Synthese

, Volume 165, Issue 3, pp 321–345 | Cite as

Linguistic communication and the semantics/pragmatics distinction

Article

Abstract

Most people working on linguistic meaning or communication assume that semantics and pragmatics are distinct domains, yet there is still little consensus on how the distinction is to be drawn. The position defended in this paper is that the semantics/pragmatics distinction holds between (context-invariant) encoded linguistic meaning and speaker meaning. Two other ‘minimalist’ positions on semantics are explored and found wanting: Kent Bach’s view that there is a narrow semantic notion of context which is responsible for providing semantic values for a small number of indexicals, and Herman Cappelen and Ernie Lepore’s view that semantics includes the provision of values for all indexicals, even though these depend on the speaker’s communicative intentions. Finally, some implications are considered for the favoured semantics/pragmatics distinction of the fact that there are linguistic elements (lexical and syntactic) which do not contribute to truth-conditional content but rather provide guidance on pragmatic inference.

Keywords

Minimal proposition Indexicals Narrow context Broad context Speaker meaning Shared content Explicature/implicature distinction Truth conditions 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Austin, J. (1955/62). How to do things with words, 1955 William James Lectures, Harvard, published 1962. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bach K. (1987) Thought and reference. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Bach K. (1994) Semantic slack: What is said and more. In: Tsohatzidis S. (eds). Foundations of speech act theory. Routledge, London, pp. 267–291Google Scholar
  4. Bach K. (1997) The semantics/pragmatics distinction: What it is and why it matters. Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 8: 33–50Google Scholar
  5. Bach K. (2001) You don’t say. Synthese 128: 15–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bach K. (2004) Minding the gap. In: Bianchi C. (eds). The semantics/pragmatics distinction. CSLI Publications Stanford University, Stanford, pp. 27–43Google Scholar
  7. Bar-Hillel, Y. (1954). Indexical expressions. Mind, LXIII, 359–379.Google Scholar
  8. Blakemore D. (1987) Semantic constraints on relevance. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Blakemore D. (2002) Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Borg E. (2004) Minimal semantics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Borg E. (2005) Saying what you mean: Unarticulated constituents and communication. In: Elugardo R., Stainton R. (eds). Ellipsis and nonsentential speech. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 237–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Borg, E. (forthcoming). Minimalism versus contextualism in semantics. In G. Preyer & G. Peter (Eds.), Content and context: Essays on semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Butler K. (1995) Content, context, and compositionality. Mind & Language 10: 3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cappelen H., Lepore E. (2005a) Insensitive semantics. A defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Cappelen H., Lepore E. (2005b) A tall tale: In defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. In: Preyer G., Peter G. (eds). Contextualism in philosophy. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 197–219Google Scholar
  16. Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2006). Precis of Insensitive semantics. Philosophy & Phenomenological Research.Google Scholar
  17. Cappelen H., Lepore E. (2007) Relevance theory and shared content. In: Burton-Roberts N. (eds). Advances in pragmatics. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  18. Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (forthcoming). The myth of unarticulated constituents. In M. O’Rourke & C. Washington (Eds.), Situating semantics: Essays on the philosophy of John Perry. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Carston R. (1988) Implicature, explicature and truth-theoretic semantics. In: Kempson R. (eds). Mental representations: The interface between language and reality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 155–181Google Scholar
  20. Carston R. (1999) The semantics/pragmatics distinction: A view from relevance theory. In: Turner K. (eds). The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp. 85–125Google Scholar
  21. Carston R. (2002) Thoughts and utterances. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Carston R. (2004) Relevance theory and the saying/implicating distinction. In: Horn L., Ward G. (eds). The handbook of pragmatics. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 633–656Google Scholar
  23. Carston R. (2007) How many pragmatic systems are there?. In: Frapolli M.-J. (eds). Saying, meaning, referring: Essays on the philosophy of Francois Recanati. Macmillan Palgrave, Basingstoke, pp. 18–48Google Scholar
  24. Chomsky N. (1995) Language and nature. Mind 104: 1–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chomsky N. (1996) Powers and prospects. South End Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  26. Corazza E. (2004) On the alleged ambiguity of ‘now’ and ‘here’. Synthese 138: 289–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Corazza, E., & Dokic, J. (forthcoming). Sense and insensibility: Or where minimalism meets contextualism. In G. Preyer & G. Peter (Eds.), Content and context: Essays on semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Corazza E., Fish W., Gorvett J. (2002) Who is I?. Philosophical Studies 107: 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Eilan N. (2005) Joint attention, communication, and mind. In: Eilan N., Hoerl C., McCormack T., Roessler J. (eds). Joint attention: Communication and other minds. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 1–33Google Scholar
  30. Fodor J. (1989) Review of Stephen Schiffer’s Remnants of meaning. Philosophy & Phenomenological Research 50(2): 409–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fodor J. (1998) Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Fodor J. (2001) Language, thought and compositionality. Mind & Language 16: 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Grice H.P. (1989) Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  34. Iten C. (2005) Linguistic meaning, truth conditions and relevance: The case of concessives. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  35. Kaplan, D. (1977/89). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), 1989. Themes from Kaplan (pp. 565–614). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. King J., Stanley J. (2005) Semantics, pragmatics, and the role of semantic content. In: Szabo Z. (eds). Semantics versus pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 111–164Google Scholar
  37. Korta, K., & Perry, J. (forthcoming). Radical minimalism, moderate contextualism. In G. Preyer & G. Peter (Eds.), Content and context: Essays on semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Levinson S. (2000) Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. MIT Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  39. MacFarlane J. (2005) Making sense of relative truth. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 105: 321–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. MacFarlane, J. (forthcoming). Semantic minimalism, and non-indexical contextualism. In G. Preyer & G. Peter (Eds.), Content and context: Essays on semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Neale, S. (2003). What do we want? Ms. (Chapter of Neale, S. Linguistic Pragmatism (forthcoming)).Google Scholar
  42. Pagin P. (2005) Compositionality and context. In: Preyer G., Peter G. (eds). Contextualism in philosophy. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 303–348Google Scholar
  43. Perry J. (1998) Indexicals, contexts, and unarticulated constituents. In: Aliseda A., van Glabbeek R., Westerstahl D. (eds). Computing natural language. CSLI Publications Stanford University, Stanford, pp. 1–11Google Scholar
  44. Perry J. (2003) Predelli’s threatening note: Contexts, utterances, and tokens in the philosophy of language. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 273–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Powell, G. (2003). Language, thought and reference. PhD dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
  46. Pietroski P. (2005) Meaning before truth. In: Preyer G., Peter G. (eds). Contextualism in philosophy. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 255–302Google Scholar
  47. Predelli S. (1998) I am not here now. Analysis 58(2): 107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Predelli S. (2005) Contexts: Meaning, truth, and the use of language. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  49. Recanati F. (1993) Direct reference: From language to thought. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  50. Recanati F. (2001a) Are ‘here’ and ‘now’ indexicals?. Texte 127/8: 115–127Google Scholar
  51. Recanati F. (2001b) What is said. Synthese 128: 75–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Recanati F. (2002) Unarticulated constituents. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 299–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Recanati F. (2004a) Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  54. Recanati F. (2004b) Pragmatics and semantics. In: Horn L., Ward G. (eds). The handbook of pragmatics. Blackwells, Oxford, pp. 442–462Google Scholar
  55. Recanati, F. (2004c). ‘What is said’ and the semantics/pragmatics distinction. In C. Bianchi (Ed.), The semantics/pragmatics distinction (pp. 45–64). Stanford: CSLI Publications, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  56. Recanati F. (2006) Predelli and Carpintero on Literal Meaning. Critica 38(112): 69–79Google Scholar
  57. Sidelle A. (1991) The answering machine paradox. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 21: 525–539Google Scholar
  58. Sperber D. (2000) Metarepresentation in an evolutionary perspective. In: Sperber D. (eds). Metarepresentations: A multidisciplinary perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 117–137Google Scholar
  59. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986/95). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed. 1995). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  60. Stainton R. (2000) The meaning of ‘sentences’. Nous 34(3): 441–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stanley J. (2000) Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 391–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stanley, J. (2005). Reviews of Francois Recanati’s Literal Meaning. Notre Dame Philosophical Review September 2005.Google Scholar
  63. Stanley J., Szabo Z. (2000) On quantifier domain restriction. Mind & Language 15: 219–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Szabo Z. (2006) Sensitivity training. Mind & Language 21(1): 31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wedgwood, D. (2007). Shared assumptions: Semantic minimalism and relevance theory. Journal of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  66. Wharton T. (2003) Natural pragmatics and natural codes. Mind & Language 18: 447–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wilson D., Sperber D. (2004) Relevance theory. In: Horn L., Ward G. (eds). The handbook of pragmatics. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 607–632Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Phonetics and LinguisticsUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations