We say that a sentence A is a permissive consequence of a set X of premises whenever, if all the premises of X hold up to some standard, then A holds to some weaker standard. In this paper, we focus on a three-valued version of this notion, which we call strict-to-tolerant consequence, and discuss its fruitfulness toward a unified treatment of the paradoxes of vagueness and self-referential truth. For vagueness, st-consequence supports the principle of tolerance; for truth, it supports the (...) requisite of transparency. Permissive consequence is non-transitive, however, but this feature is argued to be an essential component to the understanding of paradoxical reasoning in cases involving vagueness or self-reference. (shrink)

In pragmatics, the theory of language use, it is standard to assume that communication is a cooperative affair. Recently, this standard view has come under attack by Ducrot and Merin, and it has been proposed that an argumentative view on natural language use is more appropriate. In this paper I discuss to what extent this attack is justified and whether the alternative view can provide a more adequate analysis of ‘pragmatic meaning’, i.e., implicatures.RésuméEn pragmatique, la théorie de l’usage du langage, (...) on suppose habituellement que la communication est une affaire coopérative. Cette conception standard a été récemment attaquée par Ducrot et Merin, et il a été avancé qu’un point de vue argumentatif sur l’usage du langage naturel serait plus approprié. Dans cet article, je discute la question de savoir dans quelle mesure cette attaque est justifiée et si le point de vue alternatif peut fournir une analyse plus adéquate de la « signification pragmatique », à savoir les implicatures. (shrink)

En pragmatique, la théorie de l’usage du langage, on suppose habituellement que la communication est une affaire coopérative. Cette conception standard a été récemment attaquée par Ducrot et Merin, et il a été avancé qu’un point de vue argumentatif sur l’usage du langage naturel serait plus approprié. Dans cet article, je discute la question de savoir dans quelle mesure cette attaque est justifiée et si le point de vue alternatif peut fournir une analyse plus adéquate de la « signification pragmatique (...) », à savoir les implicatures. (shrink)

According to Frege, the meaning of an expression is the description that helps language users to determine what its reference is. Natural as the view might seem, it gives rise to the conceptual problem that it presupposes that we already know the meaning of the terms used in the description, and it is empirically incorrect because ‘having a correct description in mind’ is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for successful reference. Perhaps reference for at least some times is (...) non-descriptive, and depends on context. Anaphora have a referential use as well, picking up the speaker’s referent of an earlier used indefinite description. The challenge of this view is to provide a satisfactory analysis of so-called donkey-sentences. (shrink)