Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Truth and Context Change

  • Published:
Journal of Philosophical Logic Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Some dynamic semantic theories include an attempt to derive truth-conditional meaning from context change potential. This implies defining truth in terms of context change. Focusing on presuppositions and epistemic modals, this paper points out some problems with how this project has been carried out. It then suggests a way of overcoming these problems. This involves appealing to a richer notion of context than the one found in standard dynamic systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Beaver, D. (2001). Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  2. van Benthem, J. (1986). Essays in formal semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. van der Does, J., Groenenveld, W., & Veltman, F. (1997). An update on Might. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 6, 99–137.

    Google Scholar 

  4. von Fintel, K., & Gillies, A. (2007). An opinionated guide to epistemic modality. In T. S. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Oxford studies in epistemology, Vol. 2 (pp. 32–62). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Frege, G. (1892). On Sinn and Bedeutung. In: M. Beaney (Ed.), The Frege reader (pp. 151–171). Oxford: Blackwell, 1997.

  6. Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition and logical form. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Geurts, B. (1999). Presuppositions and pronouns. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gillies, A. (2001). A new solution to Moore’s paradox. Philosophical Studies, 105, 237–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1990). Dynamic montague grammar. In L. Kálmám & L. Pólos (Eds.), Proceedings of the second symposion on logic and language (pp. 3–48). Budapest: Eötvös Loránd Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1990). Two theories of dynamic semantics. In J. van Eijk (Ed.), Lecture notes in artificial intelligence (Vol. 478, pp. 55–64). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1991). Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14, 39–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M., & Veltman, F. (1997). Coreference and modality. In S. Lappin (Ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory (pp. 179–214). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 1982. Published by Garland Press, 1988.

  14. Heim, I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In P. Portner & B. Partee (Eds.), Formal semantics – the essential readings (pp. 249–260). Oxford: Blackwell, 2002.

  15. Heim, I. (1990). Presupposition projection. In R. van der Sandt (Ed.), Presupposition, lexical meaning and discourse processes: Workshop reader. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Heim, I. (2008). Features on bound pronouns. In D. Harbor, D. Adger, & S. Bèjar (Eds.), Phi-theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces (pp. 35–57). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kadmon, N. (2001). Formal pragmatics - semantics, pragmatics, presupposition, and focus. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In: P. Portner & B. Partee (Eds.), Formal semantics - the essential readings (pp. 189-222). Oxford: Blackwell, 2002.

  19. Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Karttunen, L. (1973). Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry, 4, 169–193.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Karttunen, L. (1974). Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics, 1, 181–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Karttunen, L., & Peters, S. (1979). Conventional implicature. Syntax and Semantics, 11, 1–56.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Roberts, C. (2003). Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 287–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rooth, M. (1987). Letter to Irene Heim. (Unpublished personal communication cited in Heim, 1990)

  25. van der Sandt, R. (1992). Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics, 9, 333–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Schlenker, P. (2008). Be articulate! A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoretical Linguistics, 34, 157–212.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Schlenker, P. (2008). Local contexts. Semantics & Pragmatics, 2, 1–78.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Soames, S. (1989). Presupposition. In Gabbay & Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic, Vol. IV (pp. 553–616). Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Stalnaker, R. (1970). Pragmatics. In Context and content (pp. 31–46). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

  30. Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In Context and content (pp. 47–62). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

  31. Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In Context and content (pp. 78–95). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

  32. Stalnaker, R. (1998). On the representation of context. In Context and content (pp. 96–114). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

  33. Stalnaker, R. (1999). Introduction. In Context and content (pp. 1–28). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

  34. Stalnaker, R. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 701–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Stokke, A. (forthcoming). And and And*. Forthcoming in L. Goldstein (ed.), Be Brief, Oxford University Press.

  36. Strawson, P. (1950). On referring. Mind, 59, 320–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Veltman, F. (1996). Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25, 221–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Yalcin, S. (2007). Epistemic modals. Mind, 116(464), 983–1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Yalcin, S. (2011). Nonfactualism about epistemic modality. In A. Egan & B. Weatherson (Eds.), Epistemic modality (pp. 295–332). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LanCog, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

    Andreas Stokke

  2. CSMN, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Andreas Stokke

Authors
  1. Andreas Stokke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Stokke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stokke, A. Truth and Context Change. J Philos Logic 43, 33–51 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-012-9250-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-012-9250-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation