, Volume 175, Issue 3, pp 383–404 | Cite as

Intention-sensitive semantics

  • A. StokkeEmail author


A number of authors have argued that the fact that certain indexicals depend for their reference-determination on the speaker’s referential intentions demonstrates the inadequacy of associating such expressions with functions from contexts to referents (characters). By distinguishing between different uses to which the notion of context is put in these argument, I show that this line of argument fails. In the course of doing so, I develop a way of incorporating the role played by intentions into a character-based semantics for indexicals and I argue that the framework I prefer is superior to an alternative which has been proposed by others.


Indexicals Speaker intentions Context-sensitivity Semantics vs pragmatics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Austin J.L. (1962) How to do things with words. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Bach K. (1994) Thought and reference (2nd ed). Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Bach K. (1999) The semantics pragmatics distinction: What it is and why it matters. In: Turner K. (eds) The semantics–pragmatics interface from different points of view. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 65–84Google Scholar
  4. Bach K. (2002) Semantic, pragmatic. In: Campbell J.K., O’Rourke M., Shier D. (eds) Meaning and truth—investigations in philosophical semantics. Seven Bridges Press, New York, pp 284–292Google Scholar
  5. Bach K. (2005) Context ex machina. In: Szabó Z.G. (eds) Semantics versus pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 15–44Google Scholar
  6. Bach K. (2007) Reflections on reference and reflexivity. In: O’Rourke M., Washington C. (eds) Situating semantics: Essays on the philosophy of John Perry. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 395–424Google Scholar
  7. Borg E. (2004) Minimal semantics. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cappelen H. (2007) Semantics and pragamtics: Some central issues. In: Preyer G., Peter G. (eds) Context-sensitivity and semantic minimalism: New essays on semantics and pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–24Google Scholar
  9. Cappelen H., Lepore E. (2004) Insensitive semantics—a defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Carston R. (2002) Thoughts and utterances. Blackwell, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Corazza E., Fish W., Gorvett J. (2002) Who is I?. Philosophical Studies 107: 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davidson, D. (1974). Intending. In Essays on actions and events (pp. 83–102). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gauker, C. (2007). Zero tolerance for pragmatics. Synthese (Online First).Google Scholar
  14. Grice H. (1973) Intention and uncertainty. Proceedings of the British Academy 57: 263–279Google Scholar
  15. Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaplan D. (1977) Demonstratives. In: Almog J., Perry J., Wettstein H. (eds) Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 481–563Google Scholar
  17. King, J. C., & Stanley, J. (2005). Semantics, pragmatics, and the role of semantic content. In Language in context—selected essays (pp. 133–181). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  18. Larson R., Segal G. (1995) Knowledge of meaning: An introduction to semantic theory. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  19. Lewis D. (1970) General semantics. Synthese 22: 18–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lewis D. (1980) Index, context, and content. In: Kanger S., Öhman S. (eds) Philosophy and grammar. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, pp 79–100Google Scholar
  21. McGinn C. (1981) The mechanisms of reference. Synthese 49: 157–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Montague R. (1968) Pragmatics. In: Thomason R. (eds) Formal philosophy: Selected papers of Richard Montague. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 95–118Google Scholar
  23. Neale S. (2005) Pragmatics and binding. In: Szabó Z.G. (eds) Semantics versus pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 165–285Google Scholar
  24. Neale S. (2007) On location. In: O’Rourke M., Washington C. (eds) Situating semantics: Essays on the philosophy of John Perry. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 251–395Google Scholar
  25. Perry J. (2001) Reference and reflexivity. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  26. Perry J. (2006) Using indexicals. In: Devitt M., Hanley R. (eds) The Blackwell guide to philosophy of language. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 314–334Google Scholar
  27. Predelli S. (2005) Contexts—meaning, truth and the use of language. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Recanati F. (2004) Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Reimer M. (1991) Do demonstrations have semantic significance?. Analysis 51: 177–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schiffer S. (2005) Russell’s theory of definite descriptions. Mind 114: 1135–1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stanley J., Szabó, Z. G. (2000). On quantifier domain restriction. In Language in context—selected essays (pp. 69–110). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arché—Philosophical Research Centre, Department of Logic and MetaphysicsUniversity of St AndrewsSt AndrewsUK

Personalised recommendations