Epistemic presuppositions and taxonomy of assertives

Epistemology and Philosophy of Science 51 (1):92-105 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The paper proposes an epistemic taxonomy of assertives based on a concept of epistemic presuppositions. Epistemic presuppositions are a special kind of pragmatic presuppositions, which describe the structure of hearer’s and speaker’s meta-reasoning. The epistemic taxonomy of assertives is based on the operator of strong common belief (sCB). It is argued that the properties of a strong common belief operator (positive and negative introspection, non-factivity) are relevant for the analysis of pragmatics presuppositions. Also strong common belief operator is used for the explication of gricean epistemic construction: “the Speaker thinks (and would expect the hearer to think that the speaker thinks…”. The assertives’ taxonomy for an utterance φ consists of the following basic types: “1. Non-Literal Utterances” (sCBS,H¬φ) and “2. Literal Utterances” (¬sCBS,H¬φ). Non-Literal Utterances is divided into two groups: “1.1. Conventional Literal Utterances“ (there is a convention such that means ψ in a context c.) and “1.2. Non- Conventional Literal Utterances“ (there no such convention). There are two types of Literal Utterances “2.1. Semantically Trivial Utterances (sCBS,Hφ)” and “2.2. Semantically Non-Trivial Utterances (¬sCBS,Hφ)”. Semantically Trivial Utterances is divided into two parts: “2.1.1. Conventional Semantically Trivial Utterances” (there is a convention such that means ψ in a context c) and “2.1.2. Non-conventional Semantically Trivial Utterances” (there no such convention). Semantically Non-Trivial Utterances is divided into two parts: “2.2.1. Insincere Utterances” BS¬φ and “2.2.2. Sincere Utterances ¬BS¬φ. There are two types of Sincere Utterances “2.2.2.1. Credible Utterances” (BSφ) and “2.2.2.2. Non-credible Utterances”).

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

“It Says What It Says”.Lars Hertzberg - 2011 - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 85 (4):589-603.
It Says What It Says.Lars Hertzberg - 2011 - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 85 (4):589-603.
Minimal propositions and real world utterances.Nellie Wieland - 2010 - Philosophical Studies 148 (3):401 - 412.
Are explicit performatives assertions?Mark Jary - 2007 - Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (2):207 - 234.
Situated Utterances and Discourse Relations.Ernest Lepore, Una Stojnic & Matthew Stone - 2013 - In Proceedings of the 10 th International Conference on Computational Semantics. Potsdam: IWCS. pp. 390 – 396.
Inferring Content: Metaphor and Malapropism.Zsófia Zvolenszky - 2015 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 55 (44):163–182.
Mathematics and Reality.Mary Leng - 2010 - Oxford: Oxford University Press.
A deflationary account of metaphor.Dan Sperber & Deirdre Wilson - 2008 - In Ray Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 84-105.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-02-24

Downloads
17 (#849,202)

6 months
13 (#184,769)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Vitaliy Dolgorukov
National Research University Higher School of Economics

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references