Critical Pragmatics develops three ideas: language is a way of doing things with words; meanings of phrases and contents of utterances derive ultimately from human intentions; and language combines with other factors to allow humans to achieve communicative goals. In this book, Kepa Korta and John Perry explain why critical pragmatics provides a coherent picture of how parts of language study fit together within the broader picture of human thought and action. They focus on issues about singular reference, that is, (...) talk about particular things, places or people, which have played a central role in the philosophy of language for more than a century. They argue that attention to the 'reflexive' or 'utterance-bound' contents of utterances sheds new light on these old problems. Their important study proposes a new approach to pragmatics and should be of wide interest to philosophers of language and linguists. (shrink)

In this paper, we focus on some misconceptions about Critical Pragmatics, what it is, what it assumes and what it proposes. Doubtless, some of these misconceptions are due to clumsy writing on our part; perhaps others are due to inattentive reading. And some may be due to an effort to shield us from the apparent implausibility of what we said—and in fact meant. It does not matter much. We focus on those misunderstandings that most matter to us, either because, by (...) repetition, they have ended up being annoying, even if they are not, perhaps, that important; or because they are substantial enough to represent a distortion of the basic picture of Critical Pragmatics and its theoretical foundations, namely, Critical Referentialism—also known as the Reflexive-referential Theory—and, more generally, Perry’s fundamental views on meaning and content(s). (shrink)

Singular terms without referents are called empty or vacuous terms. But not all of them are equally empty. In particular, not all proper names that fail to name an existing object fail in the same way: although they are all empty, they are not all equally vacuous. “Vulcan,” “Jacob Horn,” “Odysseus,” and “Sherlock Holmes,” for instance, are all empty. They have no referents. But they are not entirely vacuous or useless. Sometimes they are used in statements that are true or (...) false. We are basically referentialists about proper names. The ordinary semantic function of a proper name is to refer to an object, and to do it directly, that is, without semantically providing any identifying condition that the object should meet to be the referent. To put it differently, we agree that statements containing proper names express singular propositions, i.e., that their truth-conditions involve the referent of the proper name, if it exists, and not any identifying condition of it. Now, since empty names lack a referent, and therefore would not express such a singular proposition, how do we explain that many, if not all, statements containing them have a truth-value? Answering this question for the case of fictional names, in particular, is the aim of this paper. (shrink)

Classical Gricean pragmatics is usually conceived as dealing with far-side pragmatics, aimed at computing implicatures. It involves reasoning about why what was said, was said. Near-side pragmatics, on the other hand, is pragmatics in the service of determining, together with the semantical properties of the words used, what was said. But this raises the specter of ‘the pragmatic circle.’ If Gricean pragmatics seeks explanations for why someone said what they did, how can there be Gricean pragmatics on the near-side? Gricean (...) reasoning seems to require what is said to get started. But then if Gricean reasoning is needed to get to what is said, we have a circle. (shrink)

Gricean pragmatics seems to pose a dilemma. If semantics is limited to the conventional meanings of types of expressions, then the semantics of an utterance does not determine what is said. If all that figures in the determination of what is said counts as semantics, then pragmatic reasoning about the specific intentions of a speaker intrudes on semantics. The dilemma is false. Key points: Semantics need not determine what is said, and the description, with which the hearer begins, need not (...) provide the hearer with knowledge of what was said, or the ability to express what was said, from the hearer's context. (shrink)

These lines — also attributed to H. L. Mencken and Carl Jung — although perhaps politically incorrect, are surely correct in reminding us that more is involved in what one communicates than what one literally says; more is involved in what one means than the standard, conventional meaning of the words one uses. The words ‘yes,’ ‘perhaps,’ and ‘no’ each has a perfectly identifiable meaning, known by every speaker of English (including not very competent ones). However, as those lines illustrate, (...) it is possible for different speakers in different circumstances to mean different things using those words. How is this possible? What's the relationship among the meaning of words, what speakers mean when uttering those words, the particular circumstances of their utterance, their intentions, their actions, and what they manage to communicate? These are some of the questions that pragmatics tries to answer; the sort of questions that, roughly speaking, serve.. (shrink)

In §8 of his Begriffsschrift (1879), Gottlob Frege discusses issues related to identity. Frege begins his most famous essay, “On Sense and Denotation” (1892), published 13 years later, by criticizing the view advocated in §8. He returns to these issues in the concluding paragraph. Controversies continue over these important passages. We offer an interpretation and discuss some alternatives. We defend that in the Begriffsschrift, Frege does not hold that identity is a relation between signs. §8 of the Begriffsschrift is motivated (...) by the conflict between two different criteria for sameness of conceptual content of sentences. To resolve that conflict, Frege introduces ‘≡’ in §8 and, thus, circumstances with names as constituents. To the same end, in “On Sense and Denotation,” Frege introduces senses and Thoughts and abandons both ‘≡’ and circumstances. He solves what we call the Co-instantiation problem, and disregards, but does not solve, the Name problem. (shrink)

In formulating the puzzle about cognitive significance in ‘Über Sinn und Bedeutung’, Frege rejects the approach he suggested in the Begriffsschrift on the ground that if the utterance of a sentence of the form a = b is understood as ‘a’ and ‘b’ referring to the same object we lose the subject matter. In this note, we will show how Frege’s concerns can be understood and circumvented.

[EN] In this paper, I offer a content–pluralistic account of the meaning of the first–person plural pronoun «we», building upon John Perry’s view on indexicals and demonstratives. I argue that unlike «I», «we» is not a pure or automatic indexical: i.e., it is an indexical whose referents are partly determined by the speaker’s intention; and that it’s not wholly discretionary either, since its character or meaning does require that the speaker be part of its referent. In this sense, «we» is (...) not just the plural counterpart of «I», but is closer to «now» and «here». I consider an alternative approach defended by Vallée that takes the meaning of «we» as reducible to the meaning of «I» plus the different combinations of «you» singular, «he/she», «you» plural, and «they». I argue that, other things being equal, a basic economy principle of meaning favors my approach, and that the cases of co–reference and anaphora posed by Vallée himself and Nunberg are better explained by it. Besides, I discuss seemingly non referential uses of «we», as in Nunberg’s cases of «we [the condemned prisoners]», in which besides referring to herself the speaker does not seem to have any other particular individual in mind to whom she intends to refer. I contend that my approach provides a natural account of these cases. [ES] En este trabajo, presento una teoría del significado del pronombre de primera persona del plural, «nosotros», inspirada en la concepción sobre los indéxicos y demostrativos de John Perry. Defiendo que a diferencia de «yo», «nosotros» no es un indéxico puro o automático, puesto que su referencia se determina en parte mediante la intención de la hablante; y no es enteramente discrecional, ya que su carácter o significado requiere que la hablante sea parte de su referencia. En este sentido, “nosotros” no constituye la mera contrapartida plural de «yo», y está más cercano a «aquí» y «ahora». Además, discuto una teoría alternativa propuesta por Vallée, que reduce el significado de «nosotros» al de «yo» más las distintas combinaciones de «tú», «ella», «él», «vosotras/vosotros» y «ellas/ellos», para concluir que principios básicos de economía y simplicidad teórica hablan a favor de mi propuesta, y que los casos de co-referencia y anáfora aducidos por el propio Vallée y Nunberg también se explican mejor mediante ella. Finalmente, considero supuestos casos de usos no referenciales de «nosotros», como los que presenta Nunberg, en los que la hablante no parece tener la intención de referirse a ningún individuo en particular aparte de sí misma. Sostengo que mi propuesta ofrece una explicación clara y natural de tales casos. (shrink)

Proponemos una interpretación novedosa de la(s) teoría(s) de Frege en Begriffsschrift (1879/2016) y “Über Sinn und Bedeutung” (1892a/2016). Prestamos especial atención al papel de las circunstancias como contenido conceptual de las oraciones en Begriffsschrift y argumentamos que ninguna razón de las que ofrece Frege en “Über Sinn und Bedeutung” para establecer los valores de verdad como referencia de las oraciones justifica su eliminación. Este artículo no es tanto de carácter histórico como de reconstrucción conceptual. Buscamos en Frege las raíces de (...) una concepción pluralista del contenido de la oración (Perry, 2001/2012; Korta & Perry, 2011). (shrink)

This volume offers novel views on the precise relation between reference to an object by means of a linguistic expression and our mental representation of that object, long a source of debate in the philosophy of language, linguistics, and cognitive science. Chapters in this volume deal with our devices for singular reference and singular representation, with most focusing on linguistic expressions that are used to refer to particular objects, persons, or places. These expressions include proper names such as Mary and (...) John; indexicals such as I and tomorrow; demonstrative pronouns such as this and that; and some definite and indefinite descriptions such as The Queen of England or a medical doctor. Other chapters examine the ways we represent objects in thought, particularly the first-person perspective and the self, and one explores a notion common to reference and representation: salience. The volume includes the latest views on these complex topics from some of the most prominent authors in the field and will be of interest to anyone working on issues of reference and representation in thought and language. (shrink)

Cappelen and Lepore view themselves as embattled defenders of the Free Republic of Semantics from the attacks of its enemies, mostly in the form of pragmatic incursions. They withdraw to a limited territory, and defend it with reason, humor, and other less noble weapons. The enemies are everywhere. This way of posing the debates is often humorous and helps make the book easy to read. It also often leads the authors to caricaturize and to trivialize many of the problems, arguments (...) and positions held by the different parties. (shrink)

Grice’s so-called ‘theory of conversation’ (Grice 1967a) establishes a basic distinction between two aspects of utterance meaning: what is said and what is implicated. Some authors (Carston (1988), Recanati (1989), Sperber and Wilson (1986)) have criticized this distinction and, particularly, its application to the pragmatic analysis of several linguistic phenomena, giving rise to an interesting debate on the delimitation of the different aspects of utterance meaning. Bach (1994) enters the discussion with a proposal of revision of Grice’s original distinction, including (...) a new category: what is implicited. The aim of this paper is to participate in this debate paying attention to some questions concerning the Gricean ‘tests’ of cancelability and non-detachability for the different aspects of utterance meaning. More specifically, our claim is that these tests support Bach’s (1994) triple distinction among what is said, impliciture, and implicature, because we can establish the following results. (shrink)

After a long century of history as a more or less autonomous philosophical domain, Philosophy of Language continues without a collectively accepted characterization. Nowadays it is not perhaps so common to equate it with Analytic Philosophy or with certain type of Linguistic Philosophy. Maybe they are not so many those who defend a First Philosophy capable of accessing to the knowledge of reality, without any need of scientific knowledge. However, it seems fair to say that among philosophers of language it (...) is dominant the view that Philosophy of Language is not Philosophy of Linguistics; that Philosophy of Language studies language, without any need to take into account the results of scientific approaches to language. If that is so, this work goes against the dominant view. We claim that Philosophy of Language is just this: Philosophy of Linguistics or, maybe better, Philosophy of the sciences of language. (shrink)

In this paper we present a modest contribution to the debate on the treatment of the pragmatically determined aspects of utterance meaning. Different authors (Bach 1994, Carston 1988 and 1998, Recanati 1989, Sperber and Wilson 1986, Levinson 2000) have defended different notions (explicature, impliciture, and implicature) to account for the phenomena labeled as Generalized Conversational Implicatures (GCI) by Grice (1989). We offer some arguments for treating some of these examples as implicitures, and for a better characterization of the notion of (...) what is said. (shrink)

This paper focuses on discourse analysis, particularly persuasive discourse, using pragmatics and rhetoric in a new combined way, called by us Pragma-Rhetoric. It can be said that this is a cognitive approach to both pragmatics and rhetoric. Pragmatics is essentially Gricean, Rhetoric comes from a new reading of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, extending his notion of discourse to meso- and micro-discourses. Two kinds of intentions have to be considered: first, communicative intention, and, then, persuasive intention. The fulfilment of those intentions is achieved (...) by a successful persuasive-communicative action. The psychological, philosophical and logical aspects derived from the pragma-rhetorical perspective are crucial in view of its applications in several practical domains. (shrink)

In “Unarticulated Comparison Classes” 2018 [2009], Richard Vallée adopts John Perry’s (2012 [2001]) reflexive-referential theory of meaning and content as well as his concept of unarticulated constituents (Perry 1986) to deal with certain context-sensitive elements of the truth-conditions of statements containing relative gradable predicates. I am sympathetic both with the general framework and with the assumption that unarticulated constituents are involved in the truth-conditions of bare positives such as “Monica is tall.” I do not share, however, Vallée’s main conclusions on (...) the examples he provides as pre-theoretical evidence. This leads me to disagree with some details of his proposal for the semantics and pragmatics of relative gradable adjectives. (shrink)

Cappelen and Lepore view themselves as embattled defenders of the Free Republic of Semantics from the attacks of its enemies, mostly in the form of pragmatic incursions. They withdraw to a limited territory, and defend it with reason, humor, and other less noble weapons. The enemies are everywhere. This way of posing the debates is often humorous and helps make the book easy to read. It also often leads the authors to caricaturize and to trivialize many of the problems, arguments (...) and positions held by the different parties. (shrink)

Cappelen and Lepore (C&L) view themselves as embattled defenders of the Free Republic of Semantics from the attacks of its enemies, mostly in the form of pragmatic incursions. They withdraw to a limited territory, and defend it with reason, humor, and other less noble weapons. The enemies are everywhere. This way of posing the debates is often humorous and helps make the book easy to read. It also often leads the authors to caricaturize and to trivialize many of the problems, (...) arguments and positions held by the different parties. (shrink)

DISCOURSE, INTERACTION, AND COMMUNICATION Co-organized by the Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science and the Institute for Logic, Cognition, Language, and Infonnation (ILCLI) both from the University of the Basque Country, tlle Fourth International Colloquium on Cognitive Science (ICCS-95) gathered at Donostia - San Sebastian ti'om May 3 to 6, 1995, with the following as its main topics: 1. Social Action and Cooperation. 2. Cognitive Approaches in Discourse Processing: Grammatical and Semantical Aspects. 3. Models of Infonnation in Communication Systems. (...) 4. Cognitive Simulation: Scope and Limits. More tllan one hundred researchers from all over the world exchanged their most recent contributions to Cognitive Science in an exceptionally fruitful annosphere. In this volume we include a small though representative sample of tlle main papers. They all were invited papers except the one by Peter Juel Henrichsen, a contributed paper tllat merited tlle IBERDROLA - Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia: Best Paper Award, set up in ICCS-95 for the first time. (shrink)

It is not unusual to consider linguistic communication as a type of action performed by an individual —the speaker— intended to influence the mental state of another individual —the addressee. It seems more unusual to reach an agreement on what should be the effect of such influence for the communication to be successful. According to the well-known Gricean view, the success of a communicative action depends precisely on the recognition by the addressee of the mental state of the speaker. In (...) this essay, we want to analyse these mental states; however our main concern is not with the mental states of the agents in an isolated communicative action, but the mental states of the agents in a broader linguistic action, namely, conversation. (shrink)

Desde el surgimiento de la Pragmática, su delimitación con respecto a la Semántica ha sido objeto de debate. El hecho de que ambas se ocupen del estudio del significado del lenguaje natural hace que sus caracterizaciones respectivas deban abordarse conjuntamente como un único problema. La constitución de la Semántica y la Pragmática como ramas de la Lingüística a partir del desarrollo de varias teorías en esos campos invalidó las definiciones semióticas de Peirce o Morris, por ejemplo, y dio lugar a (...) lo que podemos denominar sus conflictos territoriales. En este artículo pretendemos estudiar las raíces de ese conflicto y realizar una propuesta para su eventual (di)solución. (shrink)

(1) A to produce a particular response r (2) A to think (recognize) that U intends (1) (3) A to fulfill (1) on the basis of his fulfillment of (2).” Grice (1969, 1989), p. 92.

What is the relationship between words and reality? Which are the best ways to convince or persuade other people? Besides philosophy and grammar, ancient Greeks developed rhetoric to answer these questions. The twentieth-century brought the birth of semantics and pragmatics for a systematic study of linguistic meaning and linguistic acts. _Meaning, Intentions, and Argumentation_ brings together the work of leading contemporary scholars approaching those issues from various perspectives—from the old disciplines of philosophy and rhetoric to the newest thinking on semantics (...) and pragmatics—to illuminate crucial aspects of meaning, communication, argumentation, and persuasion. (shrink)

If we had to indicate in few words the main features of this introductory text to linguistic pragmatics we should maybe begin pointing out the clarity in the exposition. Taking into account its shortness and its pleasant style, we must acknowledge that this book is an excellent introduction to pragmatics. Reading it one not only can make an approach to the central topics and problems in this field, but also can form a clear idea on the wide and varied scope (...) of the discipline. The domain of pragmatics is defined by Green as an intersection of fields within and outside of cognitive science, such as linguistics, cognitive psychology, cultural anthropology and philosophy, and also sociology and rhetoric. But as she remarks. (shrink)

Este libro da continuidad a los textos que el autor ha preparado para la materia de Filosofía del Lenguaje en los estudios de la licenciatura de Filosofía de la UNED. Tras la publicación en 1987 de Introducción histórica a la Filosofía del Lenguaje y posteriormente en 1989 de Filosofía contemporánea del Lenguaje I, aparece en 1992 el texto que reseñamos dedicado a la pragmática. En los “Cuadernos” anteriores cada tema concluía con la presentación de un listado de cuestiones y problemas (...) que ayudaban a profundizar en lo previamente expuesto. En el presente texto se incluyen apéndices monográficos en tres de los cuatro capítulos dedicados a problemas clásicos en pragmática. Dos de estos apéndices así como algunos capítulos han aparecido ya en diversas publicaciones españolas. (shrink)

‘Zu’, zeure pozak eta zeure penak, zeure oroitzapen eta anbizioak, zeure identitate pertsonala eta nahimenaskatasunaren zentzua, izan ere, ez zara/dira nerbio zelula talde ikaragarri haundi bat eta asoziatutako molekulak besterik.

This paper tries to show that the assumption here called monopropositionalism is taken for granted by most semantic and pragmatic theories of natural language, and that it has decisively conditioned many of the debates in recent philosophy of language. Monopropositionalism claims that, leaving aside implicatures, the utterance of a sentence expresses a unique proposition, which is taken as what is said by the utterance, its content or its truth-conditions. But different and, often, incompatible roles are required from that proposition. We (...) will argue for the convenience of rejecting that assumption and the adoption of a pluripropositionalist theory of utterances, based on Korta and Perry’s (forthcoming) Critical Pragmatics. (shrink)