Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 170, Issue 1, pp 155–167 | Cite as

A plea for pragmatics

Article

Abstract

Let intentionalism be the view that what proposition is expressed in context by a sentence containing indexicals depends on the speaker’s intentions. It has recently been argued that intentionalism makes communicative success mysterious and that there are counterexamples to the intentionalist view in the form of cases of mismatch between the intended interpretation and the intuitively correct interpretation. In this paper, I argue that these objections can be met, once we acknowledge that we may distinguish what determines the correct interpretation from the evidence that is available to the audience, as well as from the standards by which we judge whether or not a given interpretation is reasonable. With these distinctions in place, we see that intentionalism does not render communicative success mysterious, and that cases of mismatch between the intended interpretation and the intuitively correct one can easily be accommodated. The distinction is also useful in treating the Humpty Dumpty problem for intentionalism, since it turns out that this can be treated as an extreme special case of mismatch.

Keywords

Semantics Pragmatics Speaker intentions Indexicals Interpretation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bach K. (1992) Paving the road to reference. Philosophical Studies 67: 295–300. doi: 10.1007/BF00354541 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Corazza E., Fish W., Gorvett J. (2002) Who is I?. Philosophical Studies 107: 1–21. doi: 10.1023/A:1013111419036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gauker, C. (2007). Zero tolerance for pragmatics. Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-007-9189-2.
  4. Gorvett J. (2005) Back through the looking glass: On the relationship between intentions and indexicals. Philosophical Studies 124: 295–312. doi: 10.1007/s11098-005-7780-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Predelli S. (1998a) Utterance, interpretation, and the logic of indexicals. Mind and Language 13: 400–414. doi: 10.1111/1468-0017.00083 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Predelli S. (1998) I am not here now. Analysis 58: 107–15. doi: 10.1111/1467-8284.00110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Predelli S. (2002) Intentions, indexicals and communication. Analysis 62: 310–316. doi: 10.1111/1467-8284.00376 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Reimer M. (1991) Demonstratives, demonstrations, and demonstrata. Philosophical Studies 63: 187–202. doi: 10.1007/BF00381687 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations