Philosophical Papers

Austin, John

doi:10.1093/019283021x.001.0001

Cited by 686 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…But it is worth appreciating this, because it helps us to see that the further, not-so-vacuous relativizations of contents we are about to consider are as much independent from the radical relativist claims as this widespread one is. ⁹ The main points made here are in agreement with Austin's (1950) views about truth; but here we only need to assume them for convenience, to make sense of the relativism debate.…”

Section: Fn:9supporting

confidence: 69%

Relativism, Vagueness and What is Said

García‐Carpintero¹

2008

Relative Truth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

John MacFarlane has formulated a version of truth-relativism, and has argued for its application in some cases — future contingents, knowledge attributions, and epistemic modals among them. Mark Richard also defends a version of relativism, which he applies to vagueness-inducing features of the semantics of gradable adjectives. On MacFarlane's and Richard's characterization, truth-relativist claims posit a distinctive kind of context-dependence, the dependence of the evaluation of an assertion as true or otherwise on aspects of the context of the evaluation itself — in contrast with the context of the assertion. This chapter follows Evans in distinguishing two forms of truth-relativism: a moderate one concerning the evaluation of contents or propositions, and a radical one concerning the evaluation of acts. It argues against Richard's truth-relativist proposals for gradable adjectives, which are understood to be of the second kind, while accepting a form of moderate content-relativism for those cases.

show abstract

Section: Fn:9supporting

confidence: 69%

Relativism, Vagueness and What is Said

García‐Carpintero¹

2008

Relative Truth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Blok (2017) summarized responsible behavior (which can include innovation) at two levels from a normative point of view, and with help from Austin's (1961) speech act theory. First, organizations should take responsible concern when thinking about what to do.…”

Section: The Ethical Responsibility Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Agricultural Innovation and the Role of Institutions: Lessons from the Game of Drones

Frankelius

Norrman

Johansen

2017

J Agric Environ Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2015, observers argued that the fourth agricultural revolution had been initiated. This article focuses on one part of this high-tech revolution: the origin, development, applications, and user value of unmanned aerial systems (UAS). Institutional changes connected to the UAS innovation are analyzed, based on a Swedish case study. The methods included autoethnography. The theoretical frame was composed by four perspectives: innovation, institutions, sustainability, and ethics. UAS can help farmers cut costs and produce higher quantity with better quality, and also has environmental benefits. However, this promising innovation was exposed to institutional forces and suddenly became subordinated the Act of Camera Surveillance. This study illuminates how legislative institutions can inhibit responsible innovation. The study shows that different ethical perspectives can collide with each other.

show abstract

“…Following Kratzer (2011), among others, we assume that the evaluation of assertions is made in relation to a topic situation represented syntactically. The idea that sentences are evaluated in relation to topic situations has a long tradition, attributed originally to Austin (1950). We assume a referential approach to tense (see Partee 1973, a.o.…”

Section: The Core Architecture and Interpretation For Impfmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-linguistic variation in imperfectivity

Arregui

Rivero

Salanova

2014

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper examines variation in the interpretations of imperfectives in Slavic, Romance, and Jê (Mẽbengokre). It develops a core modal analysis for an imperfective operator (IMPF) within situation semantics, coupled with languagespecific constraints formally encoded in modal bases. Cross-linguistic contrasts in the interpretation of imperfectives are explained in terms of variation in modal bases for IMPF, lexicalization patterns, and its interactions with other operators. The proposal accounts for why Romance languages use imperfectives to make reference to past plans while most Slavic languages do not, as well as for narrative uses specific to Romance languages, and factual uses specific to some Slavic languages. The proposal also accounts for lexically specified aspectual operators in Mẽbengokre, as well as language-specific interaction between IMPF and other modal operators, as in the Bulgarian Renarrated Mood, and two different semantic instances of Slavic Involuntary States. Appealing to cross-linguistic evidence to argue for a view according to which IMPF makes significant semantic contributions in all occurrences, the paper shows how a modal analysis can account for well-known temporal properties of imperfectives. It also demonstrates that data from closely related as well as unrelated languages provide evidence for an invariant semantic core behind imperfectivity.

show abstract

Philosophical Papers

Cited by 686 publications

References 0 publications

Relativism, Vagueness and What is Said

Relativism, Vagueness and What is Said

Agricultural Innovation and the Role of Institutions: Lessons from the Game of Drones

Cross-linguistic variation in imperfectivity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About