Advertisement

Topoi

pp 1–23 | Cite as

Communication and Variance

  • Martín Abreu ZavaletaEmail author
Article

Abstract

According to standard assumptions in semantics, (a) ordinary users of a language have implicit beliefs about the truth-conditions of sentences in that language, and (b) they often agree on those beliefs. For example, it is assumed that if Anna and John are both competent users of English and the former utters ‘grass is green’ in conversation with the latter, they will both believe that that sentence is true if and only if grass is green. These assumptions play an important role in an intuitively compelling picture of communication, according to which successful communication through literal assertoric utterances is normally effected thanks to our shared beliefs about the truth-conditions of the sentences uttered in the course of the conversation. Against these standard assumptions, this paper argues that the participants in a conversation rarely have the same beliefs about the truth-conditions of the sentences involved in a linguistic interaction. More precisely, it argues for Variance, the thesis that nearly every utterance is such that there is no proposition which more than one language user believes to be that utterance’s truth-conditional content. If Variance is true, we must reject the standard picture of communication. Towards the end of the paper I identify three ways in which ordinary conversations can be communication-like despite the truth of Variance and argue that the most natural amendments to the standard picture fail to explain them.

Keywords

Communication Truth-conditional content Metalinguistic negotiation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Ben Holguín, Ian Grubb, Rose Flinn, Tienmu Ma, Chris Scambler, and two anonymous reviewers for very helpful comments. For helpful discussion, thanks to audiences at Institut d’Études Avancées de Paris, New York University, The New School for Social Research, and Università degli Studi di Torino. Thanks especially to Cian Dorr, James Pryor, Stephen Schiffer, and Erica Shumener for their insightful feedback on serveral drafts of this paper.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The author (Martín Abreu Zavaleta) declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the author.

References

  1. Abreu Zavaleta M (2018) Semantic variance. Ph.D, thesis, New York UniversityGoogle Scholar
  2. Bach K, Harnish R (1979) Linguistic communication and speech acts. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. Barker C (2002) The dynamics of vagueness. Linguist Philos 25(1):1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buchanan R (2010) A puzzle about meaning and communication. Noûs 44(2):340–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burge T (1979) Individualism and the mental. Midwest Stud Philos 4(1):73–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burge T (1986) Intellectual norms and foundations of mind. J Philos 83(December):697–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cappelen H, Lepore E (2005) Insensitive semantics: a defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. Wiley-Blackwell, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cresswell MJ (1977) The semantics of degree. In: Partee B (ed) Montague grammar. Academic Press, New York, pp 261–292Google Scholar
  9. Dorr C, Hawthorne J (2014) Semantic plasticity and speech reports. Philos Rev 123(3):281–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dummett M (2010) Language and communication. In: Byrne D, Kölbel M (eds) Arguing about language. Routledge, NewYorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Evans G (1982) Varieties of reference. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Field H (1978) Mental representation. Erkenntnis 13(July):9–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fine K (2012) Counterfactuals without possible worlds. J Philos 109(3):221–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fine K (2016) Angellic content. J Philos Log 45(2):199–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fine K (MS) Truthmaker semantics. https://www.academia.edu/10908756/survey_of_truthmaker_semantics. Accessed 25 Aug 2016
  16. Fodor JA (1983) The modularity of mind. MIT Press, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fodor JA (1987) Psychosemantics: the problem of meaning in the philosophy of mind. MIT Press, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grice HP (1989a) Meaning. In: Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  19. Grice HP (1989b) Utterer’s meaning and intention. In: Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  20. Gross S (2005) Context-sensitive truth-theoretic accounts of semantic competence. Mind Lang 20(1):68–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hawthorne J, Magidor O (2009) Assertion, context, and epistemic accessibility. Mind 118(470):377–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hawthorne J, Magidor O (2010) Assertion and epistemic opacity. Mind 119(476):1087–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heck R (2002) Do demonstratives have senses? Philos Impr 2(2):1–33Google Scholar
  24. Heim I (2000) Degree operators and scope. In: Jackson B, Matthews T (eds) Semantics and linguistic theory, vol 10. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, pp 40–64Google Scholar
  25. Heim I, Kratzer A (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Jackman H (2017) Meaning holism. In: EN Zalta (ed), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2017 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/meaning-holism/
  27. JBiz, et al (2010) How fast do you have to be going to count it as running? http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3576961. Accessed 27 July 2017
  28. Kaplan D (1989) Demonstratives. In: Almog J, Perry J, Wettstein H (eds) Themes from kaplan. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 481–563Google Scholar
  29. Kennedy C (2007) Vagueness and grammar: the semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguist Philos 30(1):1–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kennedy C, McNally L (2005) Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81:345–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Khoo J (2019) Quasi indexicals. Philos Phenomenol ResGoogle Scholar
  32. Khoo J, Knobe J (2016) Moral disagreement and moral semantics. Noûs 109–143Google Scholar
  33. King JC, Lewis KS (2017) Anaphora. In: EN Zalta (ed), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2017 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/anaphora/
  34. Landau B, Smith L, Jones S (1988) The importance of shape in early lexical learning. Cogn Dev 3(3):299–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Landau B, Smith L, Jones S (1998) Object shape, object function, and object name. J Mem Lang 38(1):1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Larson R, Segal G (1995) Knowledge of meaning: an introduction to semantic theory. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Lederman H (2019) Uncommon knowledge. Mind 127:1069Google Scholar
  38. Lewis D (1975) Languages and language. In: Gunderson K (ed) Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science. University of Minnesota Press, Minnesota, pp 3–35Google Scholar
  39. Lewis D (1979) Scorekeeping in a language game. J Philos Log 8(1):339–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lewis D (1983) New work for a theory of universals. Aust J Philos 61(December):343–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ludlow P (1995) Externalism, self-knowledge, and the prevalence of slow-switching. Analysis 55(1):45–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ludlow P (1997) On the relevance of slow switching. Analysis 57(4):285–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Markman EM (1990) Constraints children place on word meanings. Cogn Sci 14(1):57–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Markman EM, Hutchinson JE (1984) Children’s sensitivity to constraints on word meaning: taxonomic versus thematic relations. Cogn Psychol 16(1):1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pettit D (2002) Why knowledge is unnecessary for understanding language. Mind 111(443):519–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pollock J (2015) Social externalism and the problem of communication. Philos Stud 172(12):3229–3251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Portner P (2005) What is meaning?: Fundamentals of formal semantics. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  48. Putnam H (1975) The meaning of ’meaning’. Minn Stud Philos Sci 7:131–193Google Scholar
  49. Schiffer S (1972) Meaning. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  50. Schiffer S (1981a) Indexicals and the theory of reference. Synthese 49(1):43–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schiffer S (1981b) Truth and the theory of content. In: Parret H (ed) Meaning and understanding. Berlin, New York, pp 204–222Google Scholar
  52. Sider T (2011) Writing the book of the world. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stalnaker RC (1999a) Assertion. In: Context and content: essays on intentionality in speech and thought. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 78–95Google Scholar
  54. Stalnaker RC (1999b) Context and content: essays on intentionality in speech and thought. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stalnaker RC (1999c) Pragmatic presuppositions. In: Context and content: essays on intentionality in speech and thought. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 47–62Google Scholar
  56. Stalnaker RC (2009) On hawthorne and magidor on assertion, context, and epistemic accessibility. Mind 118(470):399–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Strawson PF (1964) Intention and convention in speech acts. Philos Rev 73(4):439–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Strawson PF (1970) Meaning and truth: an inaugural lecture delivered before the university of oxford on 5 november 1969. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  59. Sundell T (2011) Disagreements about taste. Philos Stud 155(2):267–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wikforss AM (2001) Social externalism and conceptual errors. Philos Q 51(203):217–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Williamson T (2007) The philosophy of philosophy. Blackwell, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yablo S (2014) Aboutness. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations