The issue of semantic normativity since the “linguistic turn” in the 20th century，Gradually becoming a core topic in the field of philosophy。British and American analytical philosophers are trying their best to realize language、The unity of thought and reality，Thus connecting the issue of semantic specification with language、Mind、Relation and other concepts are explained and discussed。Traditional philosophy regards language as a means of communication，Emphasize its instrumental characteristics，For example, Locke believed that language is "the great tool and social universal"。The powerful expression and creative ability of language makes human communication more flexible，Language not only helps us acquire、Storing and delivering information，bet365 offers also enables us to engage in complex cognitive and social activities，Like reasoning、Deliberation、Argument and defense，This enables one to be receptive to ideas and abstract concepts，And identify the inference relationship between them。But，In order to achieve different communication purposes，People must respond to semantic specifications。Semantic specifications not only specify the correct way to use language，And plays a causal role in the process of semantics becoming a conventional concept，And give the subject a reason to act in a specific way。bet365 offers can be said，People’s norm-based relevant responsibility principles in social interactions are ultimately realized through semantic norms。

　　The usage constitution theory of bet365 offers implies the paradox of rules

Semantic norms are an important issue that Wittgenstein paid attention to in his later thought。In his opinion，The bet365 offers of a word or statement does not depend on how it is actually understood，It depends on how it is understood within a language community。He contends that “in many cases (though not all cases)，Our use of the word ‘bet365 offers’ can be explained as follows: the bet365 offers of a word is its use in language”。What is relevant to the semantics of a word is not the causal relationship of its use，It is not the speaker’s intention，It’s the correct usage of words。Therefore，The bet365 offers of words depends on general rules，These rules provide standards for the correct use of words。or，The rules of this language game govern the use of words and sentences，Thereby defining the bet365 offers of words and sentences。

In order to show more thoroughly the idea that bet365 offers is constituted in use，Wittgenstein pointed out in "Philosophical Investigations"，No behavior or thought content can be a unified explanation of any rule；The way a person follows a rule depends on his interpretation of that rule；Even for any rule, people can have unlimited interpretations。Kripke thinks，Wittgenstein actually devised a "skeptical paradox about bet365 offers" here: "There are no facts that can determine what the speaker S (Speaker) follows when using the word e (expression) The rule is R(Rule)，And what does e mean。Because all facts that S uses e before time t(time) are not only compatible with R，Also compatible with an optional R'，This requires R to make S take the same action before t，But take different actions after t。”According to his interpretation，Since there are no "facts" about individuals that ensure that we use a word to mean something，This leads to the conclusion that we cannot use words to mean anything。

　　How to use normative qualification expressions of bet365 offers

　　To avoid such extremely skeptical conclusions，Many philosophers try to give solutions to the skeptical paradox from different angles。Trendists believe: One，“S means something specific through e，Because even after t，S will also use e" in some way；Part 2，"The bet365 offers of S is determined by how S tends to use e under ideal conditions"。Tendentialists reduce bet365 offers to tendencies，The tendency of a speaker to use an expression multiple times in the same situation，Grasp the bet365 offers of this expression。However，Kripke thinks，The basic flaw of tendency theory is that it does not take into account the normative nature of bet365 offers。The speaker's expression tendency can only indicate what he will do in certain situations，Instead of what to do。Normativity of bet365 offers means: the bet365 offers of a linguistic expression has a binding effect on how the speaker uses an expression correctly，That is, the speaker should only use the expression in a way that is consistent with its bet365 offers。It is precisely because of the normative dimension of the bet365 offers of expressions，We will know that it is correct to use it for certain objects，It is wrong to use it with other objects。According to Kripke's point of view，Any theory that fails to take into account the normative nature of bet365 offers should be abandoned。Therefore，All “pure use” theories about the bet365 offers of language，That is, interpreting bet365 offers based on what the speaker has done or tends to do in the past，Theories that explain bet365 offers rather than in terms of what should be done should be abandoned。

Paul Boghossian’s position that bet365 offers is normative，Exhibits an internalist characteristic of justification。To express a certain bet365 offers through words，We must realize that the statements we use are in a defensible position。In terms of the normativity of bet365 offers，It contains important facts about how words should be used。As a user of language，We must take responsibility for using words appropriately。If "green" means green，Then we should only apply the word "green" to green objects，without applying it to other things that are not green。The fact that a word expresses something，bet365 offers that the use of this term requires a set of normative truths。In other words，The standardization of semantics ensures that words can be truly (truly)、Use warrantedly。Anyway，Normativity of bet365 offers means “expressing something through words requires guidance by internalized instructions，Therefore the use of words in accordance with these instructions can be considered appropriate”。

　　Normativity of bet365 offers and anti-normativity of semantics

It can be seen from the above，Kripke believes that the correct use of language expressions requires that they conform to their intrinsic bet365 offers。This means that the speaker has an obligation to "should" be when making a linguistic statement。If the speaker does not apply an expression to its appropriate object，Then it violates the normative requirement of expression bet365 offers。This position was opposed by semantic anti-normativists。They think，The speaker “correctly applies” the word “green” to green objects，This does not involve the speaker's obligation as to what he "should" be。No reason can be shown，Instructions on the correct use of language expressions，Must be based on the normative basis of bet365 offers。In other words，Even if the speaker correctly applies an expression to the appropriate object in a manner consistent with its bet365 offers，This does not mean that the speaker is fulfilling semantic normative obligations，That is, doing what "should" be done。To the speaker，Use the word "green" to mean green objects，The inherent normativity is pragmatic rather than semantic。Because this is how other community members use the word "green"，For the convenience of communication and living together，Need to be consistent with the community。

According to Kripke，The normative role of bet365 offers is to provide conditions for the correct use of language expressions，Truth condition。This means that one can deduce how an expression should be used from its denotation。For example，(1) If "green" means green，Then "green" is true only for green objects；(2) If "green" is true only for green objects，Then the speaker should only apply "green" to green objects；(3) If the speaker uses "green" to mean a green object，Then he should only apply "green" to green objects。It’s hard to say this is a valid reasoning，Because the connection between "true" and "ought" in the second premise is not obvious。Although it is correct to apply "green" to green objects，But this does not mean that the speaker should only use the word "green" in this way。The speaker has rhetorical reasons in a specific context，It can be applied to other objects，It does not violate the semantic obligation of "should"。Anyway，Truth conditions from an expression，It does not directly lead to the normative truth of using it。

Some people think，If telling the truth is established as an ethical or cognitive obligation，Then the above reasoning can be established。Not to mention that this is an excessive ethical requirement，Even if the bet365 offers of the expression is combined with the intention to tell the truth，It is indeed possible to create obligations as to what "should" be，Then the above inference becomes: “If the speaker wishes to tell the truth，And he uses ‘green’ to mean green objects，Then the speaker should only apply ‘green’ to green objects。”Obviously，The normative expression here is external，It does not contain any semantic normative content。Only shows that the speaker is trying to achieve a certain purpose，A hypothetical imperative used to let the listeners of community members understand what they mean。Even if telling the truth is an obligation，The speaker uses "green" to mean green objects，Not because the word "green" itself is normative。As Fodor and Horwich point out: "Specifically，Perhaps the normative requirements for true beliefs arise from pragmatic reasons related to useful true beliefs and useless false beliefs，without reflecting that the concepts that constitute the content of the belief are normative in nature。”

“bet365 offers is essentially normative”，The difficulty with this topic is that the concept of norm contains many levels of bet365 offers，Ethics、Different fields such as epistemology have different interpretations of this。The author thinks，The debate over semantic normativity is because philosophers have pulled anchor and forgotten their original intention，Or lost the route。Wittgenstein’s “language game” as a human social practice clarifies the “public nature of explanation and understanding”，People need to abide by the corresponding rules when participating in "language games"，The public nature of the rules of the game presupposes that following the rules cannot be a private act；In public、There is no possibility of direct self-evidence in an intelligible "language game" activity、Undoubtedly “private language”。The debate on the issue of semantic normativity goes against the essence of Wittgenstein’s theory in a sense。Although Wittgenstein explains semantic norms from the perspective of social practice，Inspiring methodologically such as Kripke、Putnam、Silas、Rotty、MacDowell and Blanton and many other philosophers，However, related discussions can easily fall into the quagmire of relativism and reductionism。

　　(bet365 offers article is a phased result of the Heilongjiang University special fund project "Research on Genre Normative Issues" (RWSKCX201818), which is a basic scientific research business fund for universities in Heilongjiang Province.

(Author’s unit: School of Applied Foreign Languages, bet365 offers)