Philosophical Studies

, Volume 173, Issue 2, pp 525–546 | Cite as

The reformulation argument: reining in Gricean pragmatics



A semantic theory aims to make predictions that are accurate and comprehensive. Sometimes, though, a semantic theory falls short of this aim, and there is a mismatch between prediction and data. In such cases, defenders of the semantic theory often attempt to rescue it by appealing to Gricean pragmatics. The hope is that we can rescue the theory as long as we can use pragmatics to explain away its predictive failures. This pragmatic rescue strategy is one of the most popular moves in philosophy of language, philosophical logic, and formal semantics. In this paper I argue that this strategy fails whenever the predictive failures at issue can be recast in epistemological or metaphysical terms. This general “reformulation argument” undermines a wide variety of pragmatic rescue attempts.


Pragmatics Gricean pragmatics Semantics/pragmatics distinction 


  1. Aloni, M., & van Rooij, R. (2007). Free choice items and alternatives. In G. Bouma, I. Krämer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation. Amsterdam: Edita KNAW.Google Scholar
  2. Alonso-Ovalle, L. (2006). Disjunction in alternative semantics. University of Massachusetts at Amherst Dissertation.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, J. (2003). A philosophical guide to conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond (pp. 39–103). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chierchia, G. (2006). Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language. Linguistic Inquiry, 37(4), 535–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Douven, I. (2012). The pragmatics of belief. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edgington, D. (1995). On conditionals. Mind, 104(414), 235–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fox, D. (2007). Free choice permission and the theory of scalar implicatures. In U. Sauerland & P. Stateva (Eds.), Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics. Palgrave studies in pragmatics, language and cognition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Geurts, B. (2010). Quantity implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gillies, A. (2004). Epistemic conditionals and conditional epistemics. Nous, 38, 585–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Green, M. (1995). Quantity, volubility, and some varieties of discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, 18, 83–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). New York: Speech Acts, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Harman, G. (1986). Change in view: Principles of reasoning. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kamp, H. (1973). Free choice permission. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 74, 57–74.Google Scholar
  16. King, J., & Stanley, J. (2005). Semantics, pragmatics, and the role of semantic content. In Z. G. Szabo (Ed.), Semantics versus Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Klinedinst, N. (2007). Plurals, possibilities, and conjunctive disjunction. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 19, 261–284.Google Scholar
  18. Kratzer, A., & Shimoyama, J. (2002). Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Y. Otsu (Ed.), The proceedings of the third Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics (pp. 1–25). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
  19. Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals. London: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Loewer, B. (1976). Counterfactuals with disjunctive antecedents. Journal of Philosophy, 73, 531–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Machery, E., Mallon, R., Nichols, S., & Stich, S. P. (2004). Semantics, cross-cultural style. Cognition, 92, B1–B12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nichols, S., & Knobe, J. (2007). Moral responsibility and determinism: The cognitive science of folk intuitions. Nous, 41, 663–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ross, A. (1941). Imperatives and logic. Theoria, 7, 53–71.Google Scholar
  24. Sadock, J. (1978). On testing for conversational implicature. In P. Cole (Ed.), Pragmatics, syntax and semantics (Vol. 9, pp. 281–297). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Schulz, K. (2005). A pragmatic solution for the paradox of free choice permission. Synthese, 147(2), 343–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Speaks, J. (2008). Conversational implicature, thought, and communication. Mind and Language, 23(1), 487–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stalnaker, R. (1968). A theory of conditionals. In N. Rescher (Ed.), Studies in logical theory. American philosophical quarterly monograph series (Vol. 2, pp. 98–112). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  28. Swain, S., Alexander, J., & Weinberg, J. M. (2008). The instability of philosophical intuitions: Running hot and cold on truetemp. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 76(1), 138–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. van Benthem, J. (1996). Exploring logical dynamics. Stanford, CA: Center for the Stanford, Study of Language and Information (CSLI) Publications.Google Scholar
  30. von Fintel, K. (2012). The best we can (expect to) get? Challenges to the classic semantics for deontic modals. Presented in a session on Deontic Modals at the Central APA, February 17, 2012.Google Scholar
  31. von Wright, G. H. (1951). Deontic logic. Mind, 60(237), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Weinberg, J. M., Nichols, S., & Stich, S. (2001). Normativity and epistemic intuitions. Philosophical Topics, 29(1), 429–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zimmerman, T. E. (2000). Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics, 8, 255–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentThe University of OklahomaNormanUSA

Personalised recommendations