structure for 'Language'    |     alphabetical list of themes    |     unexpand these ideas

19. Language / F. Communication / 5. Pragmatics / a. Contextual meaning

[aspects of meaning which are decided by context]

10 ideas
A good way of explaining an expression is saying what conditions make its contexts true [Quine]
     Full Idea: A reasonable way of explaining an expression is by saying what conditions make its various contexts true.
     From: Willard Quine (Philosophy of Logic [1970], Ch.3)
     A reaction: I like the circumspect phrasing of this, which carefully avoids any entities such as 'meanings' or 'truth conditions'. Maybe the whole core of philosophy of language should shift from theories of meaning to just trying to 'explain' sentences.
We say there is 'no alternative' in all sorts of contexts, and there are many different grounds for it [Harré/Madden]
     Full Idea: To attribute necessity to a condition, an outcome or effect, the truth of a statement, or a conclusion, is to indicate within the relevant context that no alternative is possible. In each context there are appropriate grounds for such judgements.
     From: Harré,R./Madden,E.H. (Causal Powers [1975], 1.V)
     A reaction: This anticipipates Kit Fine's account of necessity by 25 years, and seems to be the right way to understand it. In ordinary usage, 'there is no alternative' is obvious a quite different claim in very different contexts.
People slide from contextual variability all the way to contextual determination [Bach]
     Full Idea: People slide from contextual variability to context relativity to context sensitivity to context dependence to contextual determination.
     From: Kent Bach (What Does It Take to Refer? [2006], 22.2 L3)
     A reaction: This is reminiscent of the epistemological slide from cultural or individual relativity of some observed things, to a huge metaphysical denial of truth. Bach's warning applies to me, as I have been drifting down his slope lately. Nice.
'Semantic type coercion' is selecting the reading of a word to make the best sense [Hofweber]
     Full Idea: 'Semantic type coercion' is where an expression of variable type is forced to take a particular type on a particular occasion so that the sentence as a whole in which it occurse is semantically interpretable.
     From: Thomas Hofweber (Ontology and the Ambitions of Metaphysics [2016], 05.4.4)
     A reaction: He compares 'and' in 'John sang and Mary danced' with 'John and Mary danced together', where 'and' can vary in type, and we adopt the reading that makes sense. Hofweber says we do this with number language. He favours 'cognitive need'.
The Naive view of communication is that hearers acquire exactly the thoughts of the speaker [Recanati]
     Full Idea: The Naive Conception of Communication rests on the idea that communication is the replication of thoughts: the thought the hearer entertains when he understands what the speaker is saying is the very thought which the speaker expressed.
     From: François Recanati (Mental Files in Flux [2016], 7.1)
     A reaction: It is hard to believe that any modern thinker would believe such a view, given holistic views of language etc.
The domain of an assertion is restricted by context, either semantically or pragmatically [Rayo/Uzquiano]
     Full Idea: We generally take an assertion's domain of discourse to be implicitly restricted by context. [Note: the standard approach is that this restriction is a semantic phenomenon, but Kent Bach (2000) argues that it is a pragmatic phenomenon]
     From: Rayo,A/Uzquiasno,G (Introduction to 'Absolute Generality' [2006], 1.1)
     A reaction: I think Kent Bach is very very right about this. Follow any conversation, and ask what the domain is at any moment. The reference of a word like 'they' can drift across things, with no semantics to guide us, but only clues from context and common sense.
A sentence can be meaningful, and yet lack a truth value [Magidor]
     Full Idea: 'That is red' in a context where the demonstrative fails to refer is truth-valueless, despite being meaningful, as is 'the queen of France in 2010 is bald'. ...The claim that some sentences are meaningful but truth-valueless is, then, widely accepted.
     From: Ofra Magidor (Category Mistakes [2013], 4.1)
     A reaction: The lack of truth value is usually because of reference failure. It is best to say the words are meaningful, but no proposition is expressed.
In the pragmatic approach, presuppositions are assumed in a context, for successful assertion [Magidor]
     Full Idea: According to the pragmatic approach, presuppositions are constraints on the context: if a sentence s generates a presupposition p, an assertion of s cannot proceed smoothly unless the context already entails p (p is taken for granted).
     From: Ofra Magidor (Category Mistakes [2013], 5.3.2)
     A reaction: She credits Stalnaker for this approach. There is a choice between the presuppositions being largely driven by internal features of the sentence, or by external features of context. You may not know the context of some statements.
The basic Kaplan view is that there is truth-conditional content, and contextual character [Cappelen/Dever]
     Full Idea: In what we label 'Basic Kaplanianism', each of the sentences 'Smith is happy' and 'I am happy', as uttered by Smith, has two levels of meaning. The 'content' is a truth-conditional representation. The 'character' is a function from contexts to contents.
     From: Cappelen,H/Dever,Josh (The Inessential Indexical [2013], 01.6)
     A reaction: They give this as a minimal and plausible account of the situation, without reading huge significance into the indexical. I'm inclined to see the situation in terms of the underlying proposition containing both ingredients.
It is proposed that a huge range of linguistic items are context-sensitive [Cappelen/Dever]
     Full Idea: An enormous amount has been written about whether 'all', 'know', 'might', 'delicious', 'good', 'if, then', 'and', 'red', 'just', 'justified', 'probable', 'local', 'ready', and 'left-right' are context-sensitive.
     From: Cappelen,H/Dever,Josh (The Inessential Indexical [2013], 02.3)
     A reaction: The clearest way to approach these things is ask what the (informal) domain of quantification is for that particular context. The domain can shift in the course of a sentence.