Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 351–374 | Cite as

Painted Leaves, Context, and Semantic Analysis

Article

Abstract

This essay aims at neutralizing the contextualist challenge against traditional semantics. According to contextualism, utterances of non-elliptical, non-ambiguous, and non-indexical sentences may be associated with contrasting truth-conditions. In this essay, I grant the contextualist analysis of the sentences in question, and the contextualist assessment of the truth-conditions for the corresponding utterances. I then argue that the resulting situation is by no means incompatible with the traditional approach to semantics, and that the evidence put forth by the contextualists may easily be taken into account by the customary treatment of natural languages.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barwise, J., Perry, J. 1983Situations and AttitudesMIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  2. Berg, J. 2002‘Is Semantics Still Possible?’Journal of Pragmatics.34349359Google Scholar
  3. Bezuidenhout, A.. 1997‘Pragmatics, semantic underdetermination and the referential/attributive distinction’Mind106375409MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Borg E. (2003). ‘How to Say What You Mean’. ManuscriptGoogle Scholar
  5. Carston, R.. 1988

    ‘Implicature, Explicature, and Truth-Theoretic Semantics’

    Kempson, R. eds. Mental Representations. The interface between language and realityCambridge University PressCambridge155181
    Google Scholar
  6. Dowty, D.R., Wall, R.E., Peters, S. 1981Introduction to Montague SemanticsD. Reidel Publishing CompanyDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  7. Kaplan, D. 1977

    ‘Demonstratives’

    Almog, J.Perry, J.Wettstein, H. eds. Themes From Kaplan.Oxford University PressOxford481563
    Google Scholar
  8. Lahav, R. 1985‘Against Compositionality’Philosophical Studies57261279Google Scholar
  9. Lewis D. (1979). ‘Scorekeeping in a Language Game’. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 339–359. Reprinted in D. Lewis, Philosophical Papers, Volume I, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1983Google Scholar
  10. Lewis D. (1980). ‘Index, Context, and Content’. In: Kanger S., Öhman S. (ed). Philosophy and Grammar, Reidel, Dordrecht. Reprinted in D. Lewis, Papers in Philosophical Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998Google Scholar
  11. Perry, J. 1997

    ‘Indexicals and Demonstratives’

    Hale, B.Wright, C. eds. A Companion to the Philosophy of LanguageBlackwell PublishersOxford
    Google Scholar
  12. Perry, J. 2001Reference and ReflexivityCSLI PublicationsStanfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Recanati F. (2003). Literal Meaning, ManuscriptGoogle Scholar
  14. Sainsbury, R.M. 2001‘Two Ways to Smoke a Cigarette’Ratio.14.4386406Google Scholar
  15. Searle, J. 1980

    ‘The Background of Meaning’

    Searle, J.R.Kiefer, F.Bierwisch, M. eds. Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics.Reidel Publishing CompanyDordrecht
    Google Scholar
  16. Sperber, D., Wilson, D. 1995Relevance. Communication and Cognition2Blackwell PublishersOxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Stalnaker R.C. (1978). ‘Assertion’. Syntax and Semantics 9. Academic Press, New York. Reprinted in R. C. Stalnaker, Context and Content. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999Google Scholar
  18. Stanley, J., Szabó, Z.G. 2000‘On Quantifier Domain Restriction’Mind and Language15219261Google Scholar
  19. Szabó, Z.G. 2001

    ‘Adjectives in Context’

    Kenesei, I.Harnish, R.M. eds. Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse, A Festshrift for Ferenc Kiefer.John BenjaminsAmsterdam
    Google Scholar
  20. Taylor, K.A. 2001‘Sex, Breakfast, and Descriptus-Interruptus’Synthese1284561Google Scholar
  21. Travis, C. 1985‘On What Is Strictly Speaking True’Canadian Journal of Philosophy.15187229Google Scholar
  22. Travis, C. 1996‘Meaning’s Role in Truth’Mind105451466Google Scholar
  23. Travis, C. 1997

    ‘Pragmatics’

    Hale, B.Wright, C. eds. A Companion to the Philosophy of Language.Blackwell PublishersOxford
    Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamEngland

Personalised recommendations