Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 391–434 | Cite as

Context and Logical Form

  • Jason Stanley


In this paper, I defend the thesis that alleffects of extra-linguistic context on the truth-conditions of an assertion are traceable to elements in the actual syntactic structure of the sentence uttered. In the first section, I develop the thesis in detail, and discuss its implications for the relation between semantics and pragmatics. The next two sections are devoted to apparent counterexamples. In the second section, I argue that there are no convincing examples of true non-sentential assertions. In the third section, I argue that there are no convincing examples of what John Perry has called ‘unarticulated constituents’. I conclude by drawing some consequences of my arguments for appeals to context-dependence in the resolution of problems in epistemology and philosophical logic.


Artificial Intelligence Computational Linguistic Syntactic Structure Philosophical Logic Apparent Counterexample 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ajdukiewicz, K.: 1967, ‘Syntactic Connexion’, in Storrs McCall (ed.), Polish Logic, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 207–31.Google Scholar
  2. Austin, J.: 1970, How to Do Things With Words, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  3. Austin, J: 1979, ‘Truth’, in J. L. Austin (ed.), Philosophical Papers, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 117–133.Google Scholar
  4. Bach, K.: 1982, ‘Semantic Nonspecificity and Mixed Quantifiers’, Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 593–605.Google Scholar
  5. Bach, K.: 1994, ‘Conversational Impliciture’, Mind and Language 9, 124–162.Google Scholar
  6. Bach, K.: 1999, ‘The Semantics Pragmatics Distinction: What it is and Why it matters’, in Ken Turner (ed.), The Semantics-Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View, Oxford, Elsevier, pp. 65–84.Google Scholar
  7. Bar-Hillel, Y.: 1954, ‘Indexical Expressions’, Mind 63, 359–79.Google Scholar
  8. Barker, C.: 1995, Possessive Descriptions, CSLI Publications, Stanford.Google Scholar
  9. Barton, E.: 1990, Nonsentential Constituents, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  10. Van Benthem and Ter Meulen (eds.): 1997, Handbook of Logic & Language, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  11. Blackburn, W. K.: ‘Wettstein on Definite Descriptions’, Philosophical Studies 53, 263–78.Google Scholar
  12. Burge, T.: 1979, ‘Semantical Paradox’, The Journal of Philosophy 76, 169–98.Google Scholar
  13. Carston, R.: 1991, ‘Implicature, Explicature, and Truth-Theoretic Semantics’, in Stephen Davis (ed.), Pragmatics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 33–51.Google Scholar
  14. Cassam, Q.: 1997, Self and World, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  15. Chierchia, G.: 1993, ‘Questions with Quantifiers’, Natural Language Semantics 1, 181–234.Google Scholar
  16. Chierchia, G.: 1995, Dynamics of Meaning, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  17. Chomsky, N.: 1995, The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  18. van Deemter, K. and Peters, S. (eds.): 1996, Semantic Ambiguity and Underspecification, CSLI, Stanford.Google Scholar
  19. Cooper, R.: 1996, ‘The Role of Situations in Generalized Quantifiers’, in Lappin (1996), pp. 65–86.Google Scholar
  20. Cresswell, M.: 1973, Logics and Languages, Metheun, London.Google Scholar
  21. Cresswell, M.: 1996, Semantic Indexicality, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  22. Crimmins, M.: 1992, Talk about Beliefs, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  23. Culicover, P. and R. Jackendoff: 1995, ‘ ‘Something else’ for the Binding Theory’, Linguistic Inquiry 26, 249–275.Google Scholar
  24. DeRose, K.: 1999, ‘Contextualism: An Explanation and Defense’, in John Greco and Ernest Sosa (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 187–205.Google Scholar
  25. Engdahl, E.: 1986, Constituent Questions, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  26. Evans, G.: 1985, ‘Pronouns, Quantifiers, Relative Clauses (I)’, in Gareth Evans (ed.), Collected Papers, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 76–152.Google Scholar
  27. Fiengo, R. and R. May: 1996, ‘Anaphora and Identity’, in Lappin (1996), pp. 117–44.Google Scholar
  28. von Fintel, K.: 1994, Restrictions on Quantifier Domains, University of Massachusetts Dissertation.Google Scholar
  29. Grice, Paul: 1989, ‘Logic and Conversation’, in Studies in the Way of Words, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp. 22–40.Google Scholar
  30. Harman, G.: 1972, ‘Deep Structure as Logical Form’, in D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  31. Heim, I. and A. Kratzer: 1998, Semantics in Generative Grammar, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  32. Higginbotham, J.: 1996, ‘Davidson's Program in Semantics’, in E. LePore (ed.), Truth and Interpretation: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 29–48.Google Scholar
  33. Higginbotham, J.: 1993, ‘Interrogatives’, in K. Hale and S.J. Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Honor of Sylvan Bromberger, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 195–227.Google Scholar
  34. Higginbotham, J.: ms. ‘A Plea for Implicit Anaphora’.Google Scholar
  35. Hintikka, J. and G. Sandu: 1997, ‘Game Theoretical Semantics’, in van Benthem and Ter Meulen (1997), pp. 361–410.Google Scholar
  36. Jacobson, P.: 1999, ‘Towards a Variable-Free Semantics’, Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 117–184.Google Scholar
  37. Janssen, T.: 1997, ‘Compositionality’, in Van Benthem and Ter Meulen (1997), pp. 417–473.Google Scholar
  38. Koopman H. and D. Sportiche: 1982/83, ‘Variables and the bijection principle’, The Linguistic Review 2, 139–60.Google Scholar
  39. Lappin, S. (ed.): 1996, The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Blackwell Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  40. Lewis, D.: 1983, ‘General Semantics’, in David Lewis (ed.), Philosophical Papers, Volume 1, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 189–232.Google Scholar
  41. May, R.: 1985, Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  42. Mitchell, J.: 1986, The Formal Semantics of Point of View, Unpublished University of Massachusetts Amherst Doctoral Dissertation.Google Scholar
  43. Partee, B.: 1989, ‘Binding Implicit Variables in Quantified Contexts’, Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society 25, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 342–65.Google Scholar
  44. Perry, J.: 1986, ‘Thought without Representation’, in Supplementary Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 60, 137–52.Google Scholar
  45. Perry, J.: 1997, ‘Indexicals and Demonstratives’, in Hale and Wright (eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Language, Blackwell Press, Oxford, pp. 586–612.Google Scholar
  46. Perry, J.: 1998, ‘Indexicals, Contexts and Unarticulated Constituents’, in Aliseda, van Gabeek, and Westerståhl (eds.), Computing Natural Language, CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
  47. Recanati, F.: 1993, Direct Reference, Blackwell Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  48. Rizzi, L: 1986, ‘Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of Pro’, Linguistic Inquiry 17, 501–57.Google Scholar
  49. Russell, B.: 1985, The Philosophy of Logical Atomism, Open Court, LaSalle.Google Scholar
  50. Salmon, N.: 1986, Frege's Puzzle, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  51. Soames, S.: 1987, ‘Direct Reference, Propositional Attitudes, and Semantic Content’, in Philosophical Topics 14, 47–87.Google Scholar
  52. Soames, S.: 1986, ‘Incomplete Definite Descriptions’, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 27, 349–75.Google Scholar
  53. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson: 1986, Relevance, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  54. Stainton, R.: 1994, ‘Using Non-Sentences: An Application of Relevance Theory’, Pragmatics and Cognition 2, 269–284.Google Scholar
  55. Stainton, R.: 1995, ‘Non-Sentential Assertions and Semantic Ellipsis’, Linguistics and Philosophy 18, 281–96.Google Scholar
  56. Stainton, R.: 1997, ‘Utterance Meaning and Syntactic Ellipsis’, in Pragmatics & Cognition 5, 51–78.Google Scholar
  57. Stainton, R.: 1998, ‘Quantifier Phrases, Meaningfulness ‘In Isolation’, and Ellipsis’, Linguistics and Philosophy 21, 311–340.Google Scholar
  58. Stalnaker, R.: 1970, ‘Pragmatics’, Synthese 22, 272–89.Google Scholar
  59. Stanley, J. and Z. Szabó: ‘On Quantifier Domain Restriction’, forthcoming in Mind and Language.Google Scholar
  60. Szabolcsi, A.: 1989, ‘Bound Variables in Syntax (are there any?)’, in Bartsch, van Benthem, and van Emde Boas (eds.), Semantics and Contextual Expression, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 295–318.Google Scholar
  61. Varzi, A.: 1993, ‘Do We Need Functional Abstraction?’, in J. Czermak (ed.), Proceedings of the 15th International Wittgenstein-Symposium, H'older-Pickler-Tempsky, Vienna, pp. 407–15.Google Scholar
  62. Williams, E.: 1995, Thematic Structure in Syntax, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph Twenty Three, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  63. Yanofsky, N.: “NP Utterances”, Papers from the Fourteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago, pp. 491–502.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jason Stanley

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations