Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 174, Issue 3, pp 787–796 | Cite as

Yablo’s semantic machinery

  • Daniel Rothschild
Article
  • 442 Downloads

Abstract

Yablo’s Aboutness introduces powerful new set of tools for analyzing meaning. I compare his account of subject matter to the related ideas employed in the semantics literature on questions and focus. I then discuss two applications of subject matter: to presupposition triggering and to ascriptions of shared content.

Keywords

Definite descriptions Experimental pragmatics Presupposition Topics Verifiability 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to Kit Fine and Stephen Yablo for discussion.

References

  1. Abrusan, M. (2011). Predicting the presuppositions of soft triggers. Linguistics and Philosophy, 34, 491–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abusch, D. (2010). Presupposition triggering from alternatives. Journal of Semantics, 27(1), 37–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chemla, E. (2008). Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection, http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WI1ZTU3N/Chemla-SIandPres.html, unpublished manuscript, ENS
  4. Fine, K. (2012). Counterfactuals without possible worlds. The Journal of Philosophy, 109, 221–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fine, K. (2015a). A theory of truth-conditional content I, manuscript. New York: NYU.Google Scholar
  6. Fine, K. (2015b). A theory of truth-conditional content II, manuscript. New York: NYU.Google Scholar
  7. Fine, K. (forthcoming). Truthmaker semantics. In Blackwell Companion to the Philosophy of Language. BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  8. Grice, P. (1981). Presupposition and conversational implicature. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies in the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  10. Hamblin, C. (1958). Questions. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 36, 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hamblin, C. (1973). Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language, 10, 41–53.Google Scholar
  12. Karttunen, L. (1977). Syntax and semantics of questions. Lignuistics and Philosophy, 1, 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Križ, M. (2015). Aspects of homogeneity in the semantics of natural language. PhD thesis, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
  14. Lewis, D. (1988). Statements partly about observation. In Papers in philosophical logic, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49.Google Scholar
  16. Rooth, M. (1985). Association with focus. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  17. Rothschild, D. (2014). Capturing the relationship between conditionals and conditional probability with a trivalent semantics. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 24(1–2), 144–152. doi: 10.1080/11663081.2014.911535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schlenker, P. (2006). Transparency: An incremental theory of presupposition projection, manuscriptGoogle Scholar
  19. Soames, S. (1989). Presuppositions. In D. Gabbay & F. Guenther (Eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic (Vol. IV, pp. 553–616). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Spector, B. (2015). Multivalent semantics for vagueness and presupposition. Topoi, 35, 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In M. K. Munitz & D. K. Unger (Eds.), Semantics and philosophy (pp. 197–213). New York: NYU.Google Scholar
  22. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  23. Wilson, D. (1975). Presupposition and non-truth-conditional semantics. Cambridge: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations