Advertisement

Why horizontalism

  • Cameron Domenico Kirk-GianniniEmail author
Article

Abstract

Horizontalism is the thesis that what a speaker asserts in literally and sincerely uttering an indicative sentence is some horizontal proposition of her utterance; diagonalism is the thesis that what a speaker asserts in literally and sincerely uttering an indicative sentence is some diagonal proposition of her utterance. Recent work on assertion has reached no clear consensus favoring either horizontalism or diagonalism. I explore a novel strategy for adjudicating between the two views by considering the advantages and disadvantages which would accrue to a linguistic community as a result of adopting different committal practices—that is, practices of associating utterances with the propositions to which speakers undertake assertoric commitments in uttering them—ultimately concluding that a horizontalist practice has important advantages over its competitors.

Keywords

Pragmatics Speech act theory Assertion 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks are due to Elisabeth Camp, Jeffrey C. King, Ernie Lepore, Paul Pietroski, Jeffrey Sanford Russell, and two anonymous referees for helpful comments on various drafts of this paper. I am especially indebted to Andy Egan and John Hawthorne for their detailed and extensive feedback on multiple early drafts.

References

  1. Almotahari, M., & Glick, E. (2010). Context, content, and epistemic transparency. Mind, 119, 1067–1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Conan Doyle, A. (1902). The hound of the Baskervilles. New York: McClure, Phillips, and Company.Google Scholar
  3. Dummett, M. (1991). The logical basis of metaphysics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Grosz, P. G. (2012). On the grammar of optative constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hawthorne, J., & Magidor, O. (2009). Assertion, context, and epistemic accessibility. Mind, 118, 377–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hawthorne, J., & Magidor, O. (2010). Assertion and epistemic opacity. Mind, 119, 1087–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. King, J. C. (2014). The metasemantics of contextual sensitivity. In A. Burgess & B. Sherman (Eds.), Metasemantics: New essays on the foundations of meaning (pp. 97–118). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kratzer, A. (2012). Modals and conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Lewis, D. (1975). Languages and language. In K. Gunderson (Ed.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 7, pp. 3–35). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lewis, D. (1980). Index, context, and content. In S. Kanger & S. Öhman (Eds.), Philosophy and grammar (pp. 79–100). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ninan, D. (2010). Semantics and the objects of assertion. Linguistics and Philosophy, 33, 355–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Predelli, S. (1998). I am not here now. Analysis, 58, 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rabern, B. (2012). Against the identification of assertoric content with compositional value. Synthese, 189, 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sidelle, A. (1991). The answering machine paradox. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 21, 525–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Soames, S. (2002). Beyond rigidity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Soames, S. (2005). Naming and asserting. In Z. G. Szabó (Ed.), Semantics vs. pragmatics (pp. 356–382). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. Syntax and Semantics, 9, 315–332.Google Scholar
  18. Stalnaker, R. (2014). Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stojnić, U. (2017). On the connection between semantic content and the objects of assertion. Philosophical Topics, 45, 163–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyRutgers University–NewarkNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations