Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multiple propositions, contextual variability, and the semantics/pragmatics interface

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A ‘multiple-proposition (MP) phenomenon’ is a putative counterexample to the widespread implicit assumption that a simple indicative sentence (relative to a context of utterance) semantically expresses at most one proposition. Several philosophers and linguists (including Stephen Neale and Chris Potts) have recently developed hypotheses concerning this notion. The guiding questions motivating this research are: (1) Is there an interesting and homogenous semantic category of MP phenomena? (2) If so, what is the import? Do MP theories have any relevance to important current questions in the study of language? I motivate an affirmative answer to (1), and then argue that MP theorizing is quite relevant to debates at the semantics/pragmatics interface.

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

  • Amaral, P., Roberts, C., & Smith, E. A. (2007). Review of Potts (2005). Linguistics & Philosophy, 30, 709–747.

  • Bach K. (1999) The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics & Philosophy 22: 367–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bach K. (2005) Context ex Machina. In: Szabo Z. (ed) Semantics vs. pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 15–44

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bach, K. (2006). Top ten misconceptions about implicature. In B. J. Birner & G. Ward (Eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning (pp. 21–30). Benjamin’s Press.

  • Bach, K. (2007). Review of Potts (2005). Journal of Linguistics, 42, 490–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borg E. (2000) Complex demonstratives. Philosophical Studies 97: 229–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky N. (1993) Language and thought. Moyer Bell, Wakefield, RI

    Google Scholar 

  • Corazza E. (2002) ‘She’ and ‘He’: Politically correct pronouns. Philosophical Studies 111: 173–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corazza E. (2003) Description names. Journal of Philosophical Logic 31: 313–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corazza E. (2004) Reflecting the mind. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson D. (1978) What metaphors mean. In: Sacks S. (ed) On metaphor. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 29–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson D. (1986) A nice derangement of epitaphs. In: Grandy R. E., Warner R. (eds) Philosophical grounds of rationality. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 157–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Dever J. (2001) Complex demonstratives. Linguistics & Philosophy 24: 271–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frege, G. (1892). On sense and reference. In Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege (P. Geach & M. Black, Trans., 1953, pp. 56–78). Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Frege, G. (1918). The thought: A logical inquiry. In P. F. Strawson (Ed.), Philosophical logic (pp. 17–38). Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1967.

  • Frege G. (1979) Posthumous writings. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Glanzberg M., Siegel S. (2006) Presupposition and policing in complex demonstratives. Nous 40: 1–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In H. P. Grice (1989) (Ed.), Studies in the ways of words (pp. 22–40). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Grice H. P. (1989) Studies in the ways of words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hom C. (2008) The semantics of racial epithets. Journal of Philosophy 105: 416–440

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn L. (2005) The border wars: A neo-Gricean perspective. In: Turner K. (ed) Where semantics meets pragmatics. Elsevier Press, Oxford, pp 21–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn L. (2007) Toward a Fregean pragmatics. In: Horn L., Kecskes I. (eds) Explorations in pragmatics. Mouton Press, New York, pp 39–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen L., Peters S. (1979) Conventional implicature. Syntax & Semantics 11: 1–56

    Google Scholar 

  • King J. (2001) Complex demonstratives. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • King J., Stanley J. (2005) Semantics, pragmatics, & the role of semantic content. In: Z. Szabo (ed) Semantics vs. pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 111–164

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson S. (2000) Presumptive meanings. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Markie P. (1988) Multiple propositions and de se attitudes. Philosophy & Phenomenological Research 48: 573–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neale S. (1993) Term limits. Philosophical Perspectives 7: 89–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neale S. (1999) Coloring and composition. In: Stainton R., Murasugi K. (eds) Philosophy and linguistics. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp 35–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Neale S. (2001) Implicature and coloring. In: Consenza G. (ed) Grice’s heritage. Brepols Press, Rome, pp 139–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Neale S. (2005) Pragmatism and binding. In: Szabo Z. (ed) Semantics vs. pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 165–285

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Neale S. (2008) Heavy hands, magic, and scene reading traps. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 3: 77–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry J. (1988) Cognitive significance and the new theories of reference. Nous 22: 1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry J. (1993) Individuals in informational and intentional content. In: Villanueva E. (ed) Information, semantics, and epistemology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 172–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry J. (2001) Reference and reflexivity. CSLI Publications, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Picardi E. (2006) Coloring, multiple propositions, and assertoric content. Grazer Philosophische Studien 72: 21–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Potts C. (2005) The logic of conventional implicature. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Potts C. (2007) Into the conventional implicature dimension. Philosophy Compass 2: 665–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potts C. et al (2008) Conventional implicature and expressive content. In: Maienborn C. (ed) Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. de Gruyter Press, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Recanati F. (2003) Embedded implicatures. Philosophical Perspectives 17: 299–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Recanati F. (2004) Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Reese, B. (2007). Bias in question. PhD Thesis, Department of Linguistics, University of Texas at Austin.

  • Richard M. (1993) Articulated terms. Philosophical Perspectives 7: 207–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romero M., Han C. (2004) On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics & Philosophy 27: 609–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiffer S. (2003) The things we mean. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Searle J. (1978) Literal meaning. Erkenntnis 13: 207–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sedivy J. (2007) Implicature during real time conversation: A view from language processing research. Philosophy Compass 2: 475–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperber D., Wilson D. (1986) Relevance. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker R. (1999) Context & content. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan A. (2009) Against structured referring expressions. Philosophical Studies 146: 49–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Travis C. (1975) Saying and understanding. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson T. (2009) Reference, inference, and the semantics of pejoratives. In: Almog J., Leonardi P. (eds) The philosophy of David Kaplan. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein L. (1951) Philosophical investigations. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Memorial University, St. John’s, NL, Canada

    Arthur Sullivan

Authors
  1. Arthur Sullivan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arthur Sullivan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sullivan, A. Multiple propositions, contextual variability, and the semantics/pragmatics interface. Synthese 190, 2773–2800 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0084-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0084-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation