Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Against the identification of assertoric content with compositional value

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This essay investigates whether the things we say are identical to the things our sentences mean. It is argued that these theoretical notions should be distinguished, since assertoric content does not respect the compositionality principle. As a paradigmatic example, Kaplan’s formal language LD is shown to exemplify a failure of compositionality. It is demonstrated that by respecting the theoretical distinction between the objects of assertion and compositional values certain conflicts between compositionality and contextualism are avoided. This includes the conflict between eternalism and the semantics of tense, the embedding problems for contextualism about epistemic modals and taste claims, and the conflict between direct reference and the semantics of bound pronouns (and monstrous operators). After presenting the theoretical picture which distinguishes assertoric content from compositional semantic value, some objections to the picture are addressed. In so doing, the objection from King (Philos Perspect 17(1):195–246, 2003) stemming from apparent complications with the interaction of temporal expressions and attitude reports is assessed and shown to be non-threatening.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anand, P., & Nevins, A. (2004). Shifty operators in changing contexts. In K. Watanabe & R. Young (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th conference on semantics and linguistic theory.

  • Chalmers, D. (2011). Propositions and attitude ascriptions: A Fregean account. Noûs, 45, 595–639.

  • Cumming S. (2008) Variablism. Philosophical Review 117(4): 605–631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dummett M. (1973) Frege: Philosophy of language. Gerald Duckworth, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dummett M. (1991) The logical basis of metaphysics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Egan A. (2007) Epistemic modals, relativism and assertion. Philosophical Studies 133(1): 1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egan A., Hawthorne J., Weatherson B. (2005) Epistemic modals in context. In: Preyer G., Peter G. (eds) Contextualism in philosophy: Knowledge, meaning, and truth. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 131–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, G. (1985). Does tense logic rest on a mistake? In Collected papers: Gareth Evans (pp. 343–363). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Frege G. (1892) Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100: 25–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka J. (1969) Semantics for propositional attitudes. In: Davis J., Hockney D., Wilson W. (eds) Philosophical logic. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 21–45

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan D. (1989a) Demonstratives. In: Almog J., Perry J., Wettstein H. (eds) Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 481–563

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan D. (1989b) Afterthoughts. In: Almog J., Perry J., Wettstein H. (eds) Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 565–614

    Google Scholar 

  • King J. (2003) Tense, modality, and semantic values. Philosophical Perspectives 17(1): 195–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King J. (2007) The nature and structure of content. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D. (1970) General semantics. Synthese 22(1): 18–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D. (1980) Index, context and content. In: Kanger S., Ohman S. (eds) Philosophy and grammar. Reidel, Amsterdam, pp 79–100

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • MacFarlane J. (2003) Future contingents and relative truth. The Philosophical Quarterly 53(212): 321–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore G. E. (1927) Facts and propositions. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes 7: 171–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Ninan, D. (forthcoming). Propositions, semantic values, and rigidity. Philosophical Studies. doi:10.1007/s11098-010-9677-y.

  • Ninan, D. (2010). Semantics and the objects of assertion. Linguistics and Philosophy, 33(5), 355–380.

  • Pagin P., Westerståhl D. (2010) Compositionality I: Definitions and variants. Philosophy Compass 5(3): 250–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prior A. (1957) Time and modality. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabern, B. (forthcoming). Monsters in Kaplan’s logic of demonstratives. Philosophical Studies. doi:10.1007/s11098-012-9855-1.

  • Richard M. (1982) Tense, propositions, and meanings. Philosophical Studies 41(3): 337–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon N. (1986) Frege’s puzzle. MIT Press, Cambridge MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon N. (1989) Tense and singular propositions. In: Almog J., Perry J., Wettstein H. (eds) Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 331–392

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, N. (2003). Tense and intension. In A. Jokic & Q. Smith (Eds.), Time, tense, and reference (pp. 109–154). Cambridge: MIT Press. (Reprinted in Salmon (2005), Metaphysics, mathematics, and meaning, Chap. 18. References are to the reprint.)

  • Salmon N. (2006) A theory of bondage. The Philosophical Review 115(4): 415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauerland, U., & Schenner, M. (2009). Content in embedded sentences. In A. Esposito, A. Hussain, M. Marinaro, & R. Martone (Eds.), Multimodal signals: cognitive and algorithmic issues. Lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 5398 (197–207). Heidelberg: Springer Berlin.

  • Schaffer J. (2011) Perspective in taste predicates and epistemic modals. In: Weatherson B., Egan A. (eds) Epistemic modality. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaffer, J. (2012). Necessitarian propositions. Synthese. doi:10.1007/s11229-012-0097-8 (this volume).

  • Schlenker P. (2003) A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(1): 29–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soames S. (2011) True at. Analysis 71(1): 124–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker R. (1970) Pragmatics. Synthése 22: 272–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker R. (1978) Assertion. Syntax and Semantics 9: 315–332

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley J. (1997) Rigidity and content. In: Heck R. (eds) Language, thought, and logic: Essays in honor of Michael Dummett. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 131–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley J. (2000) Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy 23(4): 391–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley J. (2002) Modality and what is said. Noûs 36(s16): 321–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weatherson B. (2008) Attitudes and relativism. Philosophical Perspectives 22(1): 527–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, C. (2012). Eternalism and propositional multitasking: In defence of the operator argument. Synthese. doi:10.1007/s11229-012-0092-0 (this volume).

  • Yalcin S. (2007) Epistemic modals. Mind 116(464): 983–1026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman T. E. (1991) Kontextabhängigkeit. In: von Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (eds) Semantik: ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 151–229

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia

    Brian Rabern

Authors
  1. Brian Rabern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian Rabern.

Additional information

Thanks to Dilip Ninan, Derek Ball, Clas Weber, David Chalmers, Landon Rabern, Jonathan Schaffer, Wolfgang Schwarz, John Cusbert, Rhiannon Rabern, Daniel Nolan, Mark Jago, Rachael Briggs, Augustus Pablo, and Albert Atkin. An early version of this material was presented while visiting Arché in St. Andrews and the paper benefited from the many discussions in and around the Central. A later version was presented at the Propositions and Same-Saying workshop at the University of Sydney, July 19–21, 2010. Thanks also to the audience and the organizers of the workshop.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rabern, B. Against the identification of assertoric content with compositional value. Synthese 189, 75–96 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0096-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0096-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation