5.6 Davidson, Malapropisms, Spoonerisms, and Slips
CHAPTER 6: BACH AND NEALE ON “WHAT IS SAID”
PART I: BACH
6.1 Bach’s Notion
6.2 Criticisms of Bach
6.3 Bach’s Response
PART II: NEALE
6.4 Neale’s Notion
6.5 Criticisms of Neale
CHAPTER 7: CONFUSION OF THE METAPHYSICS OF MEANING WITH THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF INTERPRETATION
PART I: THE CONFUSION
7.1 The Meaning/Interpretation Distinction
7.2 Confusing Meaning and Interpretation
7.3 Examples of the Confusion
7.3.1 Jason Stanley and Zoltan Szabo
7.3.2 Dan Sperber and Deidre Wilson
7.3.3 François Recanati
7.3.4 Anne Bezuidenhout
7.3.5 Robert Stainton
7.3.6 Kepa Korta and John Perry
7.4 A Principled Position?
PART II: DEFENDING THE CONFUSION
7.5 Elugardo and Stainton’s Defense
7.6 Tidying Up the Defense
7.7 Two Major Failings of the Defense
CHAPTER 8: MODIFIED OCCAM’S RAZOR AND THE DENIAL OF LINGUISTIC MEANINGS
8.1 Embracing the Razor
8.2 The Falsity of the Razor (as Commonly Construed)
8.3 The Explanatory Onus
8.4 Objections to Semantic Polysemy
8.4.1 The Failure of the tests
8.4.2 Too Psychologically Demanding
8.4.3 Distinguishing Polysemy From Homonymy
8.4.4 Nunberg on the Arbitrariness of Meanings
8.5 Bach on the Razor
8.6 Bach’s “Standardization”
CHAPTER 9: REFERENTIAL DESCRIPTIONS: A CASE STUDY
9.1 Introduction
9.2 The Argument from Convention
9.3 The Incompleteness Argument Against Pragmatic Explanations
9.4 Bach’s Pragmatic Defense of Russell
9.5 Bach’s Response
9.6 Three Further Arguments for Semantic or against Pragmatic Explanations
9.7 Neale’s Illusion
9.8 Conclusion
CHAPTER 10: SATURATION AND PRAGMATISM’S CHALLENGE
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Truth-Conditional Pragmatics
10.3 Meaning Eliminativism
10.4 Implicit Saturation
10.5 The Tyranny of Syntax
10.6 Perry’s “Unarticulated Constituents”
CHAPTER 11: POLYSEMY AND PRAGMATISM’S CHALLENGE
11.1 Polysemy
11.2 Semantic Polysemy
11.3 Polysemy in Psycholinguistics
11.3.1 “Represented and Stored”
11.3.2 An “Information-Rich” Lexicon?
11.4 Objections to Semantic Polysemy
11.5 Polysemy and the Experimental Evidence
11.6 Whither Linguistic Pragmatism?
CHAPTER 12: SUB-SENTENTIALS: PRAGMATICS OR SEMANTICS?
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Implicit Demonstratives
12.3 The Role of Demonstrations
12.4 Other Examples
12.5. The Syntactic Ellipsis Objection
12.5.1 Introduction
12.5.2(A): The Syntactic Ellipsis Assumption
12.5.3 (B): No Syntactic Ellipsis in (1) to (5)
12.6. Stainton’s Other Objections
12.6.1 Too Much Ambiguity
12.6.2 No Explanatory Work
12.6.3 Fails a Kripkean Test
12.7. The Assertion of Propositional Fragments
12.8 Conclusion
Michael Devitt is a Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the Graduate Center of CUNY. He is the author of the following books: Designation (1981); Realism and Truth (1984/1991/1997); Language and Reality (with Kim Sterelny, 1987/1999); Coming to Our Senses (1996); Ignorance of Language (2006); Putting Metaphysics First (2010); Biological Essentialism (forthcoming). He has co-edited (with Richard Hanley) The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Language (2006)
This book criticizes the methodology of the recent semantics-pragmatics debate in the theory of language and proposes an alternative. It applies this methodology to argue for a traditional view against a group of “contextualists” and “pragmatists”, including Sperber and Wilson, Bach, Carston, Recanati, Neale, and many others. The author disagrees with these theorists who hold that the meaning of the sentence in an utterance never, or hardly ever, yields its literal truth-conditional content, even after disambiguation and reference fixing; it needs to be pragmatically supplemented in context.
The standard methodology of this debate is to consult intuitions. The book argues that theories should be tested against linguistic usage. Theoretical distinctions, however intuitive, need to be scientifically motivated. Also we should not be guided by Grice’s “Modified Occam’s Razor”, Ruhl’s “Monosemantic Bias”, or other such strategies for “meaning denialism”. From this novel perspective, the striking examples of context relativity that motivate contextualists and pragmatists typically exemplify semantic rather than pragmatic properties. In particular, polysemous phenomena should typically be treated as semantic ambiguity. The author argues that conventions have been overlooked, that there’s no extensive “semantic underdetermination” and that the new theoretical framework of “truth-conditional pragmatics” is a mistake.