international workshop on semantics, pragmatics, and rhetoric, spr-09 donostia, 6-8 may 2009...

International Workshop on Semantics, Pragmatics, and International Workshop on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Rhetoric, SPR-09 Donostia, 6-8 May 2009Rhetoric, SPR-09 Donostia, 6-8 May 2009

Pragmatic compositionality, Pragmatic compositionality, Syntactic Direction Principle, and the Syntactic Direction Principle, and the

contextualism/minimalism debatecontextualism/minimalism debate

Kasia M. JaszczoltKasia M. Jaszczolt

University of CambridgeUniversity of Cambridge

22

Contextualism without the syntactic constraint Contextualism without the syntactic constraint (Syntactic Direction Principle)(Syntactic Direction Principle)

Merger representations of the revised version of Merger representations of the revised version of Default Semantics (Jaszczolt 2009, forthcoming)Default Semantics (Jaszczolt 2009, forthcoming)

Two selected applications: propositional attitude Two selected applications: propositional attitude reports and tense-time mismatchesreports and tense-time mismatches

Compatibility of contextualism and semantic Compatibility of contextualism and semantic minimalismminimalism

33

Explicit/implicit meaning (what is said/what is Explicit/implicit meaning (what is said/what is implicated)implicated)

vsvs

primary meaning/secondary meaningprimary meaning/secondary meaning

44

Syntactic constraint-based contextualist accounts Syntactic constraint-based contextualist accounts are ‘minimalist at heart’are ‘minimalist at heart’

55

Available options: from radical contextualism Available options: from radical contextualism (including meaning eliminativism) to radical (including meaning eliminativism) to radical minimalism (including anti-propositionalist minimalism (including anti-propositionalist accout)accout)

new radical contextualismnew radical contextualism

66

(1)(1) Everybody is going to Egypt this spring.Everybody is going to Egypt this spring.

(2)(2) All of the speaker’s close friends and family are All of the speaker’s close friends and family are going to Egypt this spring.going to Egypt this spring.

(3)(3) Egypt seems to be a popular holiday destination Egypt seems to be a popular holiday destination among the people the speaker knows.among the people the speaker knows.

(4)(4) The interlocutors should consider going on The interlocutors should consider going on holiday to Egypt this spring.holiday to Egypt this spring.

77

Cognitive salience of primary meaningsCognitive salience of primary meanings Primary/secondary meaning distinction as Primary/secondary meaning distinction as

orthogonal to the explicit/implicit distinctionorthogonal to the explicit/implicit distinction

?? Question: Question:

What meaning should a theory of utterance What meaning should a theory of utterance meaning model?meaning model?

88

Semantic analysis takes us only part of the way Semantic analysis takes us only part of the way towards the recovery of utterance meaning. towards the recovery of utterance meaning. Pragmatic enrichment completes the process.Pragmatic enrichment completes the process.

Enrichment: Enrichment:

andand +> and then, and as a result+> and then, and as a result

somesome +> some but not all+> some but not all

everybodyeverybody +> everybody in the room, every +> everybody in the room, every acquaintance of the speaker, etc.acquaintance of the speaker, etc.

99

Modulation (Recanati 2004, 2005):Modulation (Recanati 2004, 2005):

The logical form becomes enriched/modulated as a result The logical form becomes enriched/modulated as a result of pragmatic inference and the entire semantic/pragmatic of pragmatic inference and the entire semantic/pragmatic product becomes subjected to the truth-conditional product becomes subjected to the truth-conditional analysis.analysis.

Syntactic Direction is obeyed here: what is modelled is Syntactic Direction is obeyed here: what is modelled is the development of the logical form of the sentencethe development of the logical form of the sentence

1010

what is saidwhat is said (Recanati) (Recanati) primary meaningprimary meaning (Jaszczolt) (Jaszczolt)

1111

what is saidwhat is said (Recanati) (Recanati) primary meaningprimary meaning (Jaszczolt) (Jaszczolt)

?? Question:Question:

How far can the logical form be extended? ‘How How far can the logical form be extended? ‘How much pragmatics’ is allowed in the semantic much pragmatics’ is allowed in the semantic representation?representation?

1212

The logical form of the sentence can not only be The logical form of the sentence can not only be extended but also replaced by a new semantic extended but also replaced by a new semantic representation when the primary, intended representation when the primary, intended meaning demands it. Such extensions or meaning demands it. Such extensions or substitutions are substitutions are primary meaningsprimary meanings and their and their representations are representations are merger representationsmerger representations in in Default SemanticsDefault Semantics.. There is no syntactic There is no syntactic constraint on merger representationsconstraint on merger representations..

1313

Object of study of the theory of meaning:Object of study of the theory of meaning:

Discourse meaning intended by Model Speaker Discourse meaning intended by Model Speaker and recovered by Model Addressee (and recovered by Model Addressee (primary primary meaningmeaning))

1414

(5)(5) You are not going to die, Peter.You are not going to die, Peter.

(5a)(5a) There is no future time at which you will There is no future time at which you will die, Peter.die, Peter.

(5b)(5b) You are not going to die from this cut, You are not going to die from this cut, Peter.Peter.

(5c)(5c) There is nothing to worry about, Peter.There is nothing to worry about, Peter.

Default Semantics: Default Semantics: (5c)(5c) – substituted proposition – substituted proposition (primary meaning)(primary meaning)

1515

Going beyond contextualism: Going beyond contextualism:

DS does not recognize the level of meaning DS does not recognize the level of meaning at which the logical form is pragmatically at which the logical form is pragmatically developed/modulated as a real, interesting, developed/modulated as a real, interesting, and cognitively justified construct. and cognitively justified construct.

To do so would be to assume that syntax To do so would be to assume that syntax plays a privileged role among various plays a privileged role among various carriers of information (contextualists’ carriers of information (contextualists’ mistake).mistake).

1616

(5)(5) Situation: A little boy cuts his finger Situation: A little boy cuts his finger and cries.and cries.

Mother: You are not going to die.Mother: You are not going to die.

(5a)(5a) The boy is not going to die from the cut.The boy is not going to die from the cut.(5b(5b11)) There is nothing to worry about.There is nothing to worry about.(5b(5b22)) It’s not a big deal. It’s not a big deal.

1717

(6)(6) Child: Can I go punting?Child: Can I go punting?

Mother: You are too small.Mother: You are too small.

(6a)(6a) The child is too small to go punting.The child is too small to go punting.

(6b)(6b) The child can’t go punting. The child can’t go punting.

1818

(5)(5) Situation: A little boy cuts his finger and cries.Situation: A little boy cuts his finger and cries.Mother: You are not going to die.Mother: You are not going to die.

(5a)(5a) The boy is not going to die from the cut.The boy is not going to die from the cut.(5b(5b11)) There is nothing to worry about.There is nothing to worry about.(5b(5b22)) It’s not a big deal.It’s not a big deal.

(6)(6) Child: Can I go punting?Child: Can I go punting?Mother: You are too small.Mother: You are too small.

(6a)(6a) The child is too small to go punting.The child is too small to go punting.(6b)(6b) The child can’t go punting. The child can’t go punting.

1919

Empirical evidence: in 60-80 per cent of cases Empirical evidence: in 60-80 per cent of cases speakers communicate the main message speakers communicate the main message through an implicature through an implicature

(Nicolle and Clark 1999; Pitts 2005; Sysoeva and (Nicolle and Clark 1999; Pitts 2005; Sysoeva and Jaszczolt 2007)Jaszczolt 2007)

2020

Merger Representation Merger Representation

Primary meanings are modelled as the so-called Primary meanings are modelled as the so-called

merger representationsmerger representations..

2121


Primary meanings are modelled as the so-called Primary meanings are modelled as the so-called merger representationsmerger representations. .

The outputs of sources of information about The outputs of sources of information about meaning merge and all the outputs are treated on meaning merge and all the outputs are treated on an equal footing. an equal footing.

2222



The outputs of sources of information about The outputs of sources of information about meaning merge and all the outputs are treated on meaning merge and all the outputs are treated on an equal footing. The syntactic constraint is an equal footing. The syntactic constraint is abandoned. abandoned.

Merger representations have the status of mental Merger representations have the status of mental representations. representations.

2323



The outputs of sources of information about meaning The outputs of sources of information about meaning merge and all the outputs are treated on an equal merge and all the outputs are treated on an equal footing. The syntactic constraint is abandoned. footing. The syntactic constraint is abandoned.

Merger representations have the status of mental Merger representations have the status of mental representations. representations.

They have a compositional structure: they are They have a compositional structure: they are proposition-like, truth-conditionally evaluable proposition-like, truth-conditionally evaluable constructs, integrating information coming from constructs, integrating information coming from various sources that interacts according to the various sources that interacts according to the principles established by the intentional character of principles established by the intentional character of discourse. discourse.

2424

Sources of information for Sources of information for ::

(i)(i) world knowledge (WK);world knowledge (WK);

(ii)(ii) word meaning and sentence structure (WS);word meaning and sentence structure (WS);

(iii)(iii) situation of discourse (SD);situation of discourse (SD);

(iv)(iv) properties of the human inferential system (IS);properties of the human inferential system (IS);

(v)(v) stereotypes and presumptions about society and stereotypes and presumptions about society and culture (SC). culture (SC).

2525

SCSC

(7)(7) A Botticelli was stolen from the Uffizi last A Botticelli was stolen from the Uffizi last week.week.

(7a)(7a) A painting by BotticelliA painting by Botticelli was stolen from was stolen from the Uffizi the Uffizi Gallery in FlorenceGallery in Florence last week. last week.

2626

WKWK

(8)(8) The temperature fell below -10 degrees The temperature fell below -10 degrees Celsius and the lake froze.Celsius and the lake froze.

(8a)(8a) The temperature fell below -10 degrees The temperature fell below -10 degrees Celsius Celsius and as a resultand as a result the lake froze. the lake froze.

2727

ISIS

(9)(9) The author of The author of Cloud AtlasCloud Atlas has has breathtaking breathtaking sensitivity and imagination.sensitivity and imagination.

(9a)(9a) David MitchellDavid Mitchell has breathtaking sensitivity has breathtaking sensitivity and and imagination.imagination.

world knowledge (WK)

word meaning and sentence structure (WS)

situation of discourse (SD)

stereotypes and presumptions properties of human inferential system (IS) about society and culture (SC)

Fig. 1: Sources of information contributing to a merger representation Σ

merger representation Σ

2929

The model of sources of information can be The model of sources of information can be mapped onto mapped onto types of processestypes of processes that produce the that produce the merger representation merger representation of the primary meaning of the primary meaning and the additional (secondary) meanings. and the additional (secondary) meanings.

Primary meaning:

combination of word meaning and sentence structure (WS)

conscious pragmatic inferencepm (from situation of discourse, social and

social, cultural and cognitive defaults (CD) cultural assumptions, and world world-knowledge defaultspm (SCWDpm) knowledge) (CPIpm) Secondary meanings:

Social, cultural and world-knowledge defaultssm (SCWDsm) conscious pragmatic inferencesm (CPIsm)

Fig. 2: Utterance interpretation according to the processing model of the revised version of Default Semantics

merger representation Σ

3131

Mapping between sources and processesMapping between sources and processes

WK WK SCWD or CPISCWD or CPISC SC SCWD or CPISCWD or CPIWS WS WS WS (logical form)(logical form)SD SD CPICPIIS IS CDCD

In building merger representations DS makes use In building merger representations DS makes use of the processing model and it indexes the of the processing model and it indexes the components of components of with a subscript standing for the with a subscript standing for the type of processing.type of processing.

3232

Psychological plausibility of rich (contextualist) Psychological plausibility of rich (contextualist) semantic content:semantic content:

‘‘I think that it is agreed on all sides that I think that it is agreed on all sides that ifif it is a fact it is a fact that P is the semantic content of S (perhaps relative to that P is the semantic content of S (perhaps relative to context), then this fact must be grounded in natural context), then this fact must be grounded in natural psychological and/or sociological facts concerning the psychological and/or sociological facts concerning the abilities and practices of competent speakers and abilities and practices of competent speakers and interpreters. If the alleged facts concerning semantic interpreters. If the alleged facts concerning semantic content are not somehow grounded in such natural content are not somehow grounded in such natural facts, then semantics would not fit into Chomsky’s facts, then semantics would not fit into Chomsky’s cognitive paradigm in linguistics, nor even into the cognitive paradigm in linguistics, nor even into the broader project of “naturalizing epistemology”.’ broader project of “naturalizing epistemology”.’

Clapp (2007: 251)Clapp (2007: 251)

3333

Compositionality of Primary MeaningsCompositionality of Primary Meanings

Schiffer (e. g. 1991, 1994, 2003): compositionality Schiffer (e. g. 1991, 1994, 2003): compositionality is not a necessary property of semantics; is not a necessary property of semantics; composition of meaning may simply reflect composition of meaning may simply reflect compositional reality. Meaning supervenes on the compositional reality. Meaning supervenes on the structure of the world. structure of the world.

Recanati (2004): compositionality belongs to Recanati (2004): compositionality belongs to enriched, modulated propositions. ‘Interactionist’, enriched, modulated propositions. ‘Interactionist’, ‘Gestaltist’ approach to compositionality.‘Gestaltist’ approach to compositionality.

DS: compositionality of DS: compositionality of utteranceutterance meaning rather meaning rather than than sentencesentence meaning. meaning.

3434

Merger representations are Merger representations are compositional structures.compositional structures.

3535

Compositionality is a methodological Compositionality is a methodological principle:principle:

‘…‘…it is always possible to satisfy compositionality by it is always possible to satisfy compositionality by simply adjusting the syntactic and/or semantic simply adjusting the syntactic and/or semantic tools one uses, unless that is, the latter are tools one uses, unless that is, the latter are constrained on independent grounds.’constrained on independent grounds.’

Groenendijk and Stokhof (1991: Groenendijk and Stokhof (1991: 93)93)

3636

Selected applications of DSSelected applications of DS

Origins: Jaszczolt 1992, 1999. Origins: Jaszczolt 1992, 1999. Parsimony of Levels Parsimony of Levels (POL) Principle(POL) Principle: Levels of senses are not to be : Levels of senses are not to be multiplied beyond necessity. multiplied beyond necessity.

First applications: definite descriptions, proper First applications: definite descriptions, proper names, and belief reports (Jaszczolt 1997, 1999); names, and belief reports (Jaszczolt 1997, 1999); negation and discourse connectives (Lee 2002). negation and discourse connectives (Lee 2002).

Recent applications: presupposition, sentential Recent applications: presupposition, sentential connectives, number terms, temporality, and connectives, number terms, temporality, and modality (Jaszczolt 2005; 2009; Srioutai 2004, 2006; modality (Jaszczolt 2005; 2009; Srioutai 2004, 2006; Jaszczolt and Srioutai forthcoming; Engemann 2008); Jaszczolt and Srioutai forthcoming; Engemann 2008); syntactic constraint on primary meaning (Sysoeva syntactic constraint on primary meaning (Sysoeva and Jaszczolt 2007). and Jaszczolt 2007).

3737

Languages:Languages:

English, Korean, Thai, Russian, French, GermanEnglish, Korean, Thai, Russian, French, German

3838

Propositional attitude reportsPropositional attitude reports

(10)(10) Ralph believes that Fido is a dog.Ralph believes that Fido is a dog.

(10a)(10a) ((m) (Φ*m & Bel (Ralph, <Fido, doghood>, m))m) (Φ*m & Bel (Ralph, <Fido, doghood>, m))

from Schiffer (1992)from Schiffer (1992)

Fig. 3: Merger representation of the de dicto reading of (10)

x y ’ [Ralph]CD (x) [Fido]CPIpm (y) [[x]CD [believes]CPIpm Σ’]WS

’: [[y]CPIpm is a dog] WS

4141

Tense-time mismatchesTense-time mismatches

(11)(11) Peter goes to a meeting on Monday.Peter goes to a meeting on Monday.

ACCACCnn ├ Σ' ├ Σ' ‘it is acceptable that it is the case ‘it is acceptable that it is the case

that Σ' to that Σ' to the degree the degree triggered by triggered by expression expression nn’ ’

modelled on Grice’s (2001) sentential operator Acc ├ pmodelled on Grice’s (2001) sentential operator Acc ├ p

Fig. 4: Merger representation for (11), ‘tenseless’ future’

x t Σ' [Peter]CD (x) on Monday (t) [ACC

tf ├ Σ']WS, CPIpm

Σ' [x go to a meeting]WS

Σ

4343

Contextualism and minimalism: Contextualism and minimalism: compatibility?compatibility?

Contextualism about syntactically unconstrained Contextualism about syntactically unconstrained primary meanings is compatible with minimalism.primary meanings is compatible with minimalism.

Contextualism restricted by the Syntactic Contextualism restricted by the Syntactic Direction conflates the two programs in that it is Direction conflates the two programs in that it is still, so to speak, ‘minimalist at heart’: it adheres still, so to speak, ‘minimalist at heart’: it adheres to the structure of the sentence instead of to the structure of the sentence instead of modelling the main intended meaning. It tries to modelling the main intended meaning. It tries to reconcile the irreconcilable and is therefore reconcile the irreconcilable and is therefore defunct.defunct.

4444

ConclusionsConclusions Shifting the methodological requirement of compositionality

from the level of sentences to the level of utterances is not only compatible with the contextualist stance but also helps justify the latter by offering an analysis of many problematic types of expressions, exemplified here by propositional attitude reports and tense-time mismatches.

4545



At the same time, contextualism, when construed radically as freed from the Syntactic Direction Principle and modelled by merger representations , is fully compatible with the objectives of semantic minimalism, in that the latter can be understood as an independent analysis of one of the contributing sources, namely WS.

4646



At the same time, contextualism, when construed radically as freed from the Syntactic Direction Principle and modelled by merger representations , is fully compatible with the objectives of semantic minimalism, in that the latter can be understood as an independent analysis of one of the contributing sources, namely WS.

The Syntactic Direction currently leaves other contextualist approaches sitting mid-way between modelling primary intended meaning and modelling the hybrid of the logical form and pragmatic enrichment/modulation.

4747

Select referencesSelect referencesBach, K. (1994). ‘Semantic slack: What is said and more’. In: S. L. Bach, K. (1994). ‘Semantic slack: What is said and more’. In: S. L.

Tsohatzidis (ed.). Tsohatzidis (ed.). Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic PerspectivesLinguistic Perspectives. London: Routledge. 267-91.. London: Routledge. 267-91.

Bach, K. (2006). ‘The excluded middle: Semantic minimalism without Bach, K. (2006). ‘The excluded middle: Semantic minimalism without minimal minimal propositions’. propositions’. Philosophy and Phenomenological ResearchPhilosophy and Phenomenological Research 73. 435-42. 73. 435-42.

Bach, K. (2007). ‘Regressions in pragmatics (and semantics)’. In: N. Bach, K. (2007). ‘Regressions in pragmatics (and semantics)’. In: N. Burton-Roberts (ed.). Burton-Roberts (ed.). PragmaticsPragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 24-. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 24-44.44.

Borg, E. (2004). Borg, E. (2004). Minimal SemanticsMinimal Semantics. Oxford: Clarendon Press. . Oxford: Clarendon Press. Borg, E. (2007). ‘Minimalism versus contextualism in semantics’. In: G. Borg, E. (2007). ‘Minimalism versus contextualism in semantics’. In: G.

Preyer and G. Peter (eds). Preyer and G. Peter (eds). Context-Sensitivity and Semantic Context-Sensitivity and Semantic MinimalismMinimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 339-59.. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 339-59.

Cappelen, H. and E. Lepore. (2005a). Cappelen, H. and E. Lepore. (2005a). Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act PluralismSemantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism . Oxford: Blackwell.. Oxford: Blackwell.

Cappelen, H. Lepore, E. (2005b). ‘A tall tale: In defense of semantic Cappelen, H. Lepore, E. (2005b). ‘A tall tale: In defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism’. In: G. Preyer and G. Peter (eds). minimalism and speech act pluralism’. In: G. Preyer and G. Peter (eds). Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and TruthContextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth . Oxford: . Oxford: Clarendon Press. 197-219.Clarendon Press. 197-219.

Clapp, L. (2007). ‘Minimal (disagreement about) semantics’. In: G. Preyer Clapp, L. (2007). ‘Minimal (disagreement about) semantics’. In: G. Preyer and G. Peter (eds). and G. Peter (eds). Context-Sensitivity and Semantic MinimalismContext-Sensitivity and Semantic Minimalism . . Oxford: Oxford University Press. 251-277.Oxford: Oxford University Press. 251-277.

Engemann, H. (2008). ‘The concept of futurity: A study with reference to Engemann, H. (2008). ‘The concept of futurity: A study with reference to English, French and German’. M.Phil. thesis, University of Cambridge.English, French and German’. M.Phil. thesis, University of Cambridge.

4848

Grice, P. (2001). Grice, P. (2001). Aspects of ReasonAspects of Reason. Oxford: Clarendon Press. . Oxford: Clarendon Press. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof. (1991). ‘Dynamic Predicate Logic’. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof. (1991). ‘Dynamic Predicate Logic’.

Linguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and Philosophy 14. 39-100. 14. 39-100.Jaszczolt, K. M. (1992). Jaszczolt, K. M. (1992). Belief Sentences and the Semantics of Belief Sentences and the Semantics of

Propositional AttitudesPropositional Attitudes. D.Phil. thesis. University of Oxford.. D.Phil. thesis. University of Oxford.Jaszczolt, K. M. (1997). ‘The Default Jaszczolt, K. M. (1997). ‘The Default De ReDe Re Principle for the interpretation Principle for the interpretation

of belief utterances’. of belief utterances’. Journal of Pragmatics Journal of Pragmatics 28. 315-36.28. 315-36.Jaszczolt, K. M. (1999). Jaszczolt, K. M. (1999). Discourse, Beliefs, and Intentions: Semantic Discourse, Beliefs, and Intentions: Semantic

Defaults and Defaults and Propositional Attitude AscriptionPropositional Attitude Ascription. Oxford: Elsevier . Oxford: Elsevier Science.Science.

Jaszczolt, K. M. (2005). Jaszczolt, K. M. (2005). Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of CommunicationTheory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jaszczolt, K. M. (2007). ‘Variadic function and pragmatics-rich Jaszczolt, K. M. (2007). ‘Variadic function and pragmatics-rich representations of representations of belief reports’. belief reports’. Journal of PragmaticsJournal of Pragmatics 39. 934-59. 39. 934-59.

Jaszczolt, K. M. (2009). Jaszczolt, K. M. (2009). Representing Time: An Essay on Temporality as Representing Time: An Essay on Temporality as ModalityModality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jaszczolt, K. M. (forthcoming). ‘Default Semantics’. In: B. Heine and H. Jaszczolt, K. M. (forthcoming). ‘Default Semantics’. In: B. Heine and H. Narrog Narrog (eds). (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic AnalysisThe Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford . Oxford: Oxford University Press.University Press.

Jaszczolt, K. M. and J. Srioutai. (forthcoming). ‘Communicating about the Jaszczolt, K. M. and J. Srioutai. (forthcoming). ‘Communicating about the past through modality in English and Thai’ In: F. Brisard and T. past through modality in English and Thai’ In: F. Brisard and T. Mortelmans (eds). Mortelmans (eds). Cognitive Approaches to Tense, Aspect and Cognitive Approaches to Tense, Aspect and ModalityModality’. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.’. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.

4949

Kamp, H. and U. Reyle. (1993). Kamp, H. and U. Reyle. (1993). From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation TheoryDiscourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Lee, H.-K. (2002). Lee, H.-K. (2002). The Semantics and Pragmatics of Connectives with The Semantics and Pragmatics of Connectives with Reference to English and KoreanReference to English and Korean. PhD dissertation, University of . PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.Cambridge.

Nicolle, S. and B. Clark. (1999). ‘Experimental pragmatics and what is said: A Nicolle, S. and B. Clark. (1999). ‘Experimental pragmatics and what is said: A response to Gibbs and Moise’. response to Gibbs and Moise’. CognitionCognition 69. 337-54. 69. 337-54.

Pitts, A. (2005). ‘Assessing the evidence for intuitions about Pitts, A. (2005). ‘Assessing the evidence for intuitions about what is saidwhat is said’. ’. Manuscript. University of Cambridge.Manuscript. University of Cambridge.

Recanati, F. (1989). ‘The pragmatics of what is said’. Recanati, F. (1989). ‘The pragmatics of what is said’. Mind and Language Mind and Language 4. 4. 295-329. Reprinted in: S. Davis (ed.). (1991). 295-329. Reprinted in: S. Davis (ed.). (1991). Pragmatics: A ReaderPragmatics: A Reader. . Oxford: Oxford University Press. 97-120.Oxford: Oxford University Press. 97-120.

Recanati, F. (2002). ‘Unarticulated constituents’. Recanati, F. (2002). ‘Unarticulated constituents’. Linguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and Philosophy 25. 299-345.25. 299-345.

Recanati, F. (2004). Recanati, F. (2004). Literal MeaningLiteral Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Recanati, F. (2005). ‘Literalism and contextualism: Some varieties’. In: G. Recanati, F. (2005). ‘Literalism and contextualism: Some varieties’. In: G.

Preyer and G. Peter (eds). Preyer and G. Peter (eds). Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and TruthMeaning, and Truth. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 171-96.. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 171-96.

Schiffer, S. (1991). ‘Does Mentalese have a compositional semantics?’. In: B. Schiffer, S. (1991). ‘Does Mentalese have a compositional semantics?’. In: B. Loewer and G. Rey (eds) Loewer and G. Rey (eds) Meaning in Mind: Fodor and his CriticsMeaning in Mind: Fodor and his Critics. Oxford: . Oxford: Blackwell. 181-99.Blackwell. 181-99.

Schiffer, S. (1992). ‘Belief ascription’. Schiffer, S. (1992). ‘Belief ascription’. Journal of PhilosophyJournal of Philosophy 89. 499-521. 89. 499-521.Schiffer, S. (1994). ‘A paradox of meaning’. Schiffer, S. (1994). ‘A paradox of meaning’. NoûsNoûs 28. 279-324. 28. 279-324.

5050

Schiffer, S. (2003). Schiffer, S. (2003). The Things We MeanThe Things We Mean. Oxford: Clarendon Press.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Srioutai, J. (2004). ‘The Thai Srioutai, J. (2004). ‘The Thai cc11aa: A marker of tense or modality?’ In: : A marker of tense or modality?’ In:

E. Daskalaki E. Daskalaki et. al.et. al. (eds). (eds). Second CamLing ProceedingsSecond CamLing Proceedings. University . University of Cambridge. 273-80.of Cambridge. 273-80.

Srioutai, J. (2006). Srioutai, J. (2006). Time Conceptualization in Thai with Special Time Conceptualization in Thai with Special Reference to dReference to d11ayay11

IIII, kh, kh33oe:y, koe:y, k11amlaml33ang, yang, y33u:u:II and c and c11a.a. PhD thesis. PhD thesis. University of Cambridge.University of Cambridge.

Sysoeva, A. and K. Jaszczolt. (2007). ‘Composing utterance meaning: Sysoeva, A. and K. Jaszczolt. (2007). ‘Composing utterance meaning: An interface between pragmatics and psychology’. Paper An interface between pragmatics and psychology’. Paper presented at the presented at the 10th International Pragmatics Conference10th International Pragmatics Conference, , Göteborg.Göteborg.

international workshop on semantics, pragmatics, and rhetoric, spr-09 donostia, 6-8 may 2009...

Documents

sentence slide

theory of meaning

heart slide

meaning eliminativism

semantic minimalism

logical form

model addressee primary

radical minimalism