Multiple propositions, contextual variability, and the semantics/pragmatics interface

Sullivan, Arthur

doi:10.1007/s11229-012-0084-0

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…I will argue that the phenomenon is ubiquitous and follows from a basic feature of natural language. There are related views in the literature (Bach 1999;Neale 1999;Dever 2001;Corazza 2002;Braun and Sider 2007;Egan 2009;von Fintel and Gillies 2011;Perry 2012;Sullivan 2013;Dorr and Hawthorne 2014). My view can be situated amongst these, but it is not identical to any one of them.…”

Section: Defending the Multiple Proposition Viewmentioning

confidence: 88%

Untitled

2018

Dialectica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Linguistic meaning underdetermines what is said. This has consequences for philosophical accounts of meaning, communication, and propositional attitude reports. I argue that the consequence we should endorse is that utterances typically express many propositions, that these are what speakers mean, and that the correct semantics for attitude reports will handle this fact while being relational and propositional.

show abstract

Section: Defending the Multiple Proposition Viewmentioning

confidence: 88%

Untitled

2018

Dialectica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…I will argue that the phenomenon is ubiquitous and follows from a basic feature of natural language. There are related views in the literature (Bach ; Neale ; Dever 2011; Corazza ; Braun and Sider ; Egan ; von Fintel and Gillies ; Perry ; Sullivan ; Dorr & Hawthorne ). My view can be situated amongst these, but it is not identical to any one of them.…”

Section: Communication and Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meaning Underdetermines What Is Said, Therefore Utterances Express Many Propositions

Hodgson

2018

Dialectica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…11 Rejection of the idea that an utterance expresses several propositions is an important difference between CP and other views also labelled as "multi-propositionalists," which "countenance counterexamples to the widespread implicit assumption that a simple indicative sentence (relative to a context of utterance) semantically expresses at most one proposition" (Sullivan 2013(Sullivan : 2773). On the one hand, CP focuses on utterances, and not on sentences (in context).…”

Section: The Expression Of Propositionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical Pragmatics: Nine Misconceptions

Ponte

Korta

Perry

2023

Topoi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we focus on some misconceptions about Critical Pragmatics, what it is, what it assumes and what it proposes. Doubtless, some of these misconceptions are due to clumsy writing on our part; perhaps others are due to inattentive reading. And some may be due to an effort to shield us from the apparent implausibility of what we said—and in fact meant. It does not matter much. We focus on those misunderstandings that most matter to us, either because, by repetition, they have ended up being annoying, even if they are not, perhaps, that important; or because they are substantial enough to represent a distortion of the basic picture of Critical Pragmatics and its theoretical foundations, namely, Critical Referentialism—also known as the Reflexive-referential Theory—and, more generally, Perry’s fundamental views on meaning and content(s).

show abstract

Multiple propositions, contextual variability, and the semantics/pragmatics interface

Cited by 4 publications

References 29 publications

Untitled

Untitled

Meaning Underdetermines What Is Said, Therefore Utterances Express Many Propositions

Critical Pragmatics: Nine Misconceptions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About