4
10
5
19

 Golf

4
3
3
0
6

 Equestrian

3
3
1
6
10

 Diving

3
2
1
2
5

 Board games

3
2
0
2
4

 Football

5
2
0
1
3

 Sailing

10
1
6
10
17

 Rowing

7
1
5
14
20

 Swimming

13
1
2
6
9

 Squash

4
1
2
5
8

 Archery

5
1
2
5
8

 Badminton

7
1
1
8
10

 Water polo

5
1
1
1
3

 Weightlifting

17
0
5
9
14

 Wushu

16
0
1
2
3

 Cycling

16
0
1
2
3

 Volleyball

5
0
1
2
3

 Judo

13
0
0
5
5

 Canoeing

9
0
0
1
1

 Gymnastics

12
0
0
1
1

 Taekwondo

24
0
0
1
1

Total
6
139
178
285
602

text: Asian Winter Games[edit]

text: Medals by Games[edit]

text: India has sent athletes to every celebration of the Asian Winter Games. Through the last revision of the Games in Astana and Almaty in 2011, India has never won a medal in the Winter Games.[11]

text: Asian Para Games[edit]

text: Medals by Games[edit]

text:
Games

Rank

 Gold

 Silver

 Bronze

Total

2010 Guangzhou
15
1
4
9
14

2014 Incheon
15
3
14
16
33

2018 Jakarta
Future event

Total
15
4
18
25
47

text: Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games[edit]

text: Medals by Games[edit]

text:
Games

Rank

 Gold

 Silver

 Bronze

Total

Asian Indoor Games

2005 Bangkok[12]
5
7
3
8
18

2007 Macau
6
9
9
10
28

2009 Hanoi[13]
7
6
9
25
40

Asian Martial Arts Games

2009 Bangkok
10
3
7
23
33

Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games

2013 Incheon
12
2
3
5
10

2017 Ashgabat
11
9
12
19
40

Total
8
27
31
71
129

text: Asian Beach Games[edit]

text: Medals by Games[edit]

text: India has participated in both the editions of the Asian Beach Game. In the 2008 Games, India won a total of five medals, including three gold, and ranked seventh in the final medal table.[14] Three gold medals were won by India in the 2010 Asian Beach Games in Muscat, Oman, earning the country sixth place in the medal table.[15]

text:
Games

Rank

 Gold

 Silver

 Bronze

Total

2008 Bali
7
3
0
2
5

2010 Muscat
6
3
0
1
4

2012 Haiyang
6
2
0
1
3

2014 Phuket
20
2
1
7
10

2016 Danang
16
2
4
18
24

Total
10
12
5
29
46

text: Asian Youth Games[edit]

text: Medals by Games[edit]

text: Indian athletes competed in the inaugural Asian Youth Games in Singapore. Indian competitors earned medals in only two sports— athletics and swimming. Four of the five gold medals came from athletics and one came from the swimming competition. Aaron Agnel Dsouza was the only multiple medal winner. Dsouze won a gold in the 200 m freestyle and a bronze in the 100 m freestyle.[16] India's membership in IOC was suspended when the 2013 games took place so Indian athletes competed in the event as independent athletes.

text:
Games

Rank

 Gold

 Silver

 Bronze

Total

2009 Singapore
7
5
3
3
11

2013 Nanjing
10
3
4
7
14

2021 Surabaya
Future event

Total
6
8
7
10
25