Synthese 189 (1):75-96 (2012)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
This essay investigates whether or not we should think that the things we say are identical to the things our sentences mean. It is argued that these theoretical notions should be distinguished, since assertoric content does not respect the compositionality principle. As a paradigmatic example, Kaplan's formal language LD is shown to exemplify a failure of compositionality. It is demonstrated that by respecting the theoretical distinction between the objects of assertion and compositional values certain conflicts between compositionality and contextualism are avoided. This includes the conflict between eternalism and the semantics of tense, the embedding problems for contextualism about epistemic modals and taste claims, and the conflict between direct reference and the semantics of bound pronouns (and monstrous operators). After presenting the theoretical picture which distinguishes assertoric content from compositional semantic value, some objections to the picture are addressed. In so doing, the objection from King (2003) stemming from apparent complications with the interaction of temporal expressions and attitude reports is assessed and shown to be non-threatening.
|
Keywords | Propositions Monsters Embedding Semantics Assertoric content Direct reference Compositionality Contextualism |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.1007/s11229-012-0096-9 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
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.
Themes From Kaplan.Joseph Almog, John Perry & Howard Wettstein (eds.) - 1989 - Oxford University Press.
View all 55 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
Monsters and the Theoretical Role of Context.Brian Rabern & Derek Ball - 2019 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 98 (2):392-416.
Semantics and Metasemantics in the Context of Generative Grammar.Seth Yalcin - 2014 - In Alexis Burgess & Brett Sherman (eds.), Metasemantics: New Essays on the Foundations of Meaning. Oxford University Press. pp. 17-54.
The Myth of Occurrence-Based Semantics.Bryan Pickel & Brian Rabern - 2021 - Linguistics and Philosophy 44:813-837.
View all 60 citations / Add more citations
Similar books and articles
Propositions and Multiple Indexing.Brian Rabern - 2012 - Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 1 (2):116-124.
Monsters in Kaplan’s Logic of Demonstratives.Brian Rabern - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 164 (2):393-404.
From Compositional to Systematic Semantics.Wlodek Zadrozny - 1994 - Linguistics and Philosophy 17 (4):329 - 342.
Communication And The Complexity of Semantics.Peter Pagin - 2012 - In Markus Werning, Wolfram Hinzen & Edouard Machery (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality. Oxford University Press.
The Distance Between “Here” and “Where I Am”.Savas L. Tsohatzidis - 2015 - Journal of Philosophical Research 40:13-21.
Assertoric Semantics and the Computational Power of Self-Referential Truth.Stefan Wintein - 2012 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 41 (2):317-345.
Compositionality and Context.Peter Pagin - 2005 - In Gerhard Preyer & Georg Peter (eds.), Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth. Oxford University Press. pp. 303-348.
Why Compositionality?Jeroen Groenendijk & Martin Stokhof - 2005 - In Greg N. Carlson & Francis Jeffry Pelletier (eds.), Reference and Quantification: The Partee Effect. CSLI Publications. pp. 83--106.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2011-01-08
Total views
425 ( #22,271 of 2,497,778 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
9 ( #80,163 of 2,497,778 )
2011-01-08
Total views
425 ( #22,271 of 2,497,778 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
9 ( #80,163 of 2,497,778 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads