ABSTRACT
Introduction Robert Brandom’s Making It Explicit is a very long book by most standards.1 One reason for the length is the complex theory of meaning it contains, but another is Brandom’s stated goal to show that the theory of meaning can account for the unique semantic features of the vocabulary he uses to formulate the theory itself. If a theory of meaning satisfies this goal, then it is, in Brandom’s words, expressively complete. In what follows, (i) I explain his motivation for this objective and his strategy for accomplishing it, and (ii) I argue that his commitment to a broadly Kripkean approach to the semantic paradoxes prevents his theory from achieving it. I conclude by considering his options for resolving this inconsistency.
