Abstract
This essay aims at neutralizing the contextualist challenge against traditional semantics. According to contextualism, utterances of non-elliptical, non-ambiguous, and non-indexical sentences may be associated with contrasting truth-conditions. In this essay, I grant the contextualist analysis of the sentences in question, and the contextualist assessment of the truth-conditions for the corresponding utterances. I then argue that the resulting situation is by no means incompatible with the traditional approach to semantics, and that the evidence put forth by the contextualists may easily be taken into account by the customary treatment of natural languages.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
J. Barwise J. Perry (1983) Situations and Attitudes MIT Press Cambridge, MA
J. Berg (2002) ArticleTitle‘Is Semantics Still Possible?’ Journal of Pragmatics. 34 IssueID3 349–359
A.. Bezuidenhout (1997) ArticleTitle‘Pragmatics, semantic underdetermination and the referential/attributive distinction’ Mind 106 375–409 Occurrence HandleMR1460426
Borg E. (2003). ‘How to Say What You Mean’. Manuscript
R.. Carston (1988) ‘Implicature, Explicature, and Truth-Theoretic Semantics’ R. Kempson (Eds) Mental Representations. The interface between language and reality Cambridge University Press Cambridge 155–181
D.R. Dowty R.E. Wall S. Peters (1981) Introduction to Montague Semantics D. Reidel Publishing Company Dordrecht
D. Kaplan (1977) ‘Demonstratives’ J. Almog J. Perry H. Wettstein (Eds) Themes From Kaplan. Oxford University Press Oxford 481–563
R. Lahav (1985) ArticleTitle‘Against Compositionality’ Philosophical Studies 57 261–279
Lewis D. (1979). ‘Scorekeeping in a Language Game’. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 339–359. Reprinted in D. Lewis, Philosophical Papers, Volume I, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1983
Lewis D. (1980). ‘Index, Context, and Content’. In: Kanger S., Öhman S. (ed). Philosophy and Grammar, Reidel, Dordrecht. Reprinted in D. Lewis, Papers in Philosophical Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998
J. Perry (1997) ‘Indexicals and Demonstratives’ B. Hale C. Wright (Eds) A Companion to the Philosophy of Language Blackwell Publishers Oxford
J. Perry (2001) Reference and Reflexivity CSLI Publications Stanford
Recanati F. (2003). Literal Meaning, Manuscript
R.M. Sainsbury (2001) ArticleTitle‘Two Ways to Smoke a Cigarette’ Ratio. 14.4 386–406
J. Searle (1980) ‘The Background of Meaning’ J.R. Searle F. Kiefer M. Bierwisch (Eds) Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics. Reidel Publishing Company Dordrecht
D. Sperber D. Wilson (1995) Relevance. Communication and Cognition EditionNumber2 Blackwell Publishers Oxford
Stalnaker R.C. (1978). ‘Assertion’. Syntax and Semantics 9. Academic Press, New York. Reprinted in R. C. Stalnaker, Context and Content. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999
J. Stanley Z.G. Szabó (2000) ArticleTitle‘On Quantifier Domain Restriction’ Mind and Language 15 219–261
Z.G. Szabó (2001) ‘Adjectives in Context’ I. Kenesei R.M. Harnish (Eds) Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse, A Festshrift for Ferenc Kiefer. John Benjamins Amsterdam
K.A. Taylor (2001) ArticleTitle‘Sex, Breakfast, and Descriptus-Interruptus’ Synthese 128 45–61
C. Travis (1985) ArticleTitle‘On What Is Strictly Speaking True’ Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 15 IssueID2 187–229
C. Travis (1996) ArticleTitle‘Meaning’s Role in Truth’ Mind 105 451–466
C. Travis (1997) ‘Pragmatics’ B. Hale C. Wright (Eds) A Companion to the Philosophy of Language. Blackwell Publishers Oxford
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Predelli, S. Painted Leaves, Context, and Semantic Analysis. Linguist Philos 28, 351–374 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-004-6136-2
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-004-6136-2