Graduate studies at Western
Philosophical Studies 143 (2):213 - 221 (2009)
|Abstract||In this paper I defend Kaplan’s claim that the sentence “I am here now” is logically true. A number of counter-examples to the claim have been proposed, including occurrences of the sentence in answerphone messages, written notes left for later decoding, etc. These counter-examples are only convincing if they can be shown to be cases where the correct context with respect to which the utterance should be evaluated is the context in which it is decoded rather than encoded. I argue that this is not the case, and draw on the distinction between force and content to suggest an alternative account of how information is communicated in these cases that is consistent with Kaplan’s semantic theory.|
|Keywords||Indexicality Kaplan Semantics|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Murali Ramachandran (1995). Bach on Behalf of Russell. Analysis 55 (4):283 - 287.
David Israel & John Perry (1996). Where Monsters Dwell. In Jerry Seligman & Dag Westerståhl (eds.), Logic, Language and Computation. Csli Publications, Stanford.
Andy Egan (2009). Billboards, Bombs and Shotgun Weddings. Synthese 166 (2):251 - 279.
Elia Zardini (2008). Truth and What is Said. Philosophical Perspectives 22 (1):545-574.
Dylan Dodd & Paula Sweeney (2010). Indexicals and Utterance Production. Philosophical Studies 150 (3):331-348.
K. Romdenh-Romluc (2006). I. Philosophical Studies 128 (2):257 - 283.
Claudia Bianchi (2001). Context of Utterance and Intended Context. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2116:73-86.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads33 ( #42,031 of 739,354 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,288 of 739,354 )
How can I increase my downloads?