Metadata of the chapter that will be visualized in SpringerLink Book Title Eva Picardi on Language, Analysis and History Series Title Chapter Title Refusing to Endorse: A Must Explanation for Pejoratives Copyright Year 2018 Copyright HolderName The Author(s) Corresponding Author Family Name Penco Particle Given Name Carlo Prefix Suffix Role Division Organization University of Genoa Address Genoa, Italy Email penco@unige.it Abstract In her analysis of pejoratives, Eva Picardi rejects a too sharp separation between descriptive and expressive content. Carlo Penco reconstructs some of her arguments, endorsing Eva's criticism of Williamson's analysis of Dummett and developing a suggestion by Manuel Garcia Carpintero on a speech act analysis of pejoratives. Eva's main concern is accounting for our instinctive refusal to endorse an assertion containing pejoratives because it suggests a picture of reality we do not share. Her stance might be further developed claiming that uses of pejoratives not only suggest, but also promote a wrong picture of reality. Our refusal to endorse implies rejecting not only a wrong picture of reality but also a call for participation to what that picture promotes. Layout: A5 HuSSci Book ID: 461020_1_En Book ISBN: 978-3-319-95777-7 Chapter No.: 10 Date: 5 July 2018 14:28 Page: 1/21 U N CO RR EC TE D P RO O F 1 Refusing to Endorse: A Must Explanation for Pejoratives Carlo Penco 1 IntroductIon Since David Kaplan's "The Meaning of 'Ouch' and 'Oops'", there has been a wide amount of discussions on every side of pejorative expressions or slurs, with different kinds of interpretations and new topics, like the problem of appropriation and perspectival shift.1 Picardi (2006, 2007) presents a set of suggestions concerning the use of pejoratives and their relation to the content of what is said. Her stance is antagonist towards a too easy "pragmatic" view of the matter, according to which a pejorative doesn't touch or is totally independent of what is said and only pertains to the level of implicatures or presuppositions. On the contrary, Eva claims that the use of a pejorative cannot be reduced to something always independent of the assertive content, and that the use of pejoratives may pertain to the truth of the matter, given that it predicates something false of the class to which it refers. Therefore, she would be classified as belonging to the "semantic stance" proposed for instance by Hom (2008, 2010, 2012). According to the semantic stance, the © The Author(s) 2018 A. Coliva et al. (eds.), Eva Picardi on Language, Analysis and History, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95777-7_10 C. Penco (*) University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy e-mail: penco@unige.it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 A1 A2 A3 AQ1 A u th o r P ro o f Layout: A5 HuSSci Book ID: 461020_1_En Book ISBN: 978-3-319-95777-7 Chapter No.: 10 Date: 5 July 2018 14:28 Page: 2/21 U N CO RR EC TE D P RO O F 2 c. PEnco derogatory content is part of the meaning of the pejorative (e.g. "nigger" means something like "black and despicable because of it"), and therefore a sentence containing a slur attributes an empty property to the individual in question (Picardi 2006: 72), making the sentence either false or deprived of truth value. Although she claims that the derogative aspect of pejoratives is "part of a word's literal meaning", I think the morale of her papers points towards a wider view on the role of pejoratives than the semantic one. I will follow Eva's analysis of multi-proposition view (§1), her attempt to make derogative terms impinge on truth conditions (§2), her reaction of Tim Williamson's criticism of Michael Dummett (§3), her dubious attitude towards a presuppositional analysis (§4) and eventually, in (§5), I conclude with a solution that seems to prompt from her discontent with most answers to the problem of derogatory terms. 2 SEnSE, tonE and accomPanyIng thoughtS: a multIPlE ProPoSItIonS analySIS In order to distinguish what a pejorative expression add to what is said, Kaplan (1999) distinguishes descriptives and expressives: the first describe what is or is not the case; the second display what is or is not the case under a certain perspective or attitude (two expressions may have the same information content and different expressive content). According to Kaplan himself, this distinction is not so distant from the Fregean analysis on the different contribution to content made by sense and tone. Picardi (2006, 2007) discusses the Fregean distinction in relation to the use of derogatory words. Frege considered tone or colouring as of pragmatic significance and not pertaining to the truth-conditional content of an assertion (the assertoric content). Frege's distinction antedates the distinction made by Paul Grice between what is said (truth-conditional meaning) and what is meant (conventional or conversational implicatures), as Picardi (2001) was one of the first to remark. A standard example is given in Frege (1897) analysing the difference between: 1. "That dog howled the whole night" 2. "That cur howled the whole night" According to Frege, the two sentences express the same truth-conditional content: if the first is true, then the second also is true. Frege 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 A u th o r P ro o f Layout: A5 HuSSci Book ID: 461020_1_En Book ISBN: 978-3-319-95777-7 Chapter No.: 10 Date: 5 July 2018 14:28 Page: 3/21 U N CO RR EC TE D P RO O F REFUSING TO ENDORSE: A MUST EXPLANATION FOR PEJORATIVES 3 claims that (2), although expressing the disapproval of the speaker, cannot be false if (1) is true. In fact, if we thought that the aversion of the speaker was part of the content, the sentence should be analysed as a conjunction of (1) "that dog howled the whole night" and something like (3) "all dogs are despicable and ugly". Assuming that (3) is false, the conjunction of (1) and (3) would be false. Therefore, we could not accept the truth of sentence (2) given that it is an expression of a complex proposition whose truth-value is false. But we cannot assume that (2) is false while (1) is true, given that they refer to the same state of affair. Supported by this argument, Frege distinguished between thoughts whose assertion is expressed and thoughts that are not expressed, but only hinted at or "suggested", in order to influence the audience. Suggesting something using a particular piece of the lexicon to refer to an individual does not concern the problem of truth and belongs to the realm of colouring or tone, which pertains to pragmatic aspects of language (Frege 1879, 1897, §3). The solution to the analysis of pejoratives seems straightforward: conveying something suggested and not explicitly asserted, a sentence with a pejorative does not concern what is said, but what is meant, or the conventional implicature. Picardi is not happy with this solution and tries different ways to go beyond it. First of all, Picardi criticises Frege for assuming too easily that "dog" and "cur" are coreferential. If so, the two terms should require substitutability salva veritate, but there are counter examples: To his neighbor's utterance 'That cur howled all night', the owner of the dog may retorts, 'That dog is not a cur', but plainly he is not asserting that his dog is not a dog. Possibly, all curs are dogs, but not all dogs are curs. All that Frege is entitled to say is that there are contexts of utterance in which the difference in meaning between "cur" and "dog" makes no difference to truth-conditions of what is said, whereas there are other contexts in which the difference is salient. (Picardi 2006: 62) The main claim given by this example is that we cannot take it for granted that a neutral term and a pejorative have always the same extension. However the disagreement between two speakers here does not grant the conclusion; in fact the two expressions (the neutral one and the derogative one) have the same extension in the mind of the dog hater, and when they are used to refer, the reference is normally successful because the interlocutor easily gets what the speaker has in mind. Saying 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 A u th o r P ro o f Layout: A5 HuSSci Book ID: 461020_1_En Book ISBN: 978-3-319-95777-7 Chapter No.: 10 Date: 5 July 2018 14:28 Page: 4/21 U N CO RR EC TE D P RO O F 4 c. PEnco that it is false that all dogs are curs is an expression of disagreement on the different uses of the words, not on the factual truth of the assertion of the speaker (whether the animal-in whichever way you want to refer to it-howled all night). It seems to me therefore that this argument is not strong enough to avoid the conclusion that assertions containing pejoratives have the same truth-conditional content than assertions with neutral terms, insofar the pejoratives are used to refer and are understood as such. What about a multi propositional analysis? Relying on a long tradition of research (Kent Bach, Robyn Carston, Francois Recanati), Picardi claims that the difference between "what is said" and "what is conventionally implicated" is not sharp enough to decide without doubts when something belongs to the content of an assertion and when it does not, given that the choice may depend on the point of the assertion. A possible solution might be to translate the sentence (2) with an explicature (or a free enrichment), as: 4. "That dog, which is despicable and ugly because of it, howled all night". With this peculiar rendering, we might answer to the Fregean strategy for which it is counterintuitive to take (2) as false considered as a conjunction ("that dog howled and all dogs are despicable and ugly"). In fact, with (4) interpreted as an explicature of (2) we would really have a different proposition from (1) and we may admit-in this case-that the truth of the content of the main assertion (that the dog howled all night) is affected by the truth-value of the relative clause. This might be a possible "multi-propositional" solution of the relevance of pejoratives to what is said. We may claim therefore that the use of the pejorative is intended to imply that the fact that dogs are despicable is a reason or a cause why they howl all night or vice versa. This last point seems the best way to explain Picardi's criticism of Kaplan's analysis of Frege's accompanying thoughts (Nebengedanke) with which she shares much, but not all. The discussion starts with Frege's example: 5. "Napoleon, who recognized the danger to his right flank, personally led his guards against the enemy position" 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 A u th o r P ro o f Layout: A5 HuSSci Book ID: 461020_1_En Book ISBN: 978-3-319-95777-7 Chapter No.: 10 Date: 5 July 2018 14:28 Page: 5/21 U N CO RR EC TE D P RO O F REFUSING TO ENDORSE: A MUST EXPLANATION FOR PEJORATIVES 5 Picardi remarks that Frege realizes that "the clause expresses more through its connection with another than it does in isolation" (Frege 1892: 47). A relative clause cannot be represented always with the same syntactic form. We have different ways to compose an accompanying thought expressed by a relative clause, and while some of them make it independent of the whole, other really affect what is said with the composed sentence. In the case under discussion, Picardi suggests that what is said may be conceived as inserting a third thought, that is 6. "the recognition of the danger is a reason why Napoleon led his attack". In this case, it becomes apparent that the accompanying thought may be part of what is said, given that it impinges on the truth-condition of the composed sentence. Picardi really makes a case about that. The conclusion is that a pejorative may be treated as prompting a further proposition that cannot be conceived just as a conventional implicature, but as an explicature-that is part of what is said-presenting a point, such as individuating the reason explaining the content of the main clause: seeing the danger of his side is a reason for Napoleon to attack, or being ugly and despicable is a cause for the dog to howl all night-maybe because despicable animals just do that. Although this is a possible analysis of pejoratives that makes justice of the idea that an assertion containing a pejorative may be just false, Picardi eventually rejects it. In fact she claims that the idea of a specific completion of a sentence because of a pejorative is not sound; following Sainsbury (2001), she claims that what is relevant with a sentence with expressive content is its lacking of specificity, and therefore the sentence "should not be construed as directed to an elliptical proposition that awaits to be spelled out in full" (Picardi 2006: 54). 3 do PEjoratIvE rEally ImPIngE on truth condItIonS? Without the help of explicatures or free enrichment, however, it becomes difficult to claim that pejoratives pertain to the assertoric content, to what is said. Yet Eva, criticising Kaplan's too sharp separation between expressives and descriptives, attacks the rendering of this distinction made by Potts (2005, 2008), who considers expressives as conventional implicatures. According to Potts the expressive meaning of a lexical item 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 AQ2 AQ3 A u th o r P ro o f Layout: A5 HuSSci Book ID: 461020_1_En Book ISBN: 978-3-319-95777-7 Chapter No.: 10 Date: 5 July 2018 14:28 Page: 6/21 U N CO RR EC TE D P RO O F 6 c. PEnco is independent of its descriptive meaning and therefore plays no role in determining the truth conditions. The main point of disagreement with the above distinction concerns the claim of independence of the expressive content. Eva's criticism of the idea of independence of expressives works on a basic question: How can we consider the correctness of a reported speech in case the original speech contained a pejorative? At first sight, reporting an utterance with a pejorative like "that cur howled all night", a lover of dogs would probably make a report of the kind: "x said that that dog howled all night", abstaining to use the pejorative term, but still thinking to have made a correct report of what happened, preserving at least the truth of the matter. But not everybody would agree of the correctness of the report. Eva refers to Bach (1999) whose argument for claiming that conventional implicatures belong to what is said is that they fail the indirect speech test; if you report John's having said "Mary is pretty but intelligent" as "John said that Mary is pretty and intelligent", Bach doubts that you have made a correct report. In the reported speech we should make it clear that the speaker intended a contraposition between the first and the second property. We should have an enriched proposition that could make explicit the content of the contrast. We have seen however that this is not the path followed by Eva. Which means are still available to fight a analysis of pejoratives based on the idea of conventional implicature? Instead of following the multi-propositional analysis, Eva pinpoints another possible problem: the relevance of what is the "at-issue" content or the question under discussion (QUD). On this point she makes an example purporting to show the difficulty of sharply separating the assertoric content from the implicated content: Whether my leaving out this piece of information renders my report wrong or simply inaccurate depends on what was the main point of the utterance on the given occasion. And this, in its turn, depends on the audience I am addressing and on the focus of the conversation: in the course of an investigation that aims at discovering the culprit of evil deeds against dogs in a certain neighbourhood it may be useful to give a literal report of what the people involved say concerning dogs. In a different context, the report may be less accurate, if, for instance, our interlocutor simply wants to find out what a notoriously nagging neighbour was complaining about. 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 AQ4 A u th o r P ro o f Layout: A5 HuSSci Book ID: 461020_1_En Book ISBN: 978-3-319-95777-7 Chapter No.: 10 Date: 5 July 2018 14:28 Page: 7/21 U N CO RR EC TE D P RO O F REFUSING TO ENDORSE: A MUST EXPLANATION FOR PEJORATIVES 7 This is an ingenious effort to defend the claim that pejoratives enter the question of truth. But it seems to me that here we have two questions: one question concerns the facts described by the report, another question concerns the facts concerning the psychology of the speaker: if we are looking for a devious assassin of dogs, reporting the specific lexical item impinges on the latter. We might have evidence, although inconclusive, of the speaker's tendency to perform crimes against dogs. Here, therefore, a literal report may be of fundamental importance to denounce the speaker. However, again, derogatory conceptualizations do not change the "strict" truth-conditional content of a description of a state of affairs. In fact, in this case, the truth evaluation concerns (the fact of) which words the speaker used, not which facts have been reported about the behavior of dogs. In fact, "that cur" is a complex demonstrative, whose main role in the sentence is the identification of the referent; we may think that it presents the referent in a wrong way and, from this perspective, is not too dissimilar to a misdescription. A speaker may make a referential use of an inaccurate definite description assuming the hearer may understand the intended referent although the description is false of it, or at least defective (see also Penco 2010, 2017). From the point of view of truth conditions, both misdescriptions and pejoratives may be considered defective but still able to make the hearer correctly understand the referential intentions. Picardi (2006: 67) is well aware of the problem, and she refers to Donnellan on this point. Her use of the similarity with Donnellan's cases helps to point out the difference between the case of misdescriptions and the case of pejoratives. In case of misdescriptions like "the man drinking champagne" (while he is drinking mineral water), there is no harm in using a defective or inaccurate or wrong definite description if your referential intentions are understood. On the contrary this does not happen with pejoratives. While with misdescriptions we are in front of a factual mistake, whose correction is easy to accept ("the person you are referring is not drinking chanpagne but mineral water"), in front of a derogatory term you cannot simply change the term and be happy, because you are facing a strong disagreement: what is wrong from the point of view of dog lovers, may be strongly believed by the dog hater, who would not recede from his conceptualization of that class (dogs are despicable because of being dogs and blacks are inferior because of being black). Besides, given certain circumstances, I may easily report what a speaker 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 AQ5 A u th o r P ro o f Layout: A5 HuSSci Book ID: 461020_1_En Book ISBN: 978-3-319-95777-7 Chapter No.: 10 Date: 5 July 2018 14:28 Page: 8/21 U N CO RR EC TE D P RO O F 8 c. PEnco said using the same misdescription to make myself understood, but this is not so with pejoratives. In fact I might feel uncomfortable using a pejorative term, on whose grounds and consequences I don't agree. But this does not mean that I don't understand what the speaker said and I have to distinguish between the facts of the matter described and the point of view and attitude of the speaker. As Dummett (2007: 527) says, commenting of Picardi's paper, "the use of a pejorative expression certainly cannot be said to affect the truthvalue of an utterance; it affects its property. But, for the same reason, it also cannot simply be explained as affecting the tone of the utterance, or as attaching an implicature to it." The offensive character of certain terms, Dummett claims, should be accounted for by "the license they give their user to draw inappropriate consequences". In conclusion, we cannot use the test of reported speech to claim that pejorative impinge on the truth of the matter, although we may still take our awareness on "the tacit commitments we would undertake in accepting a certain way of referring to people or actions" as a ground to refuse to endorse an assertion (Picardi 2007: 507). The question seems to shift from the truth-value of an assertion concerning a state of affair (what did the dog do during the night?) to the justifications and consequences of assertions containing a pejorative. If truth conditions are not affected, pejoratives certainly affect assertibility conditions. Different lexical items are connected with different justification and consequences, and using them obliges us to explain why we have used them and commits us to the consequences of what they mean. We are entering another kind of problem, that touches upon the meaning of pejoratives: while it seems that truth conditions are affected only by the referents of pejoratives, assertibility conditions may be affected by their meanings. On the meaning of pejoratives, Picardi is very near to Dummett's classical analysis and contrasts Williamson's criticism of this analysis. 4 PEjoratIvES aS dEalIng wIth truth/aSSErtIbIlIty condItIonS Picardi (2006, 2007) looks back at Dummett's discussion on the logic of pejoratives. Dummett was interested in the logical role of pejoratives and in the logical motivations to reject their use. His claim was clear and 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 A u th o r P ro o f Layout: A5 HuSSci Book ID: 461020_1_En Book ISBN: 978-3-319-95777-7 Chapter No.: 10 Date: 5 July 2018 14:28 Page: 9/21 U N CO RR EC TE D P RO O F REFUSING TO ENDORSE: A MUST EXPLANATION FOR PEJORATIVES 9 simple: a pejorative like "Boche"-used to refer to Germans implying that Germans are more prone to cruelty than other Europeans-would produce a non conservative extension of the language where the word was not present: the use of "Boche" would permit inferences and conclusions that would not be permitted in the language missing the pejorative (Dummett 1981: 454). Dummett gives Introduction rules and Elimination rules for the term and shows how they permit conclusions impossible to be derived without the term. The Introduction Rule for "Boche" (or its condition of application) would simply be something like x is German ------– x is Boche But the consequences of application embed the following inference (that might be considered the Elimination rule for "Boche"): x is Boche ------------------- x is more prone to cruelty than other Europeans Now, if we accept the Introduction and Elimination rules for Boche we should derive something of the following: Angela Merkel is German therefore is Boche, and if Angela Merkel is Boche, therefore, she is more prone to cruelty than other Europeans. We could not to derive this conclusion from our lexicon only if, following the elegant attitude of Oscar Wilde, we did not include the lexical item "Boche" in our dictionary. Williamson launches an attack on radical inferentialism and defends a radical referentialist framework (although he recognizes that there are intermediary positions that might escape his criticism). He criticizes Boghossian (2003: 241–42) according to whom "plausibly, a thinker possesses the concept Boche just in case he is willing to infer according to [Dummett's rules]", with the following short argument: Since understanding the word 'Boche' (with its present meaning) is presumably sufficient (although not necessary) for having the concept that 'Boche' expresses, it follows that a willingness or disposition to reason according to Dummett's rules is equally unnecessary for having that concept. (Williamson 2009: 8–9) 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 A u th o r P ro o f Layout: A5 HuSSci Book ID: 461020_1_En Book ISBN: 978-3-319-95777-7 Chapter No.: 10 Date: 5 July 2018 14:28 Page: 10/21 U N CO RR EC TE D P RO O F 10 c. PEnco This claim is correct, and maybe Boghossian went a bit too far. Let us assume that understanding a concept is understanding its introduction and elimination rules. Mastering those rules is not to be identified with willingness to follow them, but with an implicit knowledge of them. Understanding the meaning is understanding what it is or what it would be using that inference, even without explicitly doing so or even rejecting to endorse it. Williamson may accept that, but then-he would ask-which is the difference between an inferentialist and a referentialist account of understanding as a "practical" ability if we cut off the actual disposition to reason according to the rules? The answer is that, although there is no difference in "practical" ability, inferentialists are not content of getting the referent right: they require making the inferential connections explicit. Explicitly rejecting to use a term is exactly the point of the difference between a referentialist and an inferentialist view. You refuse to use a term because you reject the possible consequences of its use; referential rules on the other hand just point out that the reference of "German" is the same of the reference of "Boche"; the two classes are the same class: differences between 'Boche' and 'German' apparently play no role in determining reference, and so make no difference to the way in which the terms contribute to the truth-conditions of sentences in which they occur, a Fregean might even count 'Boche' and 'German' as having the same sense. Frege himself gives just such an account of another pejorative term (1979: 140): 'cur' has the same sense and reference as 'dog' but a different tone. (122) Here we are. Again on Frege, and our examples of pejoratives for "dogs"! As we have seen, the main role of pejoratives does not concern just the role of reference fixing, as in case of definite descriptions, but their role in suggesting inferences to be accepted (conventional implicatures). On this point, Williamson himself concedes the idea that conventional implicatures (something derivable and therefore linked to an inferential structure) of expressions like "Boche" are "part of their meaning in a broad sense of meaning". But, if we accept an idea of (broad) meaning as dealing with the inferences connected with an expression, then Dummett's proposal is not incompatible with a view of pejorative as triggering a conventional implicature or a presupposition. 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 A u th o r P ro o f Layout: A5 HuSSci Book ID: 461020_1_En Book ISBN: 978-3-319-95777-7 Chapter No.: 10 Date: 5 July 2018 14:28 Page: 11/21 U N CO RR EC TE D P RO O F REFUSING TO ENDORSE: A MUST EXPLANATION FOR PEJORATIVES 11 A way to interpret Dummett's treatment of pejoratives is then to consider it as a clarification of the rules behind what is expressed and not stated, rules that should be followed if one accepts the conventional implicature connected with the use of the pejorative. Accepting a pejorative, we accept a network of inferences, a set of beliefs that the pejorative brings with it. Using an assertion with a pejorative is not only saying something true with a bad psychological surrounding: it is accepting the consequences connected to the inferential meaning of the expression. We are back to the conclusion of the previous discussion: we understand the intended referents of singular terms or complex demonstratives like "that dog" or "that cur", and we understand to which classes predicates like "German" or "Boche" refer; although sentences containing them may have, by substitution of coreferentials, the same truth conditions, they certainly haven't the same assertibility conditions; in fact, to have the same assertibility conditions they should also have the same ground for justification, and we may claim, from our perspective, that nobody is justified to use "cur" or "Boche" given that those terms imply consequences that we disagree about. 5 ProblEmS of PEjoratIvES aS PrESuPPoSItIon trIggErS If a conventional implicature can be considered part of the "broad" meaning of an expression, then it seems that Picardi (2007: 508) herself makes a too strong contrast between "the decision to construe the explicit derogatory ingredient as a conventional implicature" on one hand and the idea of construing the derogatory ingredient "as constitutive of word meaning" on the other. The two aspects are not antagonist: considering the derogatory ingredient as conventional implicature implies that its broad meaning is connected with the inferences that are derivable by its use and are suggested as "calculable" implicature. However, speaking of inferences syntactically plugged into the lexicon, conventional implicatures may not be the best solution for treating pejoratives. The other solution is treating them as triggering presuppositions. Actually conventional implicatures pass the S-Family test of presuppositions: they stand also when an assertion is made in negative, interrogative and modal form ("that cur didn't howl all night", "did that cur howl all night?", "that cur might have howled all night"). Let us then see what happens when treating pejoratives as presupposition triggers (for a defence of a presuppositional account see Schlenker 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 A u th o r P ro o f Layout: A5 HuSSci Book ID: 461020_1_En Book ISBN: 978-3-319-95777-7 Chapter No.: 10 Date: 5 July 2018 14:28 Page: 12/21 U N CO RR EC TE D P RO O F 12 c. PEnco 2007; Macià 2014; Cepollaro 2015). Under this perspective, the use of a pejorative presupposes the set of beliefs that the pejorative intends to implicate. This should be coherent with the classical view of presuppositions for which an utterance of a sentence is appropriate if the presupposition is shared by the participants of a conversation (Stalnaker 1974). We may consider the use of pejorative not appropriate if we do not share the presupposition; therefore, as Picardi (2007: 507) claims "we may abstain from accepting a statement made by others because we are aware of the tacit commitments we would undertake in accepting a certain way of referring to people or actions". This claim is perfectly adequate to a presuppositional analysis, and it seems to me that presuppositional analysis and the difference between truth conditions and assertibility conditions come hand in hand; abstaining from endorsing a statement means rejecting the justifications or the intended background for its assertion. A presentation of a presuppositional analysis might also be framed in Kaplan's terminology. Kaplan (1999) was interested in the informational content that can be derived by expressives; in doing so he attempted to clarify the rules of correctness of expressives and the correspondence of informational content given by expressives and by descriptions: the same semantic information can be given with an expressive mode (ouch, oops, hurray) or with a descriptive mode ("I am in pain" or "I have just observed a minor mishap" or "I am in state of joyful elation"). Kaplan describes the problem of giving the rules for correct application of expressives. And we might say that the felicity condition of the use of a pejorative is that (1) the person actually believes the information content expressed by the pejorative and (2) has the correct attitude or emotion towards the class described by the pejorative. Utterances of "that Boche run away" or "that cur howled all night" are appropriate only if the speaker really believes that Germans are cruel as such or that dogs are despicable and ugly as such and has the appropriate emotion of distaste or dislike (see also Carpintero 2017). This is what presuppositional analysis amounts to. However, the presuppositional analysis of pejoratives leaves unanswered some questions like the following: 1. In using a slur in a re-appropriation case, people do not share the prejudice (the belief) attached to the term, yet it seems that their use is appropriate. 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 AQ6 A u th o r P ro o f Layout: A5 HuSSci Book ID: 461020_1_En Book ISBN: 978-3-319-95777-7 Chapter No.: 10 Date: 5 July 2018 14:28 Page: 13/21 U N CO RR EC TE D P RO O F REFUSING TO ENDORSE: A MUST EXPLANATION FOR PEJORATIVES 13 2. When people who have racist prejudices use the derogatory term we should say that their use is perfectly "appropriate" because they share the beliefs supporting that use, yet it sounds awkward, although correct for the theory, to say that the uses of derogatory terms are somehow "appropriate". 3. when a presupposition is expressed it ceases to be a presupposition and it is normally accepted while the presupposed content of a slur is typically a matter of disagreement when explicitly stated. Leaving (1) and (2) to the reader, let us see the problem with (3). Accommodation (the process through which people accept presuppositions that do not belong to the common ground) is not as normal as it is in standard cases (where, as Lewis says, presuppositions "spring into existence making what you say acceptable after all"). A non-xenophobe, or a non-racist, or a friend of dogs, would not easily accommodate the presupposition in a sentence that uses a pejorative. He would probably say, "Hey, wait a moment! Do you think that Germans are more prone to cruelty than other Europeans? It is not true" or "hey wait a moment! Do you think that all dogs are despicable? That's false". The problem arises because the presupposition triggered by a pejorative represents a content on which there may be very strong disagreement. The main defect of presuppositional analysis is that it leaves something out; offensive or derogatory terms does not only pertain to the content of their presuppositions (and eventually the emotional attitude going with it); they also involve actions and commitments undertaken in their use. 6 PEjoratIvES aS hIghEr ordEr uttErancE modIfIErS Eva makes a remark on Frege's view of the derogatory ingredient attached to the word "cur": [according to Frege] in the given context the choice of "cur" instead of "dog" has the value of an exclamation, and, one may add, could be rendered syntactically by means of an exclamation mark, much as assertoric force is rendered by means of a vertical stroke. Frege held that assertoric force only shows itself with the help of a suitable notation, but is not located in any part of speech in particular. Its scope is the whole utterance, not a particular segment of it. The function of an interjection mark 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 A u th o r P ro o f Layout: A5 HuSSci Book ID: 461020_1_En Book ISBN: 978-3-319-95777-7 Chapter No.: 10 Date: 5 July 2018 14:28 Page: 14/21 U N CO RR EC TE D P RO O F 14 c. PEnco encapsulated, as it were, into the meaning of "cur" in the specific utterance is to disclose the attitude of the speaker towards the matter at issue. It presents the dog as ugly or unpleasant from the speaker's perspective; however, as Frege remarks, the dog itself may very well be a handsome representative of its race. But this circumstance does not render the use of the interjection incorrect, for in uttering as he did, the speaker might have wished to disclose his attitude of dislike or fear of dogs in general, not of this dog in particular. (Picardi 2006: 62–63) Eva here refers also to Kaplan, who distinguishes between "truth simpliciter" and "truth with an attitude", but-as we have seen-she does not agree to treat the expressive content merely as something propositional: "tone need not be expressible by means of a, let alone one specific, fullfledged proposition" (Picardi 2007: 503). But which kind of non-propositional aspect can be conveyed by a derogatory expression? Eva attributes the main reason for accepting the Fregean suggestion of colouring as higher order utterance modifier to the fact that it detaches the notion of colouring from mere psychological significance.2 A pejorative may impinge on the level of speech acts, on their felicity conditions or justification (or assertibility) conditions. This is a central point to be clarified. Eva oscillates between two alternatives often connected: a multi-propositional account and a higher order account, both of which she tends to disregard. But I think she has been too quick with disregarding the idea of higher-order account, maybe because too strictly connected with the Gricean view. Speaking of higher order account we typically tend to consider the contribution of some words (expressions like "but" or pejoratives) as parasitic on a ground floor or central speech act (Grice 1989: 361–62).3 But the idea of higher order modifier is not exhausted by Grice's view of implicatures (nor by the presuppositional account). An alternative view may be defined for treating pejoratives as higher order modifiers that are not just parasitic aspects. Still keeping pejoratives as connected with a set of inferences (presupposed or implicated), Carpintero (2015, 2017) tries to give them a further role in the context of dialogue. The novel point that Carpintero makes it where to insert the role of pejorative in the dialogue: not only as part of the content or as presupposed propositions, but as constraints on the context of dialogue. The main consequence of accepting derogatory expressions is the implicit acceptance of their presuppositional content, given by tacit 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 A u th o r P ro o f Layout: A5 HuSSci Book ID: 461020_1_En Book ISBN: 978-3-319-95777-7 Chapter No.: 10 Date: 5 July 2018 14:28 Page: 15/21 U N CO RR EC TE D P RO O F REFUSING TO ENDORSE: A MUST EXPLANATION FOR PEJORATIVES 15 accommodation. Tacit accommodation implies tacit undertaking of a network of inferences and commitment to the consequences. The main point made by Carpintero is, therefore, that common ground cannot be defined only in terms of shared propositions, but also in terms of different commitments towards those propositions; that's why we feel so uncomfortable when we are included in a conversation where people use pejoratives on whose stereotypical inferences we strongly disagree. Already Stalnaker claimed that we have different attitudes towards the contents of the common ground (see Domaneschi et al. 2014). But Carpintero's point is stronger and can be summarised by the claim that our common ground is made not only of propositions and propositional attitudes but it also concerns attitudes linked to illocutionary forces, which is a further level of pragmatic commitment. Saying that the use of pejorative is linked to illocutionary force is a fundamental step, shared by many others. Langton (1993, 2012) calls "speech acts of subordination" those speech acts used to classify a target class as inferior, legitimate discrimination and deprive it of rights. But her examples are basically explicit acts of subordination like "Blacks are not permitted to vote", where the act is a kind of "verdictive" and the speaker has authority to do that because he is in a social position that allows him to perform the act. Besides, in case the speaker has no authority, the accommodation of the presupposition (given by the failure to question the speaker) would confer authority to the speaker herself, as suggested by Maitra (2012) (McGowan 2004, 2009 speaks of "conversational" exercitives that, differently from Austin's, do not require uptake from the hearers). However most of the examples of this literature concern explicit and direct acts of subordination (like the above quoted "Blacks are not permitted to vote"), or hate speech that is characterised, among other things, by being directly addressed to the individuals whom they insult (see also Hornsby 2001: 297). On the contrary our examples (following Frege's example with "cur") concern the use of derogative words in descriptions of facts or in questions, where the pejorative is part of a descriptive content of a phrase (complex demonstratives, definite descriptions) whose main function is to pick a referent. How to describe the subtler way in which the insertion of a pejorative in a normal description of facts changes-to use Lewis' terminology-the conversational score? A first solution is to think of an indirect speech act: by putting a question such as "do you know what time is it?" I make a request; by 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 AQ7 AQ8 AQ9 A u th o r P ro o f Layout: A5 HuSSci Book ID: 461020_1_En Book ISBN: 978-3-319-95777-7 Chapter No.: 10 Date: 5 July 2018 14:28 Page: 16/21 U N CO RR EC TE D P RO O F 16 c. PEnco describing a possible situation such as "I will not miss your date" I am making a promise. Following the analogy, we may say that by describing a situation with "that Boche run away", or asking "have you seen that Boche running away?" I hereby promote discrimination and legitimize behaviour of discrimination. We may think that the preparatory condition is not satisfied. If asked: "can you tell me the time?" I may answer: "Sorry, I have no watch", making it clear that the preparatory condition of the request is not satisfied. Analogously, if asked: "have you seen a nigger running away?" I may answer: "Sorry, for me there are no nigger", because the preparatory condition to the act of subordination requires that black people are inferior as such. But the analogy is not so clear: an indirect speech act is typically a speech act of a kind that is given by a speech act of a different kind. By a question we make a request, by a description we make a promise; in case of assertions or questions containing a derogatory term we are still making an assertion or a question. Saying: "hey, wait a moment; he run away, but he is not a nigger" (as with rejecting a presupposition), we correctly answer the main speech act; while we cannot say to a question like "do you know the time" something like, "yes, we do, but unfortunately I have no watch". The strategy of indirect speech act after all seems not to be a viable analysis. A second possible answer, that seems to be more coherent with the main trend in contemporary discussion, is that speech acts with derogatory terms contain a peculiar adjunctive force: with the same utterance, we make two kinds of speech acts at the same time (Kissine 2013: 197): assertions, questions, commands, and other speech acts can be understood as such, and at the same time, when containing a derogatory term, they are at the same time acts of "subordination". And also, we have two contents: the (description of the) objective state of affairs (a person who runs away) and the (promotion of a) derogatory viewpoint concerning the individual and the group they belong to. Langton (2017) presented a similar idea at the ECAP Conference in Münich, speaking of "Blocking as Counter-speech" (e.g. you may assert something normal and at the same time, through a presuppositional trigger, convey something else like in "Even John could win!").4 We may conclude that speech acts that contain derogatory terms (or other subtle means to give a diminishing perspective on the target) promote and legitimize subordination or other negative attitudes towards the referent class. And, most of the time,5 the subordination is derived by the use of a predicate that is false of the class 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 A u th o r P ro o f Layout: A5 HuSSci Book ID: 461020_1_En Book ISBN: 978-3-319-95777-7 Chapter No.: 10 Date: 5 July 2018 14:28 Page: 17/21 U N CO RR EC TE D P RO O F REFUSING TO ENDORSE: A MUST EXPLANATION FOR PEJORATIVES 17 in question, for instance, because "the complex properties indicated by racist words are not instantiated" (Picardi 2006: 68). Can we be content in saying that with pejoratives we make two speech acts at the same time? The idea of a speech act of subordination is still a pointer towards an idea to be refined, and we might distinguish levels of subordination, and also other kinds of acts depending on different kinds of pejoratives or on different targets or different social roles (on which see e.g. Popa-Wyatt and Wyatt 2017). The essential feature, besides the actual contempt or disregard of the target, is normally taken to be that in using a pejorative we act to promote and legitimize subordination. What is not yet clear is how this promotion is realised. My suggestion is that who intentionally6 uses derogatory terms looks for company, for sharing the prejudice and avoiding feeling alone. His speech act constitutes a call for joint responsibility, asking for sharing an attitude towards the derogatory content, indirectly creating a context of commitment to certain behaviour against the target. This is why rejecting to endorse an assertion or answering a question containing a pejorative is the fundamental reaction and avoids the trick of the use of derogatory terms; on the one hand it seems that the racist (or the dog hater) is just stating some facts and therefore we are ready to accept or reject the truth of the matter; but in stating some facts with a certain terminology the racist (or the dog hater) is desperately asking for approval of his behaviour and his way of life, and for sharing his positive endeavour to promote this behaviour and way of life. Summarizing, the use of a derogatory term in a normal speech act gives the act a new feature, besides promoting discrimination or subordination: it is a call for joint responsibility that commits co-conversationalists to participate in the actual subordination and deprecation of the individuals or classes defined with a pejorative. Therefore, the use of pejoratives is not just a question of informational content, or of tacit presuppositions, but it is promotion and legitimization of that content through tacit joint acceptance. In accepting a presuppositional content we ourselves turn to be promoters of that content, and not only making as if we believe it. This seems to me a fairly acceptable rendering of the central core of Eva's analysis concerning the relationship between assertion and endorsement: 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 AQ10 A u th o r P ro o f Layout: A5 HuSSci Book ID: 461020_1_En Book ISBN: 978-3-319-95777-7 Chapter No.: 10 Date: 5 July 2018 14:28 Page: 18/21 U N CO RR EC TE D P RO O F 18 c. PEnco I may refuse to endorse an assertion because its wording suggests a picture of reality that I do not share. (Picardi 2006: 62) The central point of the refusal to endorse is rejecting the call for joint responsibility and leaving the racist alone. And probably, under this "illocutionary" view, we are allowed to say something stronger: the use of words not only "suggests" a picture of reality, but also actually "promotes" it. 7 Summary The connection between the speech act and the set of inferences connected (either because of implicatures or because of presuppositions) with the pejorative expression builds up a new challenging problem on the relationship between truth conditions and assertibility conditions, and this seems to be the most relevant suggestion left by Eva's paper. Rejecting to endorse an assertion containing derogatory terms aims both at preventing the derivations of other assertions whose content would entail what we regard as false, and at preventing the promotion of what we considered wrong attitudes towards the object of contempt.7 notES 1. A short summary of different perspective is given in Bianchi (2014), Bianchi (2015) (also with reference to experimental approaches) and Cepollaro (2015). 2. The main point is always to antagonize the reductio of the phenomenon of tone to the subjective alone, as Picardi (2007: 500) insists: "Tone is as much as conventional and objective feature of word meaning as sense is, and Frege erred in confining it to the realm of psychological association". 3. It is in his "Retrospective Epilog" included in Grice (1989), that Grice speaks of "Lower order" and "Higher order" Speech acts. 4. Thanks to Laura Caponetto for suggesting this connection. 5. Apparently we do not need a pejorative for an act of subordination, as in Langton's example "Blacks are not permitted to vote". 6. Or, at least, sharing the presuppositions connected with the derogatory terms. Some people may be unaware of the derogatory aspects of a term, either by not having another "politically correct" term or just by not knowing the derogatory aspect of a term in a context of a community. Travelling abroad may put people at risk of being considered either racist or simply unpolite just by ignorance. 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 AQ11 A u th o r P ro o f Layout: A5 HuSSci Book ID: 461020_1_En Book ISBN: 978-3-319-95777-7 Chapter No.: 10 Date: 5 July 2018 14:28 Page: 19/21 U N CO RR EC TE D P RO O F REFUSING TO ENDORSE: A MUST EXPLANATION FOR PEJORATIVES 19 7. I would like to thank Filippo Domaneschi for his suggestions on an early draft of this paper and Paolo Leonardi for his careful reading and further suggestions, which, unfortunately, I feel to have been unable to follow properly. A special thank to Laura Caponetto for pointing out some mistakes and suggesting repair. rEfErEncES Bach, K. 1999. The Myth of Conventional Implicatures. Linguistics and Philosophy 229: 327–366. Bianchi, C. 2014. The Speech Acts Account of Derogatory Epithets: Some Critical Notes. Liber Amicorum Pascal Engel, ed. J. Dutant, D. Fassio, and A. Meylan. Geneva: Université de Genève. Bianchi, C. 2015. A Plea for an Experimental Approach on Slurs, Language Sciences. Carpintero: see Garcia-Carpintero. Cepollaro, B. 2015. In Defense of a Presuppositional Account of Slurs. Language Sciences 52: 36–45. Cozzo, C. 2002. Does Epistemological Holism Lead to Meaning Holism? Topoi 1–2: 25–45. Dummett, M. 1981. Frege, Philosophy of Language, 2nd ed. London: Duckworth. Dummett, M. 2007. Reply to Eva Picardi. In The Philosophy of Michael Dummett (LLP), ed. Schilpp and Hahn. LaSalle: Open Court. Frege, G. 1879. Begriffsschrift. Halle: L. Nebert. Frege, G. 1897. Logik. In Nachgelassene Schriften, ed. H. Hermes et al., Hamburg: Meiner. 1969; English Translation by P. Long and R. White, Posthumous Writings, Oxford, Blackwell, 1979. Carpintero, Garcia M. 2015. Contexts as Shared Commitments. Frontiers of Psychology, 6: 1932. Carpintero, Garcia M. 2017. Pejoratives, Contexts and Presuppositions. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 10257: 15–24. Grice, P.H. 1967. Logic and Conversation. In Chapter 2 of Grice 1989, Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Grice, P.H. 1989. Retrospective Epilogue. In Grice (1989) Studies in the Way of Words, 339–385. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hom, C. 2008. The Semantics of Racial Epithets. Journal of Philosophy 105: 416–440. Hom, C. 2010. Pejoratives. Philosophy Compass 5 (2): 164–185. Hom, C. 2012. The Puzzle of Pejoratives. Philosophical Studies 159: 383–405. Hornsby, J. 2001. Meaning and Uselessness: How to Think About Derogatory Words. In Midwest Studies in Philosophy, vol. XXV, 128–141. 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 AQ12 AQ13 AQ14 AQ15 AQ16 A u th o r P ro o f Layout: A5 HuSSci Book ID: 461020_1_En Book ISBN: 978-3-319-95777-7 Chapter No.: 10 Date: 5 July 2018 14:28 Page: 20/21 U N CO RR EC TE D P RO O F 20 c. PEnco Kaplan, D. 1999. The Meaning of Ouch and Oops. Exploration in the Theory of Meaning as Use, Unpublished. Langton, R. 2012. Beyond Belief: Pragmatics in Hate Speech and Pornography. In What Speech Does, ed. McGowan and Maitra. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Langton, R. 2017. "Blocking as Counter-Speech" paper presented at ECAP9, Conference of the European Society for Analytic Philosophy (München 2017). In The paper is forthcoming, ed. D. Harris, D. Fogal, and M. Moss, New Work on Speech Acts. New York: Oxford University Press. Kissine, M. 2013. From Utterances to Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Macià, Josep. 2014. "Expressive Meaning and Presupposition", handout for a talk at the Names, Demonstratives, and Expressives conference in Gargnano, Italy. Maitra, I. 2012. Subordinating Speech. In Speech and Harm: Controversies Over Free Speech, ed. Ishani Maitra and Mary K. McGowan, 94–120. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McGowan, M.K. 2004. Conversational Exercitives: Something Else We Do With Our Words. Linguistics and Philosophy 27 (1): 93–111. McGowan, M.K. 2009. Oppressive Speech. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (3): 389–407. McGowan, M.K. 2012. On 'Whites Only' Signs and Racist Hate Speech: Verbal Acts of Racial Discrimination. In Speech and Harm: Controversies Over Free Speech, ed. Ishani Maitra and Mary K. McGowan, 94–120. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mulligan, K. 1998. From Appropriate Emotions to Values. Monist 81 (1): 161–188. Penco, C. 2017. Donnellan's Misdescriptions and Loose Talk. In Reference and Representation in language and Thought, ed. K. Korta and M. Ponte. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Penco, C. forthcoming. Prejudice and Presupposition in Offensive Language. In Nordic and Mediterranean. Picardi, E. 2001. Compositionality. In Grice's Heritage, ed. G. Cosenza, 52–72. Turnhout: Brepols. Picardi, E. 2006. Colouring, Multiple Propositions and Assertoric Content. Grazer Philosophische Studien 72: 49–72. Picardi, E. 2007. On Sense, Tone, and Accompanying Thoughts. In The Philosophy of Michael Dummett (LLP), ed. Schilpp and Hahn. LaSalle: Open Court. Popa-Wyatt, M., and Wyatt, J.L. 2017. Slurs, Roles and Power. Philosophical Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-017-0986-2. Sainsbury, M. 2001. Two Ways to Smoke a Cigarette. Ratio 14: 386–406. 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 AQ17 AQ18 AQ19 A u th o r P ro o f Layout: A5 HuSSci Book ID: 461020_1_En Book ISBN: 978-3-319-95777-7 Chapter No.: 10 Date: 5 July 2018 14:28 Page: 21/21 U N CO RR EC TE D P RO O F REFUSING TO ENDORSE: A MUST EXPLANATION FOR PEJORATIVES 21 Schlenker, P. 2007. The Expressive Dimensions. Theoretical Linguistics 33 (2): 237–245. Stalnaker, R. 1978a. Assertion. In Syntax and Semantics, vol. 9, ed. P. Cole, 315–332. New York: Academic Press. Stalnaker, R. 1978b. Assertion. In Syntax and Semantics 9, ed. P. Cole, 315– 332. New York: Academic Press. Also in R. Stalnaker, Context and Content, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999, 78–95, to which I refer. Stalnaker, R. 2002. Common Ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–721. Stalnaker, R. 2014. Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Williamson, T. 2003. Understanding and Inference. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society: 249–293. Williamson, T. 2009. Reference, Inference and the Semantics of Pejoratives. In The Philosophy of David Kaplan, ed. J. Almog and P. Leonardi, 137–158. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophische Untersuchungen/Philosophical Investigations, ed. G.E.M. Anscombe and R. Rhees, trans. G.E.M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell. 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 AQ20 AQ21 A u th o r P ro o f Author Query Form Book ID: 461020_1_En Chapter No: 10 1 3I Please ensure you fill out your response to the queries raised below and return this form along with your corrections. Dear Author, During the process of typesetting your chapter, the following queries have arisen. Please check your typeset proof carefully against the queries listed below and mark the necessary changes either directly on the proof/online grid or in the 'Author's response' area provided Query Refs. Details Required Author's Response AQ1 Please check and confirm if the author and the respective affiliation has been correctly identified. Amend if necessary. AQ2 References 'Frege (1892, 1979)' are cited in the text but not provided in the reference list. Please provide the respective references in the list or delete these citations. AQ3 References 'Potts (2005, 2008)' are cited in the text but not provided in the reference list. Please provide the respective references in the list or delete these citations. AQ4 The citation 'Bach (2006)' has been changed to 'Bach (1999)' to match the author year in the reference list. Please check and confirm. AQ5 Reference 'Penco (2010)' is cited in the text but not provided in the reference list. Please provide the respective reference in the list or delete this citation. AQ6 Reference 'Stalnaker (1974)' is cited in the text but not provided in the reference list. Please provide the respective reference in the list or delete this citation. AQ7 Reference 'Domaneschi et al. (2014)' is cited in the text but not provided in the reference list. Please provide the respective reference in the list or delete this citation. AQ8 Reference 'Langton (1993)' is cited in the text but not provided in the reference list. Please provide the respective reference in the list or delete this citation. A u th o r P ro o f Query Refs. Details Required Author's Response AQ9 The citation 'Hornsby (2003)' has been changed to 'Hornsby (2001)' to match the author year in the reference list. Please check and confirm. AQ10 The citation 'Popa-Wyatt (2017)' has been changed to 'Popa-Wyatt and Wyatt (2017)' to match the author name in the reference list. Please check here and in subsequent occurrences, and correct if necessary. AQ11 Please check and confirm the edit made in the sentence 'I may refuse to ...'. Amend if necessary. AQ12 Please supply the volume number and page range for the reference 'Bianchi (2015)'. AQ13 Please provide complete details for the reference 'Carpintero: see Garcia-Carpintero'. AQ14 Reference 'Cozzo (2002)' is given in the list but not cited in the text. Please cite this in text or delete from the list. AQ15 Please check and confirm the inserted page range is correct for reference 'Garcia Carpintero (2015)'. AQ16 Reference 'Grice (1967)' is given in the list but not cited in the text. Please cite this in text or delete from the list. AQ17 Reference 'McGowan (2012)' is given in the list but not cited in the text. Please cite this in text or delete from the list. AQ18 Reference 'Mulligan (1998)' is given in the list but not cited in the text. Please cite this in text or delete from the list. AQ19 Please update the publication year for reference 'Penco (forthcoming)'. AQ20 References 'Stalnaker (1978a, b, 2002, 2014)' are given in the list but not cited in the text. Please cite them in text or delete them from the list. AQ21 Reference 'Wittgenstein (1953)' is given in the list but not cited in the text. Please cite this in text or delete from the list. A u th o r P ro o f MARKED PROOF Please correct and return this set Instruction to printer Leave unchanged under matter to remain through single character, rule or underline New matter followed by or or or or or or or or or and/or and/or e.g. e.g. under character over character new character new characters through all characters to be deleted through letter or through characters under matter to be changed under matter to be changed under matter to be changed under matter to be changed under matter to be changed Encircle matter to be changed (As above) (As above) (As above) (As above) (As above) (As above) (As above) (As above) linking characters through character or where required between characters or words affected through character or where required or indicated in the margin Delete Substitute character or substitute part of one or more word(s) Change to italics Change to capitals Change to small capitals Change to bold type Change to bold italic Change to lower case Change italic to upright type Change bold to non-bold type Insert 'superior' character Insert 'inferior' character Insert full stop Insert comma Insert single quotation marks Insert double quotation marks Insert hyphen Start new paragraph No new paragraph Transpose Close up Insert or substitute space between characters or words Reduce space between characters or words Insert in text the matter Textual mark Marginal mark Please use the proof correction marks shown below for all alterations and corrections. If you in dark ink and are made well within the page margins. wish to return your proof by fax you should ensure that all amendments are written clearly