Content in a Dynamic Context

Noûs 53 (2):394-432 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX


The standing tradition in theorizing about meaning, since at least Frege, identifies meaning with propositions, which are, or determine, the truth-conditions of a sentence in a context. But a recent trend has advocated a departure from this tradition: in particular, it has been argued that modal claims do not express standard propositional contents. This non-propositionalism has received different implementations in expressivist semantics and certain kinds of dynamic semantics. They maintain that the key aspect of interpretation of modal claims is the characteristic dynamic effect they have on the context. I argue that pessimism about truth-conditions arises from an overly simplistic picture of content, context and their interaction. While I agree with the critics that an important aspect of modal meaning is the dynamic effect modals have on the context, I argue that they have mischaracterized the nature and the complexity of this effect. A more nuanced account of the interaction between modals and context shows that far from being incompatible with propositional meaning, the dynamic aspect of meaning is precisely what allows us to predict the correct propositional content of an utterance.

Similar books and articles

Truth and Context Change.Andreas Stokke - 2012 - Journal of Philosophical Logic (1):1-19.
One's Modus Ponens: Modality, Coherence and Logic.Una Stojnić - 2017 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 95 (1):167-214.
Context and Content: Pragmatics in Two-Dimensional Semantics.Berit Brogaard - 2012 - In Keith Allan & Kasia Jaszczolt (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
Anti-dynamics: Presupposition projection without dynamic semantics. [REVIEW]Philippe Schlenker - 2007 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16 (3):325--356.
Communicating by doing something else.Alex Davies - 2018 - In Tamara Dobler & John Collins (eds.), The Philosophy of Charles Travis: Language, Thought, and Perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 135-154.
A Preference Semantics for Imperatives.William B. Starr - 2020 - Semantics and Pragmatics 20.
Perspectival thought.Jesper Kallestrup - 2009 - Analysis 69 (2):347-352.
Context dependence and implicit arguments in existentials.Itamar Francez - 2010 - Linguistics and Philosophy 33 (1):11-30.


Added to PP

448 (#30,261)

6 months
77 (#22,630)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Una Stojnic
Princeton University

Citations of this work

The Dynamics of Argumentative Discourse.Carlotta Pavese & Alexander W. Kocurek - 2022 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 51 (2):413-456.
Truth and Imprecision.Josh Armstrong - forthcoming - Analytic Philosophy.
How to do things with modals.Matthew Mandelkern - 2019 - Mind and Language 35 (1):115-138.
Theories of meaning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).Jeff Speaks - 2010 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

View all 11 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Demonstratives: An Essay on the Semantics, Logic, Metaphysics and Epistemology of Demonstratives and other Indexicals.David Kaplan - 1989 - In Joseph Almog, John Perry & Howard Wettstein (eds.), Themes From Kaplan. Oxford University Press. pp. 481-563.
Scorekeeping in a language game.David Lewis - 1979 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1):339--359.
Uber Sinn und Bedeutung.Gottlob Frege - 1892 - Zeitschrift für Philosophie Und Philosophische Kritik 100 (1):25-50.
Epistemic Modals.Seth Yalcin - 2007 - Mind 116 (464):983-1026.
Common ground.Robert Stalnaker - 2002 - Linguistics and Philosophy 25 (5-6):701-721.

View all 52 references / Add more references