Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 165, Issue 3, pp 373–384 | Cite as

On the semantics/pragmatics distinction

  • Brendan S. GillonEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper addresses two questions: what is the distinction between semantics and pragmatics? And why is this distinction important? These questions are discussed in light of the central explanatory goal of linguistics and in relation to the phenomenon of context sensitivity, as illustrated by relational words with implicit arguments and by so-called quantifier domain restriction. It is concluded that context sensitivity is, in the former case, grammatical or lexical and, in the latter case, neither.

Keywords

Ambiguity Anaphora Circumstance of utterance Circumstance of evaluation Context sensitivity Co-text Deixis Implicit argument Pragmatics Quantifier domain restriction Quantified noun phrases Relational word Semantics Underspecification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bach K. (1994). What is said and more. In Tsohatzidis S.L. (ed). Foundations of speech act theory: Philosophical and linguistic perspectives. London, Routledge, pp. 267–291Google Scholar
  2. Bach K. (2005). Context ex machina. In Szabo Z. (ed). Semantics vs. pragmatics. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 15–44Google Scholar
  3. Bach, K. (2007). Regressions in pragmatics (and semantics). In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Advances in pragmatics. England: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Bar-Hillel Y. (1954). Indexical expressions. Mind 63: 359–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bühler K. (1934). Sprachtheorie. Jena, FisherGoogle Scholar
  6. Burks A.W. (1949). Icon, index and symbol. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 9: 673–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cresswell M.J. (1973). Logics and languages. London, Methuen and Co.Google Scholar
  8. Fillmore, C. (1971). Lectures on deixis. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information, reprint 1997.Google Scholar
  9. Fillmore C. (1986). Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 12: 95–107Google Scholar
  10. Frei H. (1944). Systèmes de déictiques. Acta Linguistica 4: 111–129Google Scholar
  11. Geach P. (1962). Reference and generality. Ithaca, Cornell University PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Gillon B. (2004). Ambiguity, indeterminacy, deixis vagueness: Evidence and theory. In Davis S., Gillon B. (eds). Semantics: A reader. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 157–187Google Scholar
  13. Gillon, B. (2006). English relational words, context sensitivity and implicit arguments. http://semanticsarchine.net.Google Scholar
  14. Gillon, B. (to appear). French relational words, context sensitivity and implicit arguments. In K. Turner (Ed.), Making semantics pragmatic. Elsevier Science: Oxford, England.Google Scholar
  15. Kaplan D. (1977). Demonstratives. In Davis S., Gillon B. (eds). Semantics: A reader. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 749–799Google Scholar
  16. Lewis D. (1972). General semantics. In Davidson D., Harman G. (eds). Semantics of natural language. Dordrecht, D. Reidel Publishing, pp. 169–218Google Scholar
  17. Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 339–359. (Also in S. Davis & B. Gillon (Eds.), Semantics: A reader (pp. 803–816). Oxford: Oxford University Press.)Google Scholar
  18. Lyons J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  19. Montague R. (1968). Pragmatics. In Klibansky R. (ed). Contemporary philosophy. Florence, La Nuova Italian Editrice, pp. 102–121Google Scholar
  20. Partee, B. (1989). Binding implicit variables in quantified contexts. Papers from twenty-fifth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 342–365.Google Scholar
  21. Quine W.V.O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA, The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  22. Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., Svartik J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the english language. London, LongmanGoogle Scholar
  23. Reichenbach H. (1947). Elements of symbolic logic. London, MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  24. Stanley J., Williamson T. (1995). Quantifiers and context dependence. Analysis 55: 291–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Strawson P. (1952). Introduction to logical theory. London, MethuenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations