Advertisement

Occasion-sensitive semantics for objective predicates

  • Tamara DoblerEmail author
Open Access
Article

Abstract

In this paper I propose a partition semantics (Groenendijk and Stokhof in Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers, Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, 1984) for sentences containing objective predicates that takes into account the phenomenon of occasion-sensitivity associated with so-called Travis cases (Travis in Occasion-sensitivity: Selected essays, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008). The key idea is that the set of worlds in which a sentence is true has a more complex structure as a result of different ways in which it is made true. Different ways may have different capacities to support the attainment of a contextually salient domain goal. I suggest that goal-conduciveness decides whether some utterance of a sentence is accepted as true on a particular occasion at a given world. The utterance will not be accepted as true at a world which belongs to a truth-maker which is less conducive to a contextually salient goal than other truth-makers. Finally, the proposed occasion-sensitive semantics is applied to some cases of disagreement and cancellability.

Keywords

Occasion-sensitivity Travis cases Partition semantics Truth-makers Domain goals Disagreement 

Notes

References

  1. Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borg, E. (2004). Minimal semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borg, E. (2012). Pursuing meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2005). Insensitive semantics: A defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chomsky, N. (2000). New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2013). Inquisitive semantics: A new notion of meaning. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(9), 459–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2015). On the semantics and logic of declaratives and interrogatives. Synthese, 192(6), 1689–1728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ciardelli, I. A., & Roelofsen, F. (2015). Inquisitive dynamic epistemic logic. Synthese, 192(6), 1643–1687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coppock, E. (2018). Outlook-based semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 41(2), 125–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davies, A. (2017). Elaboration and intuitions about disagreement. Philosophical Studies, 174(4), 861–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Sa, D. L. (2015). Expressing disagreement: A presuppositional indexical contextualist relativist account. Erkenntnis, 80(1), 153–165.Google Scholar
  13. Geurts, B. (1998). The mechanisms of denial. Language, 74(2), 274–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giberman, D. (2016). Moving parts: A new indexical treatment of context-shifting predication. Synthese, 193(1), 95–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Groenendijk, J., & Roelofson, F. (2009). Inquisitive semantics and pragmatics. Paper presented at the Workshop on Language, Communication, and Rational Agency, Stanford, May 30–31, 2009. http://www.illc.uva.nl/inquisitive-semantics.
  16. Groenendijk, J. & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  17. Hawke, P. (2017). Theories of aboutness. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 96, 1–27.Google Scholar
  18. Huvenes, T. T. (2012). Varieties of disagreement and predicates of taste. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 90(1), 167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huvenes, T. T. (2014). Disagreement without error. Erkenntnis, 79(1), 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 483–540). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kelley, J. L. (2017). General topology. New York: Courier Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. (2010). Color, context, and compositionality. Synthese, 174(1), 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kölbel, M. (2004). Faultless disagreement. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian society (Vol. 104, pp. 53–73). Oxford: The Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lasersohn, P. (2005). Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and philosophy, 28(6), 643–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. MacFarlane, J. (2014). Assessment sensitivity: Relative truth and its applications. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moravcsik, J. (1994). Is snow white? In P. Humprey (Ed.), Patrick Suppes: Scientific philosopher (Vol. 3, pp. 71–87). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pagin, P. (2005). Compositionality and context. In G. Preyer & G. Peter (Eds.), Contextualism in philosophy: Knowledge, meaning, and truth (pp. 303–348). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Pagin, P. & Pelletier, J. (2007). Content, context and composition. In G. Preyer & G. Peter (Eds.) Context-sensitivity and semantic minimalism: Essays on semantics and pragmatics (pp. 25–62). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Pietroski, P. (2005). Meaning before truth. In G. Preyer & G. Peter (Eds.), Contextualism in philosophy: Knowledge, meaning, and truth (pp. 253–299). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Recanati, F. (2010). Truth-conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In J.-H. Yoon & A. Kathol (Eds.), Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics (Vol. 49, pp. 91–136). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Roberts, C. (2012). Information structure: Afterword. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5(7), 1–19.Google Scholar
  34. Rothschild, D., & Segal, G. (2009). Indexical predicates. Mind & Language, 24(4), 467–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schoubye, A. J., & Stokke, A. (2015). What is said? Noûs, 50(4), 759–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Searle, J.R. (1980). The background of meaning. In: J.R. Searle, F. Kiefer & M. Bierwisch (Eds.), Speech act theory and pragmatics. Texts and studies in linguistics and philosophy (Vol. 10, pp. 221–232). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Stojanovic, I. (2007). Talking about taste: Disagreement, implicit arguments, and relative truth. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(6), 691–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sundell, T. (2011). Disagreements about taste. Philosophical Studies, 155(2), 267–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Travis, C. (1978). Meaning versus truth. Dialogue, 17(03), 401–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Travis, C. (2000). Unshadowed thought: Representation in thought and language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Travis, C. (2008). Occasion-sensitivity: Selected essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Travis, C. (2009). Thought’s footing: A theme in Wittgenstein’s philosophical investigations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Van Rooy, R. (2003). Questioning to resolve decision problems. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26(6), 727–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vicente, A. (2012). On travis cases. Linguistics and Philosophy, 35(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Von Fintel, K., & Gillies, A. S. (2008). CIA leaks. Philosophical Review, 117(1), 77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yablo, S. (2014). Aboutness. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Yablo, S. (2017). Precis of aboutness. Philosophical Studies, 174(3), 771–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zeman, D. (2017). Contextualist answers to the challenge from disagreement. Phenomenology and Mind, 12, 62–73.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Logic, Language and ComputationUniversiteit van AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations