Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Indirectness and Intentions in Metasemantics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Architecture of Context and Context-Sensitivity

Part of the book series: Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy ((SLAP,volume 103))

Abstract

This paper argues in favor of an indirect metasemantics for the standard for gradable adjectives. Specifically, it argues that multiple factors work to fix this parameter’s value, and it is a further matter of context just how those multiple factors combine in any given case. The paper then asks how much an indirect metasemantics must depart from an intention-based metasemantics. The indirect metasemantics presented gives speakers’ intentions a limited role, but more fully intention-based but indirect metasemantics are possible. The paper goes on to argue in favor of a less intentional metasemantics, via observation of the role of non-intentional aspects of cognition in fixing standards for gradable adjectives. The paper ends by considering implications of such a view for the nature of communication.

Thanks to Jeff King for many discussions of the material in this paper and comments on an earlier draft. Thanks also to Josh Armstrong, Chris Barker, Ernie Lepore, Karen Lewis, Peter Pagin, Paul Pietroski, Jessica Rett, Lance Rips, Rob Stainton, Matthew Stone, and Alexis Wellwood for many helpful comments and discussions. Versions of the material in this paper were presented at the Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science Semantics Workshop, September 2012, and the Conference on Philosophy of Language and Linguistics at the Inter-University Center, Dubrovnik, September 2017. Thanks to all the participants at those events for helpful and lively discussions.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The literature on this is large, but highlights include Bach (1994), Perry (1996), Recanati (2004), Sperber and Wilson (1998), Stanley (2000), and Stanley and Szabó (2000). I explore my own take on this issue in Glanzberg (2016).

  2. 2.

    This distinction comes from discussions of reference, where Kaplan (1989a) and Stalnaker (1997) observed that it is useful to distinguish the semantic value of a referring expression from how that value is fixed. (Kaplan introduced the term ‘metasemantic’.) The semantic/metasemantic distinction applies naturally to context-dependent expressions, where the question of how a semantic value is fixed thus becomes the question of how context fixes it. This is a part of the general area of pragmatics, but it is a highly focused part, so using the term ‘metasemantics’ to single it out has proved useful (even if it is jarring to some to see it called ‘metasemantics’). The extension of the distinction to context-dependent expressions was mentioned by Kaplan (1989a). It was made explicit by Stanley and Szabó (2000) and discussed extensively in my (2007). Since then, the metasemantics of context-dependent expressions has become lively research area. See e.g. King (2014a).

  3. 3.

    This theory has a long history. See among places Barker (2002), Bartsch and Vennemann (1973), Bierwisch (1989), Cresswell (1977), Heim (1985), Kennedy (1997, 2007), Rett (2015), and von Stechow (1984). Alternative theories have been developed by Burnett (2014) and Klein (1980).

  4. 4.

    \([\!\![ \alpha ]\!\!] \) is the semantic value of α. Were I need to mention specific semantic values, I shall put them in boldface. So, \([\!\![ \mathrm{tall} ]\!\!] = \mathbf {tall}\).

  5. 5.

    The references in Footnote 4 also discuss the positive form, and disagree over some of the details. For instance, Barker (2002) and Rett (2015) do not use this sort of pos analysis. The version presented here follows Kennedy (2007), though this is not his final proposal for the semantics of pos. For an extensive overview of the comparative, see Morzycki (2016).

  6. 6.

    According to http://www.basketballinsiders.com/2016-17-nba-roster-survey/.

  7. 7.

    Kennedy also argues that for-phrases trigger a presupposition that objects fall within the class fixed by the for-NP, rather than providing a comparison class argument.

  8. 8.

    Kennedy (2007) and Fara (2000) also discuss ways that the norm plus comparison class analysis does not adequately address problems related to vagueness and the Sorites paradox. Kennedy credits the observation in (9) to Bogusławski (1975).

  9. 9.

    Kennedy (2007) and Kennedy and McNally (2005) argue that these must take the limit value. A more modest position is that they usually do. Related ideas are discussed by Cruse (1986) and Winter and Rotstein (2004).

  10. 10.

    Some classic examples of this are from work of Heim (1992) and Roberts (1996).

  11. 11.

    This is a very broad idea in psychology, with a huge literature. Some references, specific to language learning, are Frank et al. (2009), McMurray et al. (2012), Smith et al. (2014), Xu and Tenenbaum (2007), and Yu and Smith (2012).

  12. 12.

    I have adopted an intention-based direct metasemantics for demonstratives as a model of a direct metasemantics. The classic issue for the metasemantics of demonstratives is wither it is speakers’ intentions or something overt, like a gesture, that fixes their reference. Famously, Kaplan (1989b) opted for the latter, but then changed his mind in Kaplan (1989a). I have not argued for the intentional alternative, but King (2013, 2014b) develops a good case for a sophisticated intention-based view.

  13. 13.

    http://www.tall.org/. They have member clubs world-wide.

  14. 14.

    One more minor point. In earlier work (e.g. Glanzberg 2007), I relied on a formulation of the semantics of gradable predicates that closely followed Kennedy (2007). This version relies not on a standard value d c, but on a function s that takes lexical and contextual inputs. I was mostly concerned to follow Kennedy in making vivid the role of lexical content in fixing some standards, but I have since come to realize that Kennedy’s proposal is actually stronger than just that. King (2014a) points out that it may be easier for speakers to have intentions about standard values d c than about this functions. For this reason, and to avoid some of Kennedy’s specific commitments, I now prefer the d c version.

  15. 15.

    A classic in this literature is Stevens (1975).

  16. 16.

    My own view is that in some special cases, the speaker’s intention can fix the value of demonstrative even if it is not fully manifest. So, I do quibble with some details of King’s analysis. But it is not my goal to argue this point here, and King’s developments do offer a very strong form of the intentional view of the metasemantics of demonstratives.

  17. 17.

    As I discussed above, maybe in some special cases we have something more like ordinary referential intentions.

  18. 18.

    See any syntax textbook, and the general discussions of Baker (2003), Fukui (2001), and Grimshaw (2005). Much of the original work on functional categories stems from Abney (1987). I have discussed some aspects of this in my Glanzberg (2008, 2014).

  19. 19.

    As I mentioned in Sect. 1, there is some dispute about this, but it is a well-supported hypothesis, and it renders the points I shall make here most explicit. Other options for the syntax-semantic interface would get similar results in the end.

  20. 20.

    I argue this at length in work in preparation, and touch on it in Glanzberg (2014).

  21. 21.

    Though he has not endorsed this particular formulation, King (p.c.) has told me he thinks this line of thinking is important.

  22. 22.

    This point lies at the intersection of phonetics and phonology, but many good phonology textbooks will make it clear. See, for instance, Kenstowicz (1994).

References

  • Abney, S. P. (1987). The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, K. (1994). Conversational impliciture. Mind and Language, 9, 124–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. C. (2003). Lexical categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, C. (2002). The dynamics of vagueness. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barner, D., & Snedeker, J. (2008). Compositionality and statistics in adjective acquisition: 4-year-olds interpret tall and short based on the size distributions of novel noun referents. Child Development, 79, 594–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartsch, R., & Vennemann, T. (1973). Semantic structures: A study in the relation between semantics and syntax (2nd ed.). Frankfurt: Athenäum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bierwisch, M. (1989). The semantics of gradation. In M. Bierwisch & E. Lang (Eds.), Dimensional adjectives (pp. 71–261). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bogusławski, A. (1975). Measures are measures: In defense of the diversity of comparatives and positives. Linguistische Berichte, 36, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnett, H. (2014). A delineation solution to the puzzles of absolute adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 37, 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantlon, J. F., Platt, M. L., & Brannon, E. M. (2009). Beyond the number domain. Trends in Cognitive Science, 13, 83–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, M. J. (1977). The semantics of degree. In B. Partee (Ed.), Montague grammar (pp. 261–292). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dehaene, S. (2011). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fara, D. G. (2000). Shifting sands: An interest-relative theory of vagueness. Philosophical Topics, 20, 45–81. Originally published under the name ‘Delia Graff’.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feigenson, L. (2007). The equality of quantity. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11, 185–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, M. C., Goodman, N. D., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2009). Using speakers’ referential intentions to model early cross-situational world learning. Psychological Science, 20, 578–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L., Clifton Jr., C., & Stolterfoht, B. (2008). Scale structure: Processing minimum standard and maximum standard scalar adjectives. Cognition, 106, 299–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fukui, N. (2001). Phrase structure. In M. Baltin & C. Collins (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 374–406). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gallistel, C. R., & Gelman, R. (1992). Preverbal and verbal counting and computation. Cognition, 44, 43–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glanzberg, M. (2007). Context, content, and relativism. Philosophical Studies, 136, 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glanzberg, M. (2008). Metaphor and lexical semantics. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 3, 1–47. https://newprairiepress.org/biyclc/vol3/iss1/2/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glanzberg, M. (2014). Explanation and partiality in semantic theory. In A. Burgess & B. Sherman (Eds.), Metasemantics: New essays on the foundations of meaning (pp. 259–292). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Glanzberg, M. (2016). Not all contextual parameters are alike. Unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimshaw, J. (2005). Extended projection. In Words and structure (pp. 1–73). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. (1985). Notes on comparatives and related matters. Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas, Austin. Available at http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/zc0ZjY0M/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. (1992). Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics, 9, 183–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, D. (1989a). Afterthoughts. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 565–614). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, D. (1989b). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press. First publication of a widely circulated manuscript dated 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C. (1997). Projecting the adjective. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz. Published by Garland, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C. (2007). Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30, 1–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. (2005). Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language, 81, 345–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenstowicz, M. (1994). Phonology in generative grammar. Cambridge: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, J. C. (2013). Supplementives, the coordination account, and conflicting intentions. Philosophical Perspectives, 27, 288–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, J. C. (2014a). 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • King, J. C. (2014b). Speaker intentions in context. Nous, 48, 219–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, E. (1980). A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 1–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMurray, B., Horst, J. S., & Samuelson, L. K. (2012). Word learning emerges from the interaction of online referent selection and slow associative learning. Psychological Review, 119, 831–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meck, W. H., & Chuch, R. M. (1983). A mode control model for counting and timing processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 9, 320–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morzycki, M. (2016). Modification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, J. (1996). Thought without representation. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 60, 263–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rett, J. (2015). The semantics of evaluativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rips, L. J., & Turnbull, W. (1980). How big is big? Relative and absolute properties in memory. Cognition, 8, 145–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics, 49, 91–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, L. A., Goodman, N. D., Barner, D., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2009). How tall is tall? Compositionality, statistics, and gradable adjectives. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 31, 3151–3156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. B., Suanda, S. H., & Yu, C. (2014). The unrealized promise of infant statistical word-referent learning. Trends in Cognitive Science, 18, 251–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solt, S., & Gotzner, N. (2012). Experimenting with degrees. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 22, 166–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1998). Relevance. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, R. C. (1978). Assertion. In P. Cole (Ed.), Pragmatics (Syntax and semantics, Vol. 9, pp. 315–322). New York: Academic. Reprinted in Stalnaker (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, R. C. (1997). Reference and necessity. In B. Hale & C. Wright (Eds.), Companion to the philosophy of language (pp. 534–554). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, R. C. (1999). Context and content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, J. (2000). Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy, 23, 391–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, S. S. (1975). Psychophysics: Introduction to its perceptual, neural, and social prospects. New York: Wiley. Edited by G. Stevens.

    Google Scholar 

  • Syrett, K., Kennedy, C., & Lidz, J. (2010). Meaning and context in children’s understanding of gradable adjectives. Journal of Semantics, 27, 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow, A. (1984). Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics, 3, 1–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, Y., & Rotstein, C. (2004). Total adjectives vs. partial adjectives: Scale structure and higher-order modification. Natural Language Semantics, 12, 259–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, F., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Word learning as Bayesian inference. Psychological Review, 114, 245–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, C., & Smith, L. B. (2012). Modeling cross-situational word-referent learning: Prior questions. Psychological Review, 119, 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA

    Michael Glanzberg

Authors
  1. Michael Glanzberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Glanzberg .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Philosophy, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

    Tadeusz Ciecierski

  2. Institute of Philosophy, University Of Lodz, Lodz, Poland, IT University of Copenhagen, København, Denmark

    Paweł Grabarczyk

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Glanzberg, M. (2020). Indirectness and Intentions in Metasemantics. In: Ciecierski, T., Grabarczyk, P. (eds) The Architecture of Context and Context-Sensitivity. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 103. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34485-6_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34485-6_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-34484-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-34485-6

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation