Abstract
There is no doubt that pragmatic theory and philosophy of language are mutually relevant and intrinsically connected. The main question I address in this paper is how exactly they are interconnected in terms of (i) their respective objectives, (ii) explanans – explanandum relation, (iii) methods of enquiry, and (iv) drawing on associated disciplines. In the introductory part I attempt to bring some order into the diversity of use of such labels as philosophical logic, philosophical semantics, philosophical pragmatics, linguistic philosophy, or philosophy of linguistics, among others. In the following sections I focus on philosophical pragmatics as a branch of philosophy of language (pragmaticsPPL) and the trends and theories it gave rise to, discussing them against the background of methodology of science and in particular paradigms and paradigm shifts as identified in natural science. In the main part of the paper I address the following questions:
How is pragmaticsPPL to be delimited?
How do pragmatic solutions to questions about meaning fare vis-à-vis syntactic solutions? Is there a pattern emerging?
and, relatedly,
What are the future prospects for pragmaticsPPL in theories of natural language meaning?
I conclude with a discussion of the relation between pragmaticsPPL and functionalism, observing that contextualism has to play a central role in functionalist pragmatics at the expense of minimalism and sententialism.
About the author
Kasia M. Jaszczolt (D.Phil. Oxon, PhD Cantab, MAE) is Professor of Linguistics and Philosophy of Language at the University of Cambridge and Professorial Fellow of Newnham College, Cambridge. She has published extensively on various topics in semantics, pragmatics, and philosophy of language. Her authored books include Meaning in Linguistic Interaction (2016, OUP), Representing Time (2009, OUP), Default Semantics (2005, OUP), Semantics and Pragmatics (2002, Longman) and Discourse, Beliefs and Intentions (1999, Elsevier). She is General Editor of a book series Oxford Studies of Time in Language and Thought (OUP) and serves on numerous editorial boards. She authored over 90 research articles and edited or co-edited 13 volumes including The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics (2012, CUP).
Acknowledgements
Research leading to this paper was supported by The Leverhulme Trust grant Expressing the Self: Cultural Diversity and Cognitive Universals (Grant ID/Ref: RPG-2014-017) http://www.mml.cam.ac.uk/expressing-the-self. I owe thanks to two anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback.
References
Ariel, Mira. 2002. Privileged interactional interpretations. Journal of Pragmatics 34. 1003–1044.10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00061-3Search in Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2016. Revisiting the typology of pragmatic interpretations. Intercultural Pragmatics 13. 1–35.10.1515/ip-2016-0001Search in Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Atlas, Jay D. 2016. Aboutness and quantifying into intensional contexts: A pragmatic topic/comment analysis of propositional attitude statements. Paper presented at the Pragmasofia 1 conference, University of Palermo. Draft 1 February 2017.10.1007/978-3-319-72173-6_2Search in Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 1994. Semantic slack: What is said and more. In Savas L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Foundations of speech act theory: Philosophical and linguistic perspectives, 267–291. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Braun, David. 2015. Indexicals. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/indexicals (accessed 12 July 2017).).Search in Google Scholar
Cappelen, Herman & Ernie Lepore. 2005. Insensitive semantics: A defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470755792Search in Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Adriana Belletti (ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 3, 39–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. What is language and why does it matter? Paper presented at the 19th International Congress of Linguists, Geneva, 25 July 2013.Search in Google Scholar
Dekker, Paul. 2000. Coreference and representationalism. In Klaus Von Heusinger & Urs Egli (eds.), Reference and anaphoric relations, 287–310. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-3947-2_15Search in Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Stephen C. Levinson. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32. 429–492.10.1017/S0140525X0999094XSearch in Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel. 2008. Don’t sleep, there are snakes: Life and language in the Amazonian jungle, 2 edn. London: Profile Books. 2009.Search in Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel. 2012. Language: The cultural tool. New York: Pantheon Books.Search in Google Scholar
Geurts, Bart. 2009. Scalar implicature and local pragmatics. Mind and Language 24. 51–79.10.1111/j.1468-0017.2008.01353.xSearch in Google Scholar
Geurts, Bart. 2010. Quantity implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511975158Search in Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 3. New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in H. Paul Grice 1989. Studies in the way of words, 22-40. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen & Martin Stokhof. 1991. Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14. 39–100.10.1007/BF00628304Search in Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1988. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. New York: Garland.Search in Google Scholar
Heller, Daphna & Lynsey Wolter. 2014. Beyond demonstratives: Direct reference in perceptually grounded descriptions’. Journal of Semantics 31. 555–595.10.1093/jos/fft012Search in Google Scholar
Hirschberg, Julia B. 1985. A theory of scalar implicature. University of Pennsylvania PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1984. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Deborah Schiffrin (ed.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics, 11–42. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hunter, Julie. 2013. Presuppositional indexicals. Journal of Semantics 30. 381–421.10.1093/jos/ffs013Search in Google Scholar
Husserl, Edmund. 1900-1901. Logische Untersuchungen 2 [Logical investigations 2]. Halle: Max Niemeyer. Reprinted in 1984 after the second edn (1913-21). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Husserliana 19/1. Transl. by J. N. Findlay as Logical Investigations. 1970. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Search in Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 1999. Discourse, beliefs, and intentions: Semantic defaults and propositional attitude ascription. Oxford: Elsevier Science.Search in Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2005. Default semantics: Foundations of a compositional theory of acts of communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199261987.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2009. Representing time: An essay on temporality as modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2010. Default semantics. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 193–221. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2012a. ‘Pragmaticising’ Kaplan: Flexible inferential bases and fluid characters. Australian Journal of Linguistics 32. 209–237.10.1080/07268602.2012.669098Search in Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2012b. Cross-linguistic differences in expressing time and universal principles of utterance interpretation. In Luna Filipović & Kasia M. Jaszczolt (eds.), Space and time in languages and cultures: Linguistic diversity, 95–121. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.36.07jasSearch in Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2013. First-person reference in discourse: Aims and strategies. Journal of Pragmatics 48. 57–70.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.018Search in Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2015. Linguistics and philosophy. In Keith Allan (ed.), Routledge handbook of linguistics, 516–531. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2016. Meaning in linguistic interaction: Semantics, metasemantics, philosophy of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602469.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia M. & Maciej Witek. 2018. Expressing the self: From types of de se to speech-act types. In Minyao Huang & Kasia M. Jaszczolt (eds.), Expressing the self: Cultural diversity and cognitive universals, 187–221. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198786658.003.0010Search in Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans & Uwe Reyle. 1993. From discourse to logic: Introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Search in Google Scholar
Kaplan, David. 1989. Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In Joseph Almog, John Perry & Howard Wettstein (eds.), Themes from Kaplan, 481–563. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Korta, Kepa & John Perry. 2015. Pragmatics. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatics/ (accessed 12 July 2017).Search in Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Leslau, Wolf. 1995. Reference grammar of Amharic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Search in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 2014. The concise Oxford dictionary of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Third ednSearch in Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2006. Temporal semantics in a superficially tenseless language. Linguistics and Philosophy 29. 673–713.10.1007/s10988-006-9010-6Search in Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27. 661–738.10.1007/s10988-005-7378-3Search in Google Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike. 2010. Generalizing detached self-reference and the semantics of generic one. Mind and Language 25. 440–473.10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01397.xSearch in Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2006. Modality: Overview and linguistic issues. In William Frawley (ed.), The expression of modality, 1–26. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197570.1Search in Google Scholar
Parikh, Prashant. 2010. Language and equilibrium. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262013451.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Parikh, Prashant. 2016. Comments on K. Jaszczolt’s Meaning in linguistic interaction. Paper presented at the American Philosophical Association, Pacific Division meeting, San Francisco, 30 March 2016. https://www.academia.edu/24318355/P._Parikh_Comments_on_K._Jaszczolts_Meaning_in_Linguistic_Interaction_APA_Pacific_San_Francisco_2016_ (accessed 12 July 2017).Search in Google Scholar
Pupa, Francesco. 2015. Impossible interpretations, impossible demands. Linguistics and Philosophy 38. 269–287.10.1007/s10988-015-9169-9Search in Google Scholar
Quine, Willard V. O. 1951. Two dogmas of empiricism. Philosophical Review 60. 20–43. Reprinted in Aloysius P. Martinich (ed.), 1996, The philosophy of language, 39–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Third edn10.2307/2181906Search in Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 1993. Direct reference: From language to thought. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 2004. Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511615382Search in Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 2004. Context in dynamic interpretation. In Laurence Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 197–220. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756959.ch9Search in Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 2014. Indexicality: de se semantics and pragmatics. Ohio State University manuscript.Search in Google Scholar
Rothschild, Daniel & Seth Yalcin. 2016. Three notions of dynamicness in language. Linguistics and Philosophy 39. 333–355.10.1007/s10988-016-9188-1Search in Google Scholar
Saul, Jennifer M. 2012. Lying, misleading, and what is said: An exploration in philosophy of language and in ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199603688.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Savva, Eleni. 2017. Subsentential speech from a contextualist perspective. University of Cambridge PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Schiffer, Stephen. 2015. Meaning and formal semantics in generative grammar. Erkenntnis 80. 61–87.10.1007/s10670-014-9660-7Search in Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2003. A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26. 29–120.10.1023/A:1022225203544Search in Google Scholar
Scholz, Barbara C. 2011. Philosophy of linguistics. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/linguistics/ (accessed 12 July 2017).Search in Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1983. Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139173452Search in Google Scholar
Searle, John R. & Daniel Vanderveken. 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1007/1-4020-3167-X_5Search in Google Scholar
Shklovsky, Kirill & Yasutada Sudo. 2014. The syntax of monsters. Linguistic Inquiry 45. 381–402.10.1162/LING_a_00160Search in Google Scholar
Stainton, Robert. 2006. Words and thoughts: Subsentences, ellipsis, and the philosophy of language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199250387.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert C. 1978. Assertion. Syntax and Semantics 9. New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in Robert C. Stalnaker, 1999, Context and content: Essays on intentionality in speech and thought, 78-95. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0198237073.003.0005Search in Google Scholar
Stanley, Jason & Zoltan G. Szabó. 2000. On quantifier domain restriction. Mind and Language 15. 219–261.10.1111/1468-0017.00130Search in Google Scholar
Sternau, Marit, Mira Ariel, Rachel Giora & Ofer Fein. 2015. Levels of interpretation: New tools for characterizing intended meanings. Journal of Pragmatics 84. 86–101.10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.002Search in Google Scholar
Szabó, Zoltán G. 2000. Compositionality as supervenience. Linguistics and Philosophy 23. 475–505.10.1023/A:1005657817893Search in Google Scholar
Tonhauser, Judith. 2011. Temporal reference in Paraguayan Guaraní, a tenseless language. Linguistics and Philosophy 34. 257–303.10.1007/s10988-011-9097-2Search in Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan & Vladimir A. Plungian. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2. 79–124.10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79Search in Google Scholar
van der Sandt, Rob. 1992. Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9. 333–377.10.1093/jos/9.4.333Search in Google Scholar
van der Sandt, Rob. 2012. Presupposition and accommodation in discourse. In Keith Allan & Kasia M. Jaszczolt (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics, 329–350. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139022453.019Search in Google Scholar
Zeevat, Henk. 1999. Demonstratives in discourse. Journal of Semantics 16. 279–313.10.1093/jos/16.4.279Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
