Abstract
This paper revisits some foundational questions concerning the abstract representation of a discourse context. The context of a conversation is represented by a body of information that is presumed to be shared by the participants in the conversation – the information that the speaker presupposes a point at which a speech act is interpreted. This notion is designed to represent both the information on which context-dependent speech acts depend, and the situation that speech acts are designed to affect, and so to be a representation of context that is appropriate for explaining the interaction of context and the contents expressed in them. After reviewing the motivating ideas and the outlines of the apparatus, the paper responds to a criticism of the framework, and considers the way it can help to clarify some phenomena concerning pronouns with indefinite antecedents.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barwise, J. and Perry, J., 1983, Situations and Attitudes, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chierchia, G., 1992, “Anaphora and dynamic binding,” Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 111–183.
Grice, P., 1989, Studies in the Way of Words, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M., 1990, “Dynamic Montague grammar,” pp. 3–48 in Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Logic and Language, L. Kalman and L. Polos, eds., Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.
Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M., 1991, “Dynamic predicate logic,” Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 39–100.
Heim, I., 1982, “The semantics for definite and indefinite noun phrases,” Dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
Heim, I., 1992, “Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs,” Journal of Semantics 9, 183–221.
Kamp, H., 1981, “A theory of truth and semantic representation,” pp. 277–322 in Formal Methods in the Study of Language, J. Groenendijk, T. Jansen, and M. Stokhof, eds., Amsterdam: Amsterdam Mathematics Center
Kamp, H., 1988, “Comments,” pp. 156–181 in Contents of Thought, R. Grim and D. Merrill, eds., Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Kamp, H. and Reyle, U., 1993, From Discourse to Logic, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kaplan, D., 1989, “Demonstratives,” pp. 481–563 in Themes from Kaplan, J. Almog, J. Perry, and H. Wettstein, eds., Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, D., 1970, “General semantics,” Synthese 22, 18–67.
Lewis, D., 1979, “Scorekeeping in a language game,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 339–359.
Lewis, D., 1981, “Index, context and content,” pp. 79–100, in Philosophy and Grammar, S. Kanger and S. Öhman, eds., Dordrecht: Reidel.
Montague, R., 1974, “Pragmatics,” pp. 95–118, in Formal Philosophy, R. Montague, ed., New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Stalnaker, R., 1978. “Assertion,” Syntax and Semantics 9, 315–322.
Stalnaker, R., 1988. “Belief attribution and context,” pp. 140–156 in Contents of Thought, R. Grim and D. Merrill, eds., Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Strawson, P.F., 1952, Introduction to Logical Theory, London: Methuen.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stalnaker, R. On the Representation of Context. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7, 3–19 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008254815298
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008254815298