You don't say?

Synthese 128 (1-2):15--44 (2001)
Abstract
This paper defends a purely semantic notionof what is said against various recent objections. Theobjections each cite some sort of linguistic,psychological, or epistemological fact that issupposed to show that on any viable notion of what aspeaker says in uttering a sentence, there ispragmatic intrusion into what is said. Relying on amodified version of Grice's notion, on which what issaid must be a projection of the syntax of the utteredsentence, I argue that a purely semantic notion isneeded to account for the linguistically determinedinput to the hearer's inference to what, if anything,the speaker intends to be conveying in uttering thesentence.
Keywords Philosophy   Philosophy   Epistemology   Logic   Metaphysics   Philosophy of Language
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2004
DOI 10.1023/A:1010353722852
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,719
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Speaker Intentions in Context.Jeffrey C. King - 2014 - Noûs 48 (2):219-237.
The Evidence for Relativism.Max Kölbel - 2009 - Synthese 166 (2):375-395.
Necessitarian Propositions.Jonathan Schaffer - 2012 - Synthese 189 (1):119-162.
Relativism 2: Semantic Content.Max Kölbel - 2015 - Philosophy Compass 10 (1):52–67.

View all 35 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
143 ( #34,549 of 2,197,286 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #34,969 of 2,197,286 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature