Contextualism and compositionality

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)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 10,337
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Wilfrid Hodges (2001). Formal Features of Compositionality. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10 (1):7-28.
Peter Pagin (2005). Compositionality and Context. In Gerhard Preyer & Georg Peter (eds.), Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth. Oxford University Press. 303-348.
Jason Stanley (2000). Context and Logical Form. Linguistics and Philosophy 23 (4):391--434.

View all 7 references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

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. 303-348.
Lenny Clapp (2012). Is Even Thought Compositional? Philosophical Studies 157 (2):299-322.
Claudia Bianchi, Contextualism. Handbook of Pragmatics Online.
Anna Szabolcsi (1982). Compositionality in Focus. Folia Linguistica Europea 15:141-162.
Martin Montminy (2009). Contextualism, Invariantism and Semantic Blindness. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (4):639-657.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2012-07-24

Total downloads

45 ( #35,170 of 1,096,601 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

7 ( #29,393 of 1,096,601 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.