Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 33, Issue 5, pp 355–380

Semantics and the objects of assertion

Research Article

Abstract

This paper is about the relationship between two questions: the question of what the objects of assertion are and the question of how best to theorise about ‘shifty’ phenomena like modality and tense. I argue that the relationship between these two questions is less direct than is often supposed. I then explore the consequences of this for a number of debates in the philosophy of language.

Keywords

Kaplan Lewis Content Context Semantics Epistemic modals Relativism Contextualism Temporalism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anand, P. (2006). De de se. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  2. Anand P., Nevins A. (2004) Shifty operators in changing contexts. In: Young R.B. (Ed.) Proceedings from semantics and linguistic theory XIV. Cornell University, CLC Publications, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin J.L. (1971) Philosophical papers (2nd Edn.). Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Cappelen H., Hawthorne J. (2009) Relativism and monadic truth. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cresswell M.J. (1990) Entities and indices. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  6. Dowty D. (1982) Tenses, time adverbs, and compositional semantic theory. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 23–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dummett M. (1991) The logical basis of metaphysics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  8. Egan A., Hawthorne J., Weatherson B. (2005) Epistemic modals in context. In: Preyer G., Peter G. (eds) Contextualism in philosophy. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Heim, I. (2004). Lectures notes on indexicality. Notes for class taught at MIT.Google Scholar
  10. Heim I. (2008) Features on bound pronouns. In: Harbour D., Adger D., Béjar S. (eds) Phi-theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Kaplan D. (1989) Demonstratives. In: Almog J., Perry J., Wettstein H. (eds) Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 481–563Google Scholar
  13. King J.C. (2003) Tense, modality, and semantic values. Philosophical Perspectives 17: 195–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kratzer A. (1998) More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. In: Strolovitch D., Lawson A. (eds) Proceedings from semantics and linguistic theory VIII. Cornell University, CLC Publications, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  15. Kratzer A. (2009) Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 187–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kusumoto, K. (1999). Tense in embedded contexts. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  17. Kusumoto K. (2005) On the quantification over times in natural language. Natural Language Semantics 13: 317–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lasersohn P. (1999) Pragmatic halos. Language 75: 522–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lewis, D. K. (1979). Attitudes de dicto and de se. Philosophical Review, 88, 513–543. (Reprinted in Lewis, D. K. (1983). Philosophical papers (Vol. I, pp. 133–159). New York: Oxford University Press.)Google Scholar
  20. Lewis, D. K. (1980). Index, context, and content. In S. Kanger & S. Öhman (Eds.), Philosophy and grammar (pp. 79–100). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. (Reprinted in Lewis, D. K. (1998). Papers in philosophical logic (pp. 21–44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.)Google Scholar
  21. MacFarlane J. (2003) Future contingents and relative truth. The Philosophical Quarterly 53: 321–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MacFarlane J. (2009) Nonindexical Contextualism. Synthese 166: 231–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ninan D. (2010) De se attitudes: Ascription and communication. Philosophy Compass 5: 551–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Partee B. (1973) Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy 70: 601–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Percus O. (2000) Constraints on some other variables in syntax. Natural Language Semantics 8: 173–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Portner P. (2009) Modality. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Prior A.N. (1968) Papers on time and tense. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Recanati F. (2004) Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Recanati F. (2007) Perspectival thought: A plea for (moderate) relativism. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Richard M. (1982) Tense, propositions, and meanings. Philosophical Studies 41: 337–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schaffer, J. (forthcoming a). Necessitarian propositions. Synthese.Google Scholar
  32. Schaffer, J. (forthcoming b). Perspective in taste predicates and epistemic modals. In A. Egan & B. Weatherson (Eds.), Epistemic modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Schlenker, P. (1999). Propositional attitudes and indexicality: A cross-categorial approach. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  34. Schlenker P. (2003) A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 29–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schlenker P. (2004) Person and binding (a partial survey). Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica 16: 155–218Google Scholar
  36. Schlenker P. (2006) Ontological symmetry in language: A brief manifesto. Mind and Language 21: 504–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics (pp. 315–332). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in Schlenker, P. (1999). Context and content (pp. 78–95). New York: Oxford University Press.)Google Scholar
  38. Stanley J. (1997a) Names and rigid designation. In: Hale B., Wright C. (eds) A companion to philosophy of language. Blackwell Publishers, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  39. Stanley J. (1997b) Rigidity and content. In: R. Heck (Ed.) Language, thought, and logic. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 131–156Google Scholar
  40. Stanley J. (2000) Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 391–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stanley J. (2002) Modality and what is said. Philosophical Perspectives 16: 321–344Google Scholar
  42. Stanley, J. (2005). Review of François Recanati, literal meaning. In Notre Dame philosophical reviews. (Reprinted in Stanley, J. (2007). Language in context (pp. 231–247). Oxford: Clarendon Press.)Google Scholar
  43. Stephenson T. (2007) Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 487–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stone, M. (1997). The anaphoric parallel between modality and tense. Technical report, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  45. von Stechow, A. (2002). Binding by verbs: Tense, person and mood under attitudes. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  46. von Stechow, A. (2003). Feature deletion under semantic binding: Tense, person, and mood under verbal quantifiers. In M. Kadawaki & S. Kawahara (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS (Vol. 33, pp. 379–404). Charleston: BookSurge Publishing.Google Scholar
  47. Weatherson B. (2008) Attitudes and relativism. Philosophical Perspectives 22: 527–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Williamson T. (2000) Knowledge and its limits. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  49. Yalcin S. (2007) Epistemic modals. Mind 116: 983–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arché, University of St AndrewsSt AndrewsScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations