Out of Context

It’s been, for some time now, a pet thesis of ours that compositionality is the key constraint on theories of linguistic content. On the one hand, we’re convinced by the usual arguments that the compositionality of natural languages1 explains how L-speakers can understand any of the indefinitely many expressions that belong to L. 2 And, on the other hand, we claim that compositionality excludes all “pragmatist” 3 accounts of content; hence, practically all of the theories of meaning that have been floated by philosophers and cognitive scientists for the last fifty years or so. A number of objections to our claim have been suggested to us, but none that we find persuasive (see, for example, the discussions of the “uniformity principle” and of “reverse compositionality” in Fodor and Lepore 2002). These objections have a common thread: they all grant that mental and linguistic content are compositional but challenge the thesis that compositionality is incompatible with semantic pragmatism. In this paper, we want to consider an objection of a fundamentally different kind, namely, that it doesn’t matter whether compositionality excludes semantic pragmatism because compositionality isn’t true; the content of an expression supervenes not on its linguistic structure4 alone but on its linguistic structure together with the context of its tokening. 5..
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.2307/3219726
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 35,865
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

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Boundaries of Context and Their Significance.Guichun Guo - 2010 - Frontiers of Philosophy in China 5 (3):449-460.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Compositionality Papers.Jerry A. Fodor & Ernest Lepore - 2002 - Oxford University Press.
Presupposition and Context Sensitivity.Ernie Lepore & Adam Sennet - 2014 - Mind and Language 29 (5):613-627.
The Compositionality Papers.Jerry A. Fodor & Ernie Lepore - 2004 - Mind 113 (450):340-344.
All at Sea in Semantic Space.Jerry Fodor & Ernie Lepore - 1999 - Journal of Philosophy 96 (8):381-403.
What Is The Connection Principle?Jerry Fodor & Ernie Lepore - 1994 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54 (4):837 - 845.
Reply to Block and Boghossian.Jerry Fodor & Ernie Lepore - 1993 - Mind and Language 8 (1):41-48.
Analyticity Again.Jerry Fodor & Ernie Lepore - 2006 - In Michael Devitt & Richard Hanley (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Language. Blackwell. pp. 19--114.
Brandom's Burdens: Compositionality and Inferentialism.Ernie Lepore Jerry Fodor - 2001 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63 (2):465-481.
Brandom's Burdens: Compositionality and Inferentialism.Ernie Lepore & Jerry Fodor - 2001 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63 (2):465–481.
Impossible Words: A Reply to Kent Johnson.Jerry Fodor & Ernie Lepore - 2005 - Mind and Language 20 (3):353–356.
Do Inferential Roles Compose?Mark McCullagh - 2003 - Dialectica 57 (4):431-38.


Added to PP index

Total downloads
34 ( #188,639 of 2,293,822 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #410,247 of 2,293,822 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature