Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Semantics and the objects of assertion


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.

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


  1. Anand, P. (2006). De de se. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.

  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, NY

  3. Austin J.L. (1971) Philosophical papers (2nd Edn.). Clarendon Press, Oxford

  4. Cappelen H., Hawthorne J. (2009) Relativism and monadic truth. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  5. Cresswell M.J. (1990) Entities and indices. Kluwer, Dordrecht

  6. Dowty D. (1982) Tenses, time adverbs, and compositional semantic theory. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 23–55

  7. Dummett M. (1991) The logical basis of metaphysics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

  8. Egan A., Hawthorne J., Weatherson B. (2005) Epistemic modals in context. In: Preyer G., Peter G. (eds) Contextualism in philosophy. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  9. Heim, I. (2004). Lectures notes on indexicality. Notes for class taught at MIT.

  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, Oxford

  11. Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, Oxford

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

  13. King J.C. (2003) Tense, modality, and semantic values. Philosophical Perspectives 17: 195–245

  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, NY

  15. Kratzer A. (2009) Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 187–237

  16. Kusumoto, K. (1999). Tense in embedded contexts. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  17. Kusumoto K. (2005) On the quantification over times in natural language. Natural Language Semantics 13: 317–357

  18. Lasersohn P. (1999) Pragmatic halos. Language 75: 522–551

  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.)

  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.)

  21. MacFarlane J. (2003) Future contingents and relative truth. The Philosophical Quarterly 53: 321–336

  22. MacFarlane J. (2009) Nonindexical Contextualism. Synthese 166: 231–250

  23. Ninan D. (2010) De se attitudes: Ascription and communication. Philosophy Compass 5: 551–567

  24. Partee B. (1973) Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy 70: 601–609

  25. Percus O. (2000) Constraints on some other variables in syntax. Natural Language Semantics 8: 173–229

  26. Portner P. (2009) Modality. Oxford University Press, New York

  27. Prior A.N. (1968) Papers on time and tense. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  28. Recanati F. (2004) Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  29. Recanati F. (2007) Perspectival thought: A plea for (moderate) relativism. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  30. Richard M. (1982) Tense, propositions, and meanings. Philosophical Studies 41: 337–351

  31. Schaffer, J. (forthcoming a). Necessitarian propositions. Synthese.

  32. Schaffer, J. (forthcoming b). Perspective in taste predicates and epistemic modals. In A. Egan & B. Weatherson (Eds.), Epistemic modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  33. Schlenker, P. (1999). Propositional attitudes and indexicality: A cross-categorial approach. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.

  34. Schlenker P. (2003) A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 29–120

  35. Schlenker P. (2004) Person and binding (a partial survey). Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica 16: 155–218

  36. Schlenker P. (2006) Ontological symmetry in language: A brief manifesto. Mind and Language 21: 504–539

  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.)

  38. Stanley J. (1997a) Names and rigid designation. In: Hale B., Wright C. (eds) A companion to philosophy of language. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford

  39. Stanley J. (1997b) Rigidity and content. In: R. Heck (Ed.) Language, thought, and logic. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 131–156

  40. Stanley J. (2000) Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 391–434

  41. Stanley J. (2002) Modality and what is said. Philosophical Perspectives 16: 321–344

  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.)

  43. Stephenson T. (2007) Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 487–525

  44. Stone, M. (1997). The anaphoric parallel between modality and tense. Technical report, University of Pennsylvania.

  45. von Stechow, A. (2002). Binding by verbs: Tense, person and mood under attitudes. Unpublished manuscript.

  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.

  47. Weatherson B. (2008) Attitudes and relativism. Philosophical Perspectives 22: 527–544

  48. Williamson T. (2000) Knowledge and its limits. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  49. Yalcin S. (2007) Epistemic modals. Mind 116: 983–1026

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Dilip Ninan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ninan, D. Semantics and the objects of assertion. Linguist and Philos 33, 355–380 (2010).

Download citation


  • Kaplan
  • Lewis
  • Content
  • Context
  • Semantics
  • Epistemic modals
  • Relativism
  • Contextualism
  • Temporalism