Why Polysemy Supports Radical Contextualism

  • François RecanatiEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11939)


After presenting two forms of Contextualism, I will argue that the phenomenon of polysemy supports the stronger one – so-called Radical Contextualism. My argument will be based on a comparison between indexicality and polysemy.


Polysemy Contextualism Indexicality Modulation 


  1. Benveniste, E.: Problèmes de linguistique générale, II. Gallimard, Paris (1974)Google Scholar
  2. Cappelen, H., Lepore, E.: Insensitive Semantics. Blackwell, Oxford (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Kaplan, D.: Demonstratives. In: Almog, J., Perry, J., Wettstein, H. (eds.) Themes from Kaplan, pp. 481–563. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1989)Google Scholar
  4. Langacker, R.: Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto (1987)Google Scholar
  5. Langacker, R.: Concept, Image and Symbol. Mouton De Gruyter, Berlin (1991)Google Scholar
  6. Morgan, J.: Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. Syntax Semant. 9, 261–280 (1978)Google Scholar
  7. Recanati, F.: Contextualism and anti-contextualism in the philosophy of language. In: Tsohatzidis, S. (ed.) Foundations of Speech Act Theory, pp. 156–166. Routledge, London (1994)Google Scholar
  8. Recanati, F.: Literal Meaning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  9. Recanati, F.: Literalism and contextualism: some varieties. In: Preyer, G., Peter, G. (eds.) Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth, pp. 171–196. Clarendon Press, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  10. Recanati, F.: Truth-Conditional Pragmatics. Clarendon Press, Oxford (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Recanati, F.: Contextualism: some varieties. In: Allen, K., Jacszolt, K. (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, pp. 135–149. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Recanati, F.: Contextualism and polysemy. Dialectica 71, 379–397 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ruhl, C.: On Monosemy: A Study in Linguistic Semantics. State University of New York Press, Albany (1989)Google Scholar
  14. Searle, J.: Indirect speech acts. Syntax Semant. 3, 59–82 (1975)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Collège de France, PSLParisFrance

Personalised recommendations