Semantic content and compositional context-sensitivity

  1. Esther Romero 1
  2. Belén Soria 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Granada
    info

    Universidad de Granada

    Granada, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04njjy449

Revista:
Theoria: an international journal for theory, history and foundations of science

ISSN: 0495-4548

Año de publicación: 2019

Volumen: 34

Número: 1

Páginas: 51-71

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1387/THEORIA.17683 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Theoria: an international journal for theory, history and foundations of science

Resumen

Algunos teóricos han rechazado recientemente la concepción del contenido semántico de una oración como proposición mínima afirmando que para conseguir una proposición mínima a menudo se necesitan aspectos intencionales del contexto. Sin embargo, minimalistas como Borg siguen defendiendo que las oraciones en un contexto estrecho expresan proposiciones mínimas sin tener en cuenta las intenciones y lo defienden resolviendo o disolviendo las objeciones de incompletitud. En este artículo mostramos que esas supuestas defensas del proposicionalismo no sirven para evitar otras objeciones genuinas que dependen de la sensibilidad contextual composicional. Nuestro objetivo es mostrar que hay expresiones complejas que demandan composicionalmente de modo obligatorio efectos pragmáticos cuya recuperación depende de las intenciones y, por ello, proporcionan evidencia contra el tipo de proposicionalismo que fundamenta la defensa del minimismo semántico

€ Ver financiación

Información de financiación

& research for this paper was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, EX-CELENCIA program, project FFI2016-79317-P. We are very grateful to John Keating for suggestions on an earlier draft and to the anonymous reviewers for the valuable and insightful comments to a pre-vious version that significantly improved the quality of our work.

Financiadores

    • FFI2016-79317-P

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Bach, Kent. 1994. Conversational impliciture. Mind and Language 9/2: 124-162.
  • Bach, Kent. 2000. Quantification, qualification and context. A reply to Stanley and Szabó. Mind and Language 15/2-3: 262-283.
  • Bach, Kent. 2001a. Semantically speaking. In István Kenesei and Robert M. Harnish, eds., Perspectives on semantics, pragmatics, and discourse. A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer, 147-172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Bach, Kent. 2001b. You don’t say? Synthese 128/1-2: 15-44.
  • Bach, Kent. 2006. The excluded middle: Minimal semantics without minimal propositions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 73: 435-442.
  • Borg, Emma. 2001. An expedition abroad: Metaphor, thought, and reporting. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 25/1: 227-248.
  • Borg, Emma. 2004. Minimal semantics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Borg, Emma. 2012. Pursuing meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Cappelen, Herman and Ernest Lepore. 2005. Insensitive semantics: A defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers.
  • Giora, Rachel, Oshrat Gazal, Idit Goldstein, Ofer Fein and Argyris Stringaris. 2012. Salience and context: Interpretation of metaphorical and literal language by young adults diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome. Metaphor and Symbol 27/1: 22-54.
  • Gold, Rinat and Miriam Faust. 2012. Metaphor comprehension in persons with Asperger’s syndrome: Systemized versus non-systemized semantic processing. Metaphor and Symbol 27/1: 55-69.
  • Kaplan, David. 1989. Afterthoughts. In Joseph Almog, John Perry and Howard Wettstein, eds., Themes from Kaplan, 565-614. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Neale, Stephen. 2007. Heavy hands, magic and scene-reading traps. EUJAP 3/2: 77-132.
  • Perry, John. 2001. Reference and reflexivity. Stanford CA: CSLI.
  • Recanati, François. 1993. Direct reference: From language to thought. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Recanati, François. 2004. Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Recanati, François. 2005. Deixis and Anaphora. In Zoltán Gendler Szabó, ed., Semantics vs pragmatics, 286-316. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Recanati, François. 2010. Truth-conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Recanati, François. 2013. Reply to Romero and Soria. Teorema 32/2: 175-178.
  • Romero, Esther, and Belén Soria. 2013a. Optionality in truth-conditional pragmatics. Teorema 32/2: 157-174.
  • Romero, Esther, and Belén Soria. 2013b. Anomaly in novel metaphor and experimental tests. Journal of Literary Semantics 42/1: 31-57.
  • Romero, Esther, and Belén Soria. 2013c. Challenges to Bach’s pragmatics. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 13/38: 135-160.
  • Romero, Esther, and Belén Soria. 2016. Against Lepore and Stone’s sceptic account of metaphorical meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 16/47: 145-172.
  • Sag, Ivan A. 1981. Formal semantics and extralinguistic context. In Peter Cole, ed., Radical pragmatics, 273-294. London: Academic Press, Inc.
  • Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Stanley, Jason. 2000. Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy 23/4: 391-434.
  • Stanley, Jason. 2005. Semantics in context. In Gerhard Preyer and Georg Peter, eds., Contextualism in philosophy: Knowledge, meaning, and truth, 221-253. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Stern, Josef. 2006. Metaphor, literal and literalism. Mind and Language 21/3: 243-279.
  • Stern, Josef. 2011. Metaphor and minimalism. Philosophical Studies 153/2: 273-298.
  • Travis, Charles. 2006. Insensitive semantics. Mind and Language 21/1: 39-49.
  • Travis, Charles. 2008. Occasion-sensitivity: Selected essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet