, Volume 165, Issue 3, pp 359–371 | Cite as

Zero tolerance for pragmatics

  • Christopher Gauker


The proposition expressed by a sentence is relative to a context. But what determines the content of the context? Many theorists would include among these determinants aspects of the speaker’s intention in speaking. My thesis is that, on the contrary, the determinants of the context never include the speaker’s intention. My argument for this thesis turns on a consideration of the role that the concept of proposition expressed in context is supposed to play in a theory of linguistic communication. To illustrate an alternative approach, I present an original theory of the reference of demonstratives according to which the referent of a demonstrative is the object that adequately and best satisfies certain accessibility criteria. Although I call my thesis zero tolerance for pragmatics, it is not an expression of intolerance for everything that might be called “pragmatics.”


Semantics Pragmatics Speaker Intentions Demonstratives Normativity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bach K. (2005). Context ex Machina. In Z. Szabó (Ed.), Semantics versus pragmatics (pp. 15–44). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Corazza E., Fish W., Gorvett J. (2002). Who is I?. Philosophical Studies 107: 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gauker, C. (1994). Thinking out loud: An essay on the relation between thought and language. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Gauker C. (2001). Situated inference versus conversational implicature. Noûs 35: 163–189Google Scholar
  6. Gauker, C. (2003a). Social externalism and linguistic communication. In M. Frapolli & E. Romero (Eds.), Meaning, basic self-knowledge, and mind (pp. 1–33). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Gauker, C. (2003b). Words without meaning. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gauker, C. (2005a). Conditionals in context. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gauker C. (2005b). The belief-desire law. Facta Philosophica 7: 121–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gauker, C. (forthcoming). The circle of deference proves the normativity of semantics. Rivista di Estetica.Google Scholar
  11. Gorvett J. (2005). Back through the looking glass: On the relationship between intentions and indexicals. Philosophical Studies 124: 295–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hendriks P., de Hoop H. (2001). Optimality theoretic semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. King, J., & Stanley, J. (2005). Semantics, pragmatics and the role of semantic content. In Z. Szabó (Ed.), Semantics versus pragmatics (pp. 111–164). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. McGinn C. (1981). The mechanism of reference. Synthese 49: 157–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nichols, S., & Stich, S. (2003). Mindreading: An integrated account of pretence, self-awareness, and understanding other minds. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Pettit, P. (1991). Decision theory and folk psychology. In M. Bacharach & S. Hurley (Eds.), Foundations of decision theory (pp. 147–175). Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. Predelli S. (1998). Utterance, interpretation and the logic of indexicals. Mind and Language 13: 400–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Predelli S. (2002). Intentionals, indexicals and communication. Analysis 62: 310–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Romdenh-Romluc K. (2005). I. Philosophical Studies 128: 257–283Google Scholar
  22. Stalnaker R. (1968). A theory of conditionals. In Rescher N. (ed). Studies in Logical Theory, American Philosophical Quarterly Monograph Series, no. 2. Basil, Blackwell, pp. 98–112Google Scholar
  23. Wettstein H. (1984). How to bridge the gap between meaning and reference. Synthese 58: 63–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations