Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 151, Issue 1, pp 143–157 | Cite as

Responses to Stanley and Schlenker

  • Robert Stalnaker
Article

I am grateful to Jason Stanley and Philippe Schlenker for their careful exposition and penetrating criticisms of my work on intentionality, assertion and presupposition. I have learned a lot from both of them—from these papers as well as others, and from discussion over the years since each was a graduate student at MIT. Some of their points have led me to modify my views; others have shown the need for elaboration and clarification, which I will try to provide. I will begin with Stanley’s discussion of my general project, and then look at more specific issues, discussed by both Stanley and Schlenker, about the model of discourse that I have defended.

The problem of intentionality

Stanley characterizes my causal-pragmatic approach to the problem of intentionality as a version of “what is often called informational semantics”, which has as a goal “to provide a reduction of content bearing states to purely naturalistic notions by analyzing them as involving law-like, causal relations...

Keywords

Actual World Epistemic Possibility Singular Proposition Attitude Attribution Presupposition Projection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Dretske, F. (1979). Knowledge and the flow of information. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Lewis, D. (1979). Attitudes de dicto and de se. Philosophical Review, 88, 513–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Simons, M. (2001). On the conversational basis of some presuppositions. In R. Hastings, B. Jackson & Z. Zvolensky (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory 11. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Simons, M. (2005). Dividing things up: the semantics of or and the modal/or interaction. Natural Language Semantics, 13, 271–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Stalnaker, R. (1999). Context and content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Stalnaker, R. (2008). Our knowledge of the internal world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MIT Linguistics and PhilosophyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations