Skip to main content
Log in

Context and Logical Form

  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, I defend the thesis that alleffects of extra-linguistic context on the truth-conditions of an assertion are traceable to elements in the actual syntactic structure of the sentence uttered. In the first section, I develop the thesis in detail, and discuss its implications for the relation between semantics and pragmatics. The next two sections are devoted to apparent counterexamples. In the second section, I argue that there are no convincing examples of true non-sentential assertions. In the third section, I argue that there are no convincing examples of what John Perry has called ‘unarticulated constituents’. I conclude by drawing some consequences of my arguments for appeals to context-dependence in the resolution of problems in epistemology and philosophical logic.

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

Access this article

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

  • Ajdukiewicz, K.: 1967, ‘Syntactic Connexion’, in Storrs McCall (ed.), Polish Logic, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 207–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J.: 1970, How to Do Things With Words, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J: 1979, ‘Truth’, in J. L. Austin (ed.), Philosophical Papers, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 117–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, K.: 1982, ‘Semantic Nonspecificity and Mixed Quantifiers’, Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 593–605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, K.: 1994, ‘Conversational Impliciture’, Mind and Language 9, 124–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, K.: 1999, ‘The Semantics Pragmatics Distinction: What it is and Why it matters’, in Ken Turner (ed.), The Semantics-Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View, Oxford, Elsevier, pp. 65–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Hillel, Y.: 1954, ‘Indexical Expressions’, Mind 63, 359–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, C.: 1995, Possessive Descriptions, CSLI Publications, Stanford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton, E.: 1990, Nonsentential Constituents, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Benthem and Ter Meulen (eds.): 1997, Handbook of Logic & Language, MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn, W. K.: ‘Wettstein on Definite Descriptions’, Philosophical Studies 53, 263–78.

  • Burge, T.: 1979, ‘Semantical Paradox’, The Journal of Philosophy 76, 169–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston, R.: 1991, ‘Implicature, Explicature, and Truth-Theoretic Semantics’, in Stephen Davis (ed.), Pragmatics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 33–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassam, Q.: 1997, Self and World, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, G.: 1993, ‘Questions with Quantifiers’, Natural Language Semantics 1, 181–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, G.: 1995, Dynamics of Meaning, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N.: 1995, The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Deemter, K. and Peters, S. (eds.): 1996, Semantic Ambiguity and Underspecification, CSLI, Stanford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R.: 1996, ‘The Role of Situations in Generalized Quantifiers’, in Lappin (1996), pp. 65–86.

  • Cresswell, M.: 1973, Logics and Languages, Metheun, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, M.: 1996, Semantic Indexicality, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crimmins, M.: 1992, Talk about Beliefs, MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culicover, P. and R. Jackendoff: 1995, ‘ ‘Something else’ for the Binding Theory’, Linguistic Inquiry 26, 249–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeRose, K.: 1999, ‘Contextualism: An Explanation and Defense’, in John Greco and Ernest Sosa (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 187–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engdahl, E.: 1986, Constituent Questions, Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, G.: 1985, ‘Pronouns, Quantifiers, Relative Clauses (I)’, in Gareth Evans (ed.), Collected Papers, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 76–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiengo, R. and R. May: 1996, ‘Anaphora and Identity’, in Lappin (1996), pp. 117–44.

  • von Fintel, K.: 1994, Restrictions on Quantifier Domains, University of Massachusetts Dissertation.

  • Grice, Paul: 1989, ‘Logic and Conversation’, in Studies in the Way of Words, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp. 22–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harman, G.: 1972, ‘Deep Structure as Logical Form’, in D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. and A. Kratzer: 1998, Semantics in Generative Grammar, Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, J.: 1996, ‘Davidson's Program in Semantics’, in E. LePore (ed.), Truth and Interpretation: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 29–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, J.: 1993, ‘Interrogatives’, in K. Hale and S.J. Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Honor of Sylvan Bromberger, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 195–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, J.: ms. ‘A Plea for Implicit Anaphora’.

  • Hintikka, J. and G. Sandu: 1997, ‘Game Theoretical Semantics’, in van Benthem and Ter Meulen (1997), pp. 361–410.

  • Jacobson, P.: 1999, ‘Towards a Variable-Free Semantics’, Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 117–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, T.: 1997, ‘Compositionality’, in Van Benthem and Ter Meulen (1997), pp. 417–473.

  • Koopman H. and D. Sportiche: 1982/83, ‘Variables and the bijection principle’, The Linguistic Review 2, 139–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lappin, S. (ed.): 1996, The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Blackwell Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D.: 1983, ‘General Semantics’, in David Lewis (ed.), Philosophical Papers, Volume 1, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 189–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, R.: 1985, Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation, MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, J.: 1986, The Formal Semantics of Point of View, Unpublished University of Massachusetts Amherst Doctoral Dissertation.

  • Partee, B.: 1989, ‘Binding Implicit Variables in Quantified Contexts’, Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society 25, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 342–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, J.: 1986, ‘Thought without Representation’, in Supplementary Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 60, 137–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, J.: 1997, ‘Indexicals and Demonstratives’, in Hale and Wright (eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Language, Blackwell Press, Oxford, pp. 586–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, J.: 1998, ‘Indexicals, Contexts and Unarticulated Constituents’, in Aliseda, van Gabeek, and Westerståhl (eds.), Computing Natural Language, CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recanati, F.: 1993, Direct Reference, Blackwell Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, L: 1986, ‘Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of Pro’, Linguistic Inquiry 17, 501–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, B.: 1985, The Philosophy of Logical Atomism, Open Court, LaSalle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, N.: 1986, Frege's Puzzle, MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soames, S.: 1987, ‘Direct Reference, Propositional Attitudes, and Semantic Content’, in Philosophical Topics 14, 47–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soames, S.: 1986, ‘Incomplete Definite Descriptions’, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 27, 349–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, D. and D. Wilson: 1986, Relevance, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stainton, R.: 1994, ‘Using Non-Sentences: An Application of Relevance Theory’, Pragmatics and Cognition 2, 269–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stainton, R.: 1995, ‘Non-Sentential Assertions and Semantic Ellipsis’, Linguistics and Philosophy 18, 281–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stainton, R.: 1997, ‘Utterance Meaning and Syntactic Ellipsis’, in Pragmatics & Cognition 5, 51–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stainton, R.: 1998, ‘Quantifier Phrases, Meaningfulness ‘In Isolation’, and Ellipsis’, Linguistics and Philosophy 21, 311–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, R.: 1970, ‘Pragmatics’, Synthese 22, 272–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, J. and Z. Szabó: ‘On Quantifier Domain Restriction’, forthcoming in Mind and Language.

  • Szabolcsi, A.: 1989, ‘Bound Variables in Syntax (are there any?)’, in Bartsch, van Benthem, and van Emde Boas (eds.), Semantics and Contextual Expression, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 295–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varzi, A.: 1993, ‘Do We Need Functional Abstraction?’, in J. Czermak (ed.), Proceedings of the 15th International Wittgenstein-Symposium, H'older-Pickler-Tempsky, Vienna, pp. 407–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, E.: 1995, Thematic Structure in Syntax, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph Twenty Three, MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yanofsky, N.: “NP Utterances”, Papers from the Fourteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago, pp. 491–502.

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stanley, J. Context and Logical Form. Linguistics and Philosophy 23, 391–434 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005599312747

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005599312747

Keywords

Navigation