ABSTRACT
The philosophical study of truth is typically a bifurcated enterprise. One focus is on the role of truth in semantics and theories of meaning. Another is on the role of truth in semantic paradoxes. Although there are topics that arise in both arenas, such as truth-value gaps, investigators whose primary interest lies in one area seldom devote much attention to the other. Kevin Scharp is a notable exception. He has shown that we can learn a great deal by bringing these subfields into conversation with one another. The current paper is a good example of how considerations native to the discussions of the semantic paradoxes can be deployed to yield surprising constraints on semantic theorizing more generally.
