Dissertation, University of St Andrews (2016)

Authors
Mark Bowker
University College Dublin
Abstract
According to the Encoding Model, speakers communicate by encoding the propositions they want to communicate into sentences, in accordance with the conventions of a language L. By uttering a sentence that encodes p, the speaker says that p. Communication is successful only if the audience identifies the proposition that the speaker intends to communicate, which is achieved by decoding the uttered sentence in accordance with the conventions of L. A consequence of the Encoding Model has been the proliferation of underdetermination arguments, each of which concludes against some linguistic theory T, on the grounds that, were T true, audiences would be unable to know what was said by utterances of some particular linguistic form, and therefore unable to know what speakers intended to communicate by these utterance. The result, if we accept the conclusion of these arguments, is radical restriction of the domain of viable linguistic theory. This Thesis defends an alternative model according to which there need be nothing encoded in an uttered sentence – nothing that is said by its utterance – for the audience to retrieve. Rather, there are indefinitely many ways to interpret uttered sentences – indefinitely many routes to the propositions that speaker intend to communicate – which proceed through different interpretations of what is said.
Keywords Underdetermination  Semantics  Indeterminacy  Communication  Interpteration  Pragmatics
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2016
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,247
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

Demonstratives: An Essay on the Semantics, Logic, Metaphysics and Epistemology of Demonstratives and Other Indexicals.David Kaplan - 1989 - In Joseph Almog, John Perry & Howard Wettstein (eds.), Themes From Kaplan. Oxford University Press. pp. 481-563.
Knowledge and Lotteries.John Hawthorne - 2003 - Oxford University Press.
On Denoting.Bertrand Russell - 1905 - Mind 14 (56):479-493.
On Denoting.Bertrand Russell - 2005 - Mind 114 (456):873 - 887.

View all 78 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Contextualism.Claudia Bianchi - 2010 - Handbook of Pragmatics Online.
Context Ex Machina.Kent Bach - 2005 - In Zoltan Gendler Szabo (ed.), Semantics Versus Pragmatics. Oxford University Press. pp. 15--44.
Utterance Meaning and Syntactic Ellipsis.Robert J. Stainton - 1997 - Pragmatics and Cognition 5 (1):51-78.
Pragmatics and Logical Form.François Recanati - 2007 - In Esther Romero & Belen Soria (eds.), Explicit Communication: Robyn Carston's Pragmatics. Palgrave. pp. 25-41.
Non-Sentential Assertions.Robert James Harold Stainton - 1993 - Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Implicating Questions.David Braun - 2011 - Mind and Language 26 (5):574-595.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-04-23

Total views
53 ( #200,599 of 2,448,494 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #179,812 of 2,448,494 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes