Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Formal semantics in the age of pragmatics

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper aims to argue for two related statements: first, that formal semantics should not be conceived of as interpreting natural language expressions in a single model (a very large one representing the world as a whole, or something like that) but as interpreting them in many different models (formal counterparts, say, of little fragments of reality); second, that accepting such a conception of formal semantics yields a better comprehension of the relation between semantics and pragmatics and of the role to be played by formal semantics in the general enterprise of understanding meaning. For this purpose, three kinds of arguments are given: firstly, empirical arguments showing that the many models approach is the most straightforward and natural way of giving a formal counterpart to natural language sentences. Secondly, logical arguments proving the logical impossibility of a single universal model. And thirdly, theoretical arguments to the effect that such a conception of formal semantics fits in a natural and fruitful way with pragmatic theories and facts. In passing, this conception will be shown to cast some new light on the old problems raised by liar and sorites paradoxes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ariel M. (2002) The demise of a unique concept of literal meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 361–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bach K. (2001) Speaking loosely: Sentence nonliterality. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 25: 249–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barba J. (1991) A multidimensional modal translation for a formal system motivated by Situation Semantics. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 32(4): 589–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barba J. (1992) Two formal systems for situation semantics. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 33(1): 70–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barba J. (1998) Construction of truth predicates: Approximation versus revision. The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 4(4): 399–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barwise J., Perry J. (1981) Situations and attitudes. Journal of Philosophy 77: 670–691

    Google Scholar 

  • Barwise J., Perry J. (1983) Situations and attitudes. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA and London

    Google Scholar 

  • Barwise J., Perry J. (1985) Shifting situations and shaken attitudes. Linguistics and Philosophy 8: 105–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berk L.A. (2004) The liar, context and logical form. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13: 267–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bezuidenhout A. (1997) Pragmatics, semantic underdetermination and the referential/attributive distinction. Mind 106: 375–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bezuidenhout A., Cutting C. (2002) Literal meaning, minimal propositions and pragmatic processing. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 433–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borg E. (2004a) Saying what you mean: Unarticulated constituents and communication. In: Elugardo R., Stainton R. (eds) Ellipsis and nonsentential speech. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 237–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Borg E. (2004b) Minimal semantics. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston R. (2002) Linguistic meaning, communicated meaning and cognitive pragmatics. Mind & Language 17(1–2): 127–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carston R. (2002a) Thoughts and utterances. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia G., McConnell-Ginet S. (1992) Meaning and grammar: An introduction to semantics. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowty D., Wall R., Peters S. (1981) Introduction to montague semantics. Reidel, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaifman H. (1992) Pointers to truth. Journal of Philosophy 89: 223–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamut L.T.F. (1991) Logic, language and meaning vol. 2: Intensional logic and logical grammar. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs R.W. Jr. (2002) A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 457–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giora R. (2002) Literal vs. figurative language: Different or equal? Journal of Pragmatics 34: 487–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grim P. (1991) The incomplete universe. Bradford, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Glanzberg M. (2004) A contextual-hierarchical approach to truth and the liar paradox. Journal of Philosophical Logic 33: 27–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks P., De Hoop H. (2001) Optimality theoretic semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 1–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Israel M. (2002) Literally speaking. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 423–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen T.M.V. (1997) Compositionality. In: Van Benthen J., Ter Meulen A. (eds) Handbook of logic and language. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 417–473

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, D. (1977). Demonstratives. In J. Almong, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press 1989.

  • King J.C., Stanley J. (2005) Semantics, pragmatics, and the role of semantic content. In: Szabó Z. (eds) Semantics vs. pragmatics.. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 111–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Koons R. (1992) Paradoxes of belief and strategic rationality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kripke S. (1975) Outline of a theory of truth. Journal of Philosophy 72: 690–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson C.S. (2000) Presumptive meanings. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R.L. (eds) (1984) Recent essays on truth and the liar paradox. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin R.L., Woodruff P. (1975) On representing ‘True–in–L’ in L. In: Martin R.L. (eds) Recent essays on truth and the liar paradox. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 47–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Montague R. (1974) Formal philosophy: Selected papers of Richard Montague. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Peregrin J. (1997) Language and its models: Is model theory a theory of semantics? Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic 2(1): 1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Peregrin J. (1999) Pragmatization of semantics. In: Turner K. (eds) The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 419–442

    Google Scholar 

  • Peregrin J. (2000) The ‘natural’ and the ‘formal’. Journal of Philosophical Logic 29: 75–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peregrin J. (2005) Is Compositionality an empirical matter? In: Werning M., Machery E., Schurz G. (eds) The compositionality of meaning and content. Ontos, Frankfurt, pp 135–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Recanati F. (2002) Unarticulated constituents. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 299–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Recanati F. (2004) Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Reimer M. (1998) Quantification and context. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 95–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro S. (2003) All sets great and small: And I do mean all. In: Hawthorne J., Zimmerman D. (eds) Language & philosophical linguistics, philosophical perspectives (Vol 17). Blackwell, London, pp 467–490

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheard M. (1994) A guide to truth predicates in the modern era. Journal of Symbolic Logic 59(3): 1032–1054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons K. (1993) Universality and the liar: An essay on truth and the diagonal argument. Cambridge U.P., Oxford and New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperber D., Wilson D. (1998) The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In: Carruthers P., Boucher J. (eds) Language and thought. Interdisciplinary themes. Cambridge U.P., Cambridge, pp 184–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley J., Szabó Z.G. (2000) On quantifier domain restriction. Mind and Language 15(2–3): 219–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szabó, Z. G. (2007 Spring). Compositionality. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, retrieved April 2008 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compositionality/.

  • Travis C. (1996) Meaning’s role in truth. Mind 105(419): 451–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Travis C. (2000) Unshadowed thought. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Travis C. (2006) Insensitive semantics. Mind & Language 21(1): 39–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vicente B. (2002) What pragmatics can tell us about (literal) meaning: A critical note on Bach’s theory of impliciture. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 403–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visser A. (1989) Semantics and the liar paradox. In: Gabbay D., Guenthner F. (eds) Handbook of philosophical logic vol. IV: Topics in the philosophy of language. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 617–706

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson T. (2003) Everything. In: Hawthorne J., Zimmerman D. (eds) Language & philosophical linguistics, philosophical perspectives (Vol. 17). Blackwell, London, pp 415–465

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Filosofía, Universidad de Valladolid, Plaza del Campus s/n, Valladolid, 47005, Spain

    Juan Barba

Authors
  1. Juan Barba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juan Barba.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barba, J. Formal semantics in the age of pragmatics. Linguist and Philos 30, 637–668 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9031-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9031-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation