DOCSLIB.ORG

Illocutionary Logic and Normative Pragmatics: a Different Approach

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Illocutionary Logic and Normative Pragmatics: a Different Approach Illocutionary logic and normative pragmatics: a different approach Berislav Zarniˇ c´ University of Split Dubrovnik 2012 Berislav Zarniˇ c´ (University of Split) A different approach Dubrovnik 2012 1 / 32 Russell on the purposes of langauge 3+? purposes Three actors on the stage: Language serves three purposes: (1) to indicate facts, 1 the speaker (expresses himself), (2) to express the state of the 2 the hearer (subject to alteration of his speaker, (3) to alter the state of psychological state), the hearer. These three 3 the world (inert). purposes are not always all It was one of the great discoveries of present. contemporary philosophy to notice that the Bertrand Russell. world is not an inert element in the play. An inquiry into meaning Russell’s dictum needs an Austinian and truth. amendment: Routledge, London, 1995. 4 Language serves four purposes . (4) to The William James change the social world. lectures for 1940 delivered at Harvard University. First published in 1950. Berislav Zarniˇ c´ (University of Split) A different approach Dubrovnik 2012 2 / 32 A social fact is conceived as a kind of collective intentionality that projected from normative source to individual minds. As it was famously put, social facts “consist of manners of acting, thinking and feeling external to the individual, which are invested with a coercive power by virtue of which they exercise control over him” (Durkheim). Let us try to extract the elements from this model: normative source Ps (external “manners of acting, thinking and feeling”) requires of individual i to conform to it; what possibly gets realized (“control” success). Our translation for Durkheim’s definition: P requires conformation from i iff Requires(P , i, ') iff s J s ' 2 Ps (i) and i 2 s iff ', where Ps (i) is union of mental Ps J states and acts ' having a deontic value (forbidden, obligatory, or permitted). According to the definition a social fact can be described by the schema: ‘[deontic operator][intentionality or action operator][proposition]’ E.g. O i stit : ' represents social fact that i’s action of seeing it that ' has deontic value of obligation; P i : \'00 for social fact that i’s utterance of string \'00 is permitted; FBi' for social fact that i’s believing that ' is forbidden. Berislav Zarniˇ c´ (University of Split) A different approach Dubrovnik 2012 3 / 32 Words that can change the world It may seem tha t that deontic states of affairs can be changed only by specific speech acts, Example namely those having world to word direction of 1 (directive: request) Please fit. According to classification given by Searle do not do it! and Vanderveken [1] there are five types of 2 (commissive: promise) I “illocutionary points”: assertive, commissive, will come. directive, declarative, and expressive point. 3 (directive: permissive) You Three of these have world-to-word direction of may come. fit: 4 (directive: suggestion) It 1 “The commissive point is to commit the might be good to go there. speaker to doing something.” 5 (declarative for 1) I request 2 “The directive point is to try to get other that you do not do it . people to do things. ” 6 (declarative for 2) I 3 “The declarative point is to change the promise to come. world by saying so. ” Berislav Zarniˇ c´ (University of Split) A different approach Dubrovnik 2012 4 / 32 Do only "-speech acts change social reality? Thesis Any speech act can change some deontic Sellars principle state of affairs. What, then does it mean to say It is probably the type of action whose deontic of one sentence, B, that it is status is being changed that makes us derivable from another, A? overlook this universal deontic power of Roughly, that it is permissible speech acts. Indeed there are acts whose to assert B, given that one has deontic status cannot be changed by speech asserted A, whereas it is not acts having solely word-to-world direction of fit permissible to assert not-B, (assertives) or lacking any direction of fit given that one has asserted A. (expressives): the deontic status of acts from Wilfrid Sellars. non-speech category is not subjected to Inference and meaning. change by a speech act that does not have Mind, 62(247):313–338, world-to-word direction of fit. On the other 1953. hand, the deontic status of any speech act can by altered by some speech act. Berislav Zarniˇ c´ (University of Split) A different approach Dubrovnik 2012 5 / 32 An example Example Let: Pi says to j: “Open the window!” K Q1 j opens the window. [i : \'"] Q2 i prevents the window from being opened by j. stand for sentence form: (i) change in the deontic status of non-linguistic acts After i utters [P](O Q1 ^ F Q2) sentence ', state R1 i says to j: “It is impossible to open the acquires deontic window.” status J R2 i says to j: “You are not allowed to open the 2 fO, P, Fg. window.” Letters O, P, F stand (ii) change in the deontic status of linguistic acts for ‘obligatory’, [P]F(R _ R ) ‘permitted’ and 1 2 ‘forbidden’. Ad (i) It is assumed that j is subordinated to i’s authority and that no conflicting requirement is in force. Ad (ii) It is assumed that i did not change his mind, i.e., no retractive act is performed by uttering R1 and R2. Berislav Zarniˇ c´ (University of Split) A different approach Dubrovnik 2012 6 / 32 A possible objection An objection can be raised against the deontic power of speech acts. If the communication is not cooperative, the objection goes, then no commitments will arise either for the speaker or the hearer. The objection can be easily refuted. ‘If something is obligatory, then it is the case’ (0 O' ! ') is not an axiom of deontic logic. The language use is subjected to normative requirements but it need not conform to them. Berislav Zarniˇ c´ (University of Split) A different approach Dubrovnik 2012 7 / 32 Parallelism between normative and logical structure There is a remarkable feature of deontic changes accompanying language use: the structure of linguistic commitments Robert B. Brandom. (speech act commitments) is parallel to Making It Explicit: Reasoning, the logic of sentences being used. Representing, and Discursive Probably, this great discovery can be Commitment. 1994. attributed to Sellars. J.R. Searle and Robert Brandom (1994) has worked out a D. Vanderveken. grandiose philosophical theory which Foundations of Illocutionary takes the dynamics of deontic dimension Logic. 1985. of language use as the basic Douglas N. Walton and phenomenon. He has summarized the Erik C. Krabbe. theory as “normative pragmatics” (using Commitment in Dialogue: language means shaping social deontic Basic Concepts of reality) and “inferential semantics” Interpersonal Reasoning. (“discursive commitments are 1995. distinguished by their . inferential articulation”) . Berislav Zarniˇ c´ (University of Split) A different approach Dubrovnik 2012 8 / 32 Psychological or social sources? Normative struc- Logical structure Logical structure ture of communi- of language of intentionality cation Searle- Vanderveken Brandom Logical structu- ralism Berislav Zarniˇ c´ (University of Split) A different approach Dubrovnik 2012 9 / 32 A different approach I will argue that there is a third theoretical possibility to understand the logical structure of Brandom’s division of speech act commitments and entitlements: possible stances It is not identical to a normative discursive The difference lies in whether social reality (“constellations of the locus of authority and of commitments and entitlements on the part commitment is viewed as of various interlocutors”). internal and psychological or It is not a manifestation of (horizontal) as constituted by public social rationality of the underlying psychological practice. structure expressed in speech-acts. Robert Brandom. Instead—the logical structure of language Asserting. Nousˆ , is the fundamental, irreducible structure. 17(4):637–650, 1983. Berislav Zarniˇ c´ (University of Split) A different approach Dubrovnik 2012 10 / 32 Illocutionary logic and it psychological base Searle and Vanderveken (1985) have developed an elaborated system for capturing the logic of speech acts. I Speech act can be decomposed into two components: illocutionary force F and propositional content P. Illocutionary force is determined by seven parameters: (i) illocutionary point P (which can be assertive, commissive, directive, declarative, or expressive), (ii) degree of strength of the illocutionary point k, (iii) mode of achievement of the illocutionary point µ, (iv) propositional content conditions θ, (v) preparatory conditions S, (vi) sincerity conditions Y, (vii) degree of strength of the sincerity conditions η. I It is assumed that within a given illocutionary point each illocutionary force is constructible from the primitive force by modification of some of its components. E.g., the directive force is the primitive force within the directive point; modification of its mode of achievement to polite mode results with the request force; the force of asking yes no question results from modification of the propositional content conditions of the request force to those propositions whose truth conditions are that the hearer performs a specific speech act. Berislav Zarniˇ c´ (University of Split) A different approach Dubrovnik 2012 11 / 32 Two types of commitment transmission There are relations of commitment transfer (preservation, inheritance) between speech acts. Searle and Vanderveken analyze two kinds of commitment preservations: 1 Illocutionary entailment or commitment preservation within the same illocutionary point P over the same propositional content P: P P F1 (P) B F2 (P). 2 Pk Commitment transfer from a speech act F1 (P) with illocutionary point P over the content P to another illocutionary point P∗ over the content Q: ∗ Pk Pk F1 (P) B F2 (Q). Berislav Zarniˇ c´ (University of Split) A different approach Dubrovnik 2012 12 / 32 Commitment inheritance within illocutionary point 2.3 A completeness theorem.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Entailment, Presupposition, and Implicature in the Work of Ernest Hemingway and Tim O'brien
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 1994 The tS ylistic Mechanics of Implicitness: Entailment, Presupposition, and Implicature in the Work of Ernest Hemingway and Tim O'Brien. Donna Glee Williams Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Williams, Donna Glee, "The tS ylistic Mechanics of Implicitness: Entailment, Presupposition, and Implicature in the Work of Ernest Hemingway and Tim O'Brien." (1994). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 5768. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/5768 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough,m asubstandard r gins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
    [Show full text]
  • Presupposition Projection and Entailment Relations
    Presupposition Projection and Entailment Relations Amaia Garcia Odon i Acknowledgements I would like to thank the members of my thesis committee, Prof. Dr. Rob van der Sandt, Dr. Henk Zeevat, Dr. Isidora Stojanovic, Dr. Cornelia Ebert and Dr. Enric Vallduví for having accepted to be on my thesis committee. I am extremely grateful to my adviser, Louise McNally, and to Rob van der Sandt. Without their invaluable help, I would not have written this dissertation. Louise has been a wonderful adviser, who has always provided me with excellent guid- ance and continuous encouragement. Rob has been a mentor who has generously spent much time with me, teaching me Logic, discussing my work, and helping me clear up my thoughts. Very special thanks to Henk Zeevat for having shared his insights with me and for having convinced me that it was possible to finish on time. Thanks to Bart Geurts, Noor van Leusen, Sammie Tarenskeen, Bob van Tiel, Natalia Zevakhina and Corien Bary in Nijmegen; to Paul Dekker, Jeroen Groe- nendijk, Frank Veltman, Floris Roelofsen, Morgan Mameni, Raquel Fernández and Margot Colinet in Amsterdam; to Fernando García Murga, Agustín Vicente, Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria, Javier Ormazabal, Vidal Valmala, Gorka Elordieta, Urtzi Etxeberria and Javi Fernández in Vitoria-Gasteiz, to David Beaver and Mari- bel Romero. Also thanks to the people I met at the ESSLLIs of Bordeaux, Copen- hagen and Ljubljana, especially to Nick Asher, Craige Roberts, Judith Tonhauser, Fenghui Zhang, Mingya Liu, Alexandra Spalek, Cornelia Ebert and Elena Pa- ducheva. I gratefully acknowledge the financial help provided by the Basque Government – Departamento de Educación, Universidades e Investigación (BFI07.96) and Fun- dación ICREA (via an ICREA Academia award to Louise McNally).
    [Show full text]
  • The Peripatetic Program in Categorical Logic: Leibniz on Propositional Terms
    THE REVIEW OF SYMBOLIC LOGIC, Page 1 of 65 THE PERIPATETIC PROGRAM IN CATEGORICAL LOGIC: LEIBNIZ ON PROPOSITIONAL TERMS MARKO MALINK Department of Philosophy, New York University and ANUBAV VASUDEVAN Department of Philosophy, University of Chicago Abstract. Greek antiquity saw the development of two distinct systems of logic: Aristotle’s theory of the categorical syllogism and the Stoic theory of the hypothetical syllogism. Some ancient logicians argued that hypothetical syllogistic is more fundamental than categorical syllogistic on the grounds that the latter relies on modes of propositional reasoning such as reductio ad absurdum. Peripatetic logicians, by contrast, sought to establish the priority of categorical over hypothetical syllogistic by reducing various modes of propositional reasoning to categorical form. In the 17th century, this Peripatetic program of reducing hypothetical to categorical logic was championed by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. In an essay titled Specimina calculi rationalis, Leibniz develops a theory of propositional terms that allows him to derive the rule of reductio ad absurdum in a purely categor- ical calculus in which every proposition is of the form AisB. We reconstruct Leibniz’s categorical calculus and show that it is strong enough to establish not only the rule of reductio ad absurdum,but all the laws of classical propositional logic. Moreover, we show that the propositional logic generated by the nonmonotonic variant of Leibniz’s categorical calculus is a natural system of relevance logic ¬ known as RMI→ . From its beginnings in antiquity up until the late 19th century, the study of formal logic was shaped by two distinct approaches to the subject. The first approach was primarily concerned with simple propositions expressing predicative relations between terms.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 7: Semantics and Pragmatics. Entailments, Presuppositions, Conversational and Conventional Implicatures. Grice's
    Formal Semantics, Lecture 7 Formal Semantics, Lecture 7 B. H. Partee, RGGU April 1, 2004 p. 1 B. H. Partee, RGGU April 1, 2004 p. 2 Lecture 7: Semantics and Pragmatics. Entailments, presuppositions, (intentionally or unintentionally) much more than what is literally said by the words of her conversational and conventional implicatures. Grice’s conversational sentence. maxims. An example: (1) A: How is C getting along in his new job at the bank? 1. Grice’s Conversational Implicatures. .................................................................................................................1 B: Oh, quite well, I think; he likes his colleagues, and he hasn’t been to prison yet. 1.1. Motivation. Questions about the meanings of logical words.......................................................................1 1.2. Truth-conditional content (semantics) vs. Conversational Implicatures (pragmatics).................................2 What B implied, suggested, or meant is distinct from what B said. All B said was that C had 1.3. Conversational maxims. (“Gricean maxims”.) ............................................................................................3 not been to prison yet. 1.4. Generating implicatures. General principles. Examples............................................................................4 1.4.1. Characterization of conversational implicature. .............................................................................4 1.4.2. More Examples...............................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Presupposition and Entailment Yuanli Fan School of Foreign Studies, Xi’An University, Shaanxi Xi’An 710065
    Advances in Computer Science Research (ACSR), volume 76 7th International Conference on Education, Management, Information and Mechanical Engineering (EMIM 2017) Presupposition and Entailment Yuanli Fan School of Foreign Studies, Xi’an University, Shaanxi Xi’an 710065 Keywords: Presupposition; Entailment; Negation test; Information focus Abstracts. This paper aimsat the distinction of Presupposition and Entailment. Since variouskinds of definition misused confusedly. The distinction is always a hot question for discussing. The author triesto distinguish the presupposition and entailment fromsemantic scope by negation test. The traditional negation test seemsto have itslimitation for the semantic negation hasitsfunction scope. Therefore, the information focus is introduced to make a distinction between semantic presupposition and entailment of a multi-elements sentence. Through analyzing preposition and entailment of English sentence, the semantic and pragmatic essence can be easily acquired in order to promote the English Communication Competence. However, some sentence pattern, such asthe Imperative sentence, isneeded to do further research. Introduction Entailment and presupposition showsthe different relationship between sentences. Both of themare the meaning and information deduced fromthe sentence itself. The distinction between the two is alwaysan attentive hot question and hasnot reached agreement. The key point about that lie in: firstly, different referring terms are used by the same symbol and causing the misunderstanding about presupposition and entailment. It isessential to make clear distinction of presupposition and entailment for the developing of pragmatic or semantic research. In thispaper, we will discussthe semantic presupposition, and the distinction of semantic presupposition and entailment. The Philosophy Origination of Presupposition Presupposition originates with debates in philosophy, specifically debates about the nature of reference and referring expressions.
    [Show full text]
  • Truth and Truthmaking in 17Th-Century Scholasticism
    Truth and Truthmaking in 17th-Century Scholasticism by Brian Embry A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy University of Toronto © Copyright by Brian Embry 2015 Truth and Truthmaking in 17th-Century Scholasticism Brian Embry Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy University of Toronto 2015 Abstract Some propositions are true and others are false. What explains this difference? Some philosophers have recently defended the view that a proposition is true because there is an entity, its truthmaker, that makes it true. Call this the ‘truthmaker principle’. The truthmaker principle is controversial, occasioning the rise of a large contemporary debate about the nature of truthmaking and truthmakers. What has gone largely unnoticed is that scholastics of the early modern period also had the notion of a truthmaker [verificativum], and this notion is at the center of early modern scholastic disputes about the ontological status of negative entities, the past and future, and uninstantiated essences. My project is to explain how early modern scholastics conceive of truthmaking and to show how they use the notion of a truthmaker to regiment ontological enquiry. I argue that the notion of a truthmaker is born of a certain conception of truth according to which truth is a mereological sum of a true mental sentence and its intentional object. This view entails the truthmaker principle and is responsible for some surprising metaphysical views. For example, it leads many early modern scholastics to posit irreducible negative entities as truthmakers for negative truths, giving rise to an extensive literature on the nature of negative entities.
    [Show full text]
  • Indeterminate Truth PATRICK GREENOUGH
    Midwest Studies in Philosophy, XXXII (2008) Indeterminate Truth PATRICK GREENOUGH 1. PREAMBLE Can a truth-bearer be true but not determinately so?1 On the enduringly popular standard supervaluational conception of indeterminacy, under which the principle of bivalence is invalid, the answer is a straightforward No. On such a conception, truth just is determinate truth—truth in all admissible interpretations.2 For that reason, a more interesting question is: can a truth-bearer be true but not determi- nately so on a conception of indeterminacy under which both classical semantics and classical logic remain valid?3 Under such a conception, very roughly, a truth- bearer is indeterminate in truth-value just in case it is either true or false but it is not determinate that this truth-bearer is true and not determinate that it is false. Within such a classical framework, the possibility of indeterminate truth has proved to be at best elusive, at worst incoherent. On this score, Crispin Wright alleges that it 1. Following Williamson (1996, 44), I take “definitely” and “determinately” to be interchange- able, though I will use the latter term throughout. 2. See van Fraassen (1966, 1968), Thomason (1970), Dummett (1975), Fine (1975), Keefe (2000). Given supervaluational semantics, a truth-bearer can be true on one but not all admissible interpretations (and so not determinately true). However, this does not entail that the truth-bearer is true simpliciter (but not determinately so). 3. Classical semantics is taken to include bivalence, “bi-exclusion” (the thesis that no truth- bearer is both true and false), the appropriate disquotational schemas for truth and denotation, plus the claim that validity is necessary preservation of truth.
    [Show full text]
  • Leibniz: Logic
    http://www.iep.utm.edu/leib-log/ Go FEB APR MAY ⍰ ❎ 107 captures 06 f 19 Aug 2014 - 6 Apr 2020 2019 2020 2021 ▾ About this capture Leibniz: Logic The revolutionary ideas of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646- 1716) on logic were developed by him between 1670 and 1690. The ideas can be divided into four areas: the Syllogism, the Universal Calculus, Propositional Logic, and Modal Logic. These revolutionary ideas remained hidden in the Archive of the Royal Library in Hanover until 1903 when the French mathematician Louis Couturat published the Opuscules et fragments inédits de Leibniz. Couturat was a great admirer of Leibniz’s thinking in general, and he saw in Leibniz a brilliant forerunner of modern logic. Nevertheless he came to the conclusion that Leibniz’s logic had largely failed and that in general the so-called “intensional” approach to logic was necessarily bound to fail. Similarly, in their standard historiography of logic, W. & M. Kneale (1962) maintained that Leibniz “never succeeded in producing a calculus which covered even the whole theory of the syllogism”. Even in recent years, scholars like Liske (1994), Swoyer (1995), and Schupp (2000) argued that Leibniz’s intensional conception must give rise to inconsistencies and paradoxes. On the other hand, starting with Dürr (1930), Rescher (1954), and Kauppi (1960), a certain rehabilitation of Leibniz’s intensional logic may be observed which was by and by supported and supplemented by Poser (1969), Ishiguro (1972), Rescher (1979), Burkhardt (1980), Schupp (1982), and Mugnai (1992).
    [Show full text]
  • Logical Positivism, Operationalism, and Behaviorism
    This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 70-6878 SHANAB, Robert E lias Abu, 1939- LOGICAL POSITIVISM, OPERATIONALISM, AND BEHAVIORISM. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1969 Philosophy University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan LOGICAL POSITIVISM, OPERATIONALISM, AND BEHAVIORISM DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Robert Elias Abu Shanab, B.A., A.M. ******** The Ohio State University 1969 Approved by / Adviser Department of Philosophy Dedicated to Professor Virgil Hinshaw, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am especially indebted to my adviser, Professor Virgil Hinshaw, Jr. Several of his suggestions have been incorporated in the final manuscript. I wish also to express my thanks to Professor Charles F. Kielkopf. Finally I wish to extend affection and gratitude to my wife for encouragement, patience and for the hours spent typing and retyping manuscripts. ii VITA September 29, 1939 B o m - Jerusalem, Palestine 1962 ........ ........... B.A. , San Jose State College, San Jose, California 1964 ................... M.A., San Jose State College, San Jose, California 1965-1966 ............. Instructor, College of San Mateo, San Mateo, California 1967-1968 ....... Teaching Assistant, Department of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1969 ................... Lecturer, The Ohio State University, Newark, Ohio iii CONTENTS. Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..... ....................... ii V I T A ..............................................iii
    [Show full text]
  • Semantics, Pragmatics and Discourse
    Semantics, Pragmatics and Discourse Nicholas Asher IRIT, UMR 5505, Universite´ Paul Sabatier, Toulouse Outline • introduction: semantics and pragmatics • various ways of doing discourse semantics • empirical issues • theoretical and empirical challenges • quantity implicatures and discourse • lexicon and discourse 1 Introduction: Formal Methods in Semantics • building on Tarski and Montague, semantics establishes a way of building a logical form in a formal language with a clear model the- oretic intepretation from natural language syntax. • Compositionality (the meaning of the whole is a function of the meaning of the parts–Frege, Montague) • frameworks for constructing logical form: the simply typed λ calcu- lus, unification. • Different sorts of interpretations: static truth conditions, dynamic up- date conditions. 2 Some key points • the importance of the lexicon as furnishing the basic building blocks of the composition process • Why truth or related concept (update conditions): entailment 3 Introduction: Divides in content–Semantics vs. Pragmatics • Pragmatics is traditionally considered separate from semantic con- tent. A strain of Anglo-American philosophy continues to argue for a strict separation. Pragmatics does not enter into the composition process but is at another level entirely, as in Gricean implicature. (1) a. A: Did all your students pass the exam? b. B: Some did. (implicates not all did) • key feature: context of use a determinant aspect of pragmatic inter- pretation. 4 A more nuanced view Various contextualists (Recanati, Sperber and Wilson) and increasing numbers of linguists (since Kamp 1973) believe that semantics and pragmatics have a much closer interaction. • indexicals and demonstratives, I, you, here, now, dependence on de- ictic contexts. • coercion: (2) I’m parked out back (Nunberg).
    [Show full text]
  • Speech Acts in Discourse Context Craige Roberts
    April, 2018 To appear in Daniel Fogal, Daniel Harris & Matt Moss (eds.) New Work on Speech Acts. Oxford University Press. Speech Acts in Discourse Context Craige Roberts Abstract: There is evidence for the existence across all known languages of three basic clause types: declarative, interrogative, and imperative. Though this distinction in grammatical mood may be reflected in quite different ways (syntactic, morphological, lexical, etc.) in different languages, cross-linguistically we find a robust generalization: The choice of mood in a clausal utterance is reflected in a default correlation to one of the three basic types of move in a language game: making an assertion (declarative), posing a question (interrogative), or proposing to one’s addressee(s) the adoption of a goal (imperative). This is in striking contrast to the lack of regular correlation between the conventional content of constituents and speech act types in the tradition of Austin and Searle. This paper sketches an approach to speech acts in which mood does not semantically determine illocutionary force. In a clause, the conventional content of mood determines the semantic type of the clause, and, given the nature of discourse, that type most naturally lends itself to serving as a particular type of speech act, i.e. to serving as one of the three basic types of language game moves. The type of semantics for grammatical mood that I assume is illustrated here with the imperative. As in earlier work, I take discourse to be a certain type of language game, with felicity tightly constrained by the goals and intentions of the interlocutors and, in particular, by the question under discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • Leibniz and the Ground of Possibility
    Leibniz and the Ground of Possibility Samuel Newlands University of Notre Dame 1. Introduction When it comes to the metaphysics of modality, Leibniz holds a special pride of place among modern philosophers. He had far richer and more developed insights about modality than any of his near contemporaries, and arguably the depth and quality of his work on modal matters was unsurpassed until the twentieth century. It’s thus not surprising that I am very grateful to Robert Merrihew Adams, Colin Chamberlain, Andrew Chignell, Tom Flint, Michael Griffin, Anja Jauernig, Larry Jorgensen, Marcy Lascano, Sukjae Lee, Mich- ael Rea, and Jeff Speaks for extended discussions of this material. I would also like to thank audience members at theSeventhAnnual NYU Conference on Issues in the History of Mod- ern Philosophy, the 2010 Leibniz Society of North America conference, the 2010 Logos workshop at Rutgers University, the 2010 SCP Eastern Division Meeting at Wake Forest University, and participants in a discussion group and graduate seminar at Notre Dame for many helpful questions, objections, and suggestions on earlier versions of this essay. Abbreviations: Frequently cited works have been identified by the following abbrevi- ations, which are grouped by author: Leibniz AG Philosophical Essays, ed. and trans. by Roger Ariew and Daniel Garber (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1989). Ak Sa¨mtliche Schriften und Briefe, ed. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften (Darmstadt and Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1923–). Cited by series/volume/page. When unaccompa- nied by another reference, translations are my own. CP Confessio Philosophi: Papers Concerning the Problem of Evil, 1671–1678, trans. and ed.
    [Show full text]