Graduate studies at Western
Linguistics and Philosophy 35 (2):171-189 (2012)
|Abstract||I argue that compositionality (in the sense of homomorphic interpretation) is compatible with radical and pervasive contextual effects on interpretation. Apparent problems with this claim lose their force if we are careful in distinguishing the question of how a grammar assigns interpretations from the question of how people figure out which interpretations the grammar assigns. I demonstrate, using a simple example, that this latter task must sometimes be done not by computing a derivation defined directly by the grammar, but through the use of pragmatic background knowledge and extragrammatical reasoning, even when the grammar is designed to be fully compositional. The fact that people must sometimes use global pragmatic mechanisms to identify truth conditions therefore tells us nothing about whether the grammar assigns truth conditions compositionally. Compositional interpretation (or the lack thereof) is identifiable not by the mechanisms necessary to calculating truth conditions, but by the structural relation between the interpretation of a phrase in context and the interpretations of its parts in that same context. Even if this relation varies by context, an invariant grammar is possible if grammars can “invoke” pragmatic concepts; but this does not imply that grammatical theory must explain these concepts or incorporate a theory of pragmatics|
|Keywords||Compositionality Contextualism Pragmatics|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Peter Pagin (2005). Compositionality and Context. In Gerhard Preyer & Georg Peter (eds.), Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth. Oxford University Press.
Martin Montminy (2007). Epistemic Contextualism and the Semantics-Pragmatics Distinction. Synthese 155 (1):99 - 125.
Maciej Witek (2006). Spór o naturę prawdy z punktu widzenia teorii czynności mowy. Filozofia Nauki 2.
Brian Rabern (2012). Against the Identification of Assertoric Content with Compositional Value. Synthese 189 (1):75-96.
Chris Barker & Pauline I. Jacobson (eds.) (2007). Direct Compositionality. Oxford University Press.
David Hunter (2007). Contextualism, Skepticism and Objectivity. In R. Stainton & C. Viger (eds.), Compositionality. Context, and Semantic Values.
Lenny Clapp (2012). Is Even Thought Compositional? Philosophical Studies 157 (2):299-322.
Claudia Bianchi, Contextualism. Handbook of Pragmatics Online.
Peter Pagin & Dag Westerståhl (2010). Pure Quotation and General Compositionality. Linguistics and Philosophy 33 (5):381-415.
Emmon Bach, ACTL Semantics: Compositionality and Morphosemantics: I: Syntactic and Semantic Assumptions: Compositionality.
Martin Montminy (2009). Contextualism, Invariantism and Semantic Blindness. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (4):639-657.
Justyna Grudzińska (2008). Znaczenie zdań z wieloma kwantyfikatorami. Filozofia Nauki 3.
Added to index2012-07-24
Total downloads36 ( #38,159 of 738,880 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,338 of 738,880 )
How can I increase my downloads?