Semantics, Pragmatics, and the Role of Semantic Content

King, Jeffrey C.; Stanley, Jason

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199251520.003.0005

Cited by 227 publications

(106 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

104

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Among the opponents of these arguments are Cappelen and Lepore (2004); Borg (2004); King and Stanley (2005). I consider some of these theorists below.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intention-sensitive semantics

Stokke

2009

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of authors have argued that the fact that certain indexicals depend for their reference-determination on the speaker's referential intentions demonstrates the inadequacy of associating such expressions with functions from contexts to referents (characters). By distinguishing between different uses to which the notion of context is put in these argument, I show that this line of argument fails. In the course of doing so, I develop a way of incorporating the role played by intentions into a character-based semantics for indexicals and I argue that the framework I prefer is superior to an alternative which has been proposed by others.

show abstract

“…Among the opponents of these arguments are Cappelen and Lepore (2004); Borg (2004); King and Stanley (2005). I consider some of these theorists below.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intention-sensitive semantics

Stokke

2009

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…17 The proposal also appears to fit a conception of semantics proposed by Stanley (drawing on King and Stanley (2005)):…”

mentioning

confidence: 81%

Prospects for a Truth-conditional Account of Standing Meaning

Longworth¹

2012

Prospects for Meaning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Neither convention nor imagination, broadly construed, seem analyzable in such terms. 9 8 A related point: Lepore and Stone seem to be fellow travelers with King and Stanley (2005), Martí (2015), Merchant (2010), Stanley (2000), and Stanley and Szabó (2000) in striving to render more of linguistic interaction tractable using just the linguist's familiar formal tools. If the book is to achieve this goal, however, their bold conjecture cannot be a matter of implicit definition-for example, "something is a properly linguistic interaction if and only if it can be handled using the familiar techniques of linguistics"-but must instead be an empirically supported discovery.…”

Section: B No Answer To Qe and Qc?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Two Questions about Interpretive Effects

Stainton¹,

Viger²

2018

Oxford Scholarship Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our exposition is framed around two questions: What interpretive effects can linguistic utterances have? What causes those effects? Lepore and Stone make an empirical case that some effects are contributions to the public record of a conversation determined by linguistic conventions—following Lewis—while non-contributions (our term) produced by imagination offer no determinate content—following Davidson. They thereby replace the old semantics–pragmatics divide by eliminating conversational implicature altogether. We critique Lepore and Stone’s position on empirical grounds, presenting cases in which contributions are made non-conventionally. We also critique their view methodologically, presenting a dilemma by which they either cannot handle many cases using their framework or they do so in an ad hoc fashion. We conclude by suggesting Relevance Theory as an alternative that follows Lepore and Stone’s purported methodology and handles many of their empirical cases.

show abstract

Semantics, Pragmatics, and the Role of Semantic Content

Cited by 227 publications

References 38 publications

Intention-sensitive semantics

Intention-sensitive semantics

Prospects for a Truth-conditional Account of Standing Meaning

Two Questions about Interpretive Effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About