•  
  •  
 

Abstract

In the last decade the enterprise of formal semantics has been under attack from several philosophical and linguistic perspectives, and it has certainly suffered from its own scattered state, which hosts quite a variety of paradigms which may seem to be incompatible. It will not do to try and answer the arguments of the critics, because the arguments are often well-taken. The negative conclusions, however, I believe are not. The only adequate reply seems to be a constructive one, which puts several pieces of formal semantics, in particular dynamic semantics, together again. In this paper I will try and sketch an overview of tasks, techniques, and results, which serves to at least suggest that it is possible to develop a coherent overall picture of undeniably important and structural phenomena in the interpretation of natural language. The idea is that the concept of meanings as truth conditions after all provides an excellent start for an integrated study of the meaning and use of natural language, and that an extended notion of goal directed pragmatics naturally complements this picture. None of the results reported here are really new, but we think it is important to re-collect them.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

References

Asher, Nicholas & Lascarides, Alex. 1998. ‘Questions in Dialogue’. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 237–309.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1005364332007

Borg, Emma. 2007. ‘Minimalism versus contextualism in semantics’. In Gerhard Preyer & Georg Peter (eds.) ‘Context-Sensitivity and Semantic Minimalism’, pp. 339–359. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cappelen, Herman & Lepore, Ernest. 1997. ‘On an Alleged Connection between Indirect Quotation and Semantic Theory’. Mind and Language 12: pp. 278–296.

Cappelen, Herman & Lepore, Ernie. 2005. Insensitive Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470755792

Dekker, Paul. 2002. ‘Meaning and Use of Indefinite Expressions’. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11: pp. 141–194.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1017575313451

Dekker, Paul. 2004. ‘Grounding Dynamic Semantics’. In Anne Bezuidenhout & Marga Reimer (eds.) ‘Descriptions and Beyond: An Interdisciplinary Collection of Essays on Definite and Indefinite Descriptions and other Related Phenomena’, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dekker, Paul. 2007. ‘Optimal Inquisitive Discourse’. In Maria Aloni, Alastair Butler & Paul Dekker (eds.) ‘Questions in Dynamic Semantics’, CRiSPI 17, pp. 83–101. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Frege, Gottlob. 1892. ‘Über Sinn und Bedeutung’. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik NF 100: pp. 25–50.

Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1995. ‘Resolving Questions, I & II’. Linguistics and Philosophy 18, no. 5,6: pp. 459–527 and 567–609.

Ginzburg, Jonathan. To appear. The Interactive Stance: Meaning for Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Groenendijk, Jeroen. 1999. ‘The Logic of Interrogation’. In T. Matthews & D. Strolovitch (eds.) ‘Proceedings of SALT IX’, Also appeared in Aloni, M., Butler, A., and Dekker, P., 2007, Questions in Dynamic Semantics, CRiSPI, Elsevier.: CLC Publications.

Groenendijk, Jeroen & Roelofsen, Floris. 2009. ‘Inquisitive Semantics and Pragmatics’. In Jesus M. Larrazabal & Larraitz Zubeldia (eds.) ‘Meaning, Content, and Argument: Proceedings of the ILCLI International Workshop on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Rhetoric’, Bilbao: University of the Basque Country Press.

Groenendijk, Jeroen & Stokhof, Martin. 1991. ‘Dynamic Predicate Logic’. Linguistics and Philosophy 14, no. 1: pp. 39–100.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00628304

Hulstijn, Joris. 1997. ‘Structured Information States. Raising and Resolving Issues’. In Anton Benz & Gerhard Jäger (eds.) ‘Proceedings of MunDial97’, pp. 99–117. University of Munich.

Jäger, Gerhard. 1996. ‘Only Updates. On the Dynamics of the Focus Particle only’. In Martin Stokhof & Paul Dekker (eds.) ‘Proceedings of the Tenth Amsterdam Colloquium’, pp. 387–405. Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam.

Lascarides, Alex & Asher, Nicholas. 2009. ‘The Interpretation of Questions in Dialogue’. In Arndt Riester & Torgrim Solstad (eds.) ‘Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13’,17–30. Stuttgart: IMS.

Lewis, David. 1970. ‘General Semantics’. Synthese 22: 18–67.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00413598

Montague, Richard. 1974. ‘English as a Formal Language’. In Richmond Thomason (ed.) ‘Formal Philosophy. Selected papers of Richard Montague’, pp. 188–221. New Haven: Yale University Press. Originally published in Bruno Visentini (et al.), 1970, Linguagginella Società e nella Tecnica, Edizioni di Comunità, Milan, pp. 189–224.

Pagin, Peter & Pelletier, Francis Jeffry. 2007. ‘Content, context, and composition’. In Gerhard Preyer & Georg Peter (eds.) ‘Context-Sensitivity and Semantic Minimalism’, pp. 25–62. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Original manuscript, 2006, with abstract:
http://people.su.se/~ppagin/papers/jeffandpeter10.pdf.

Partee, Barbara H. 1973. ‘Some transformational extensions of Montague grammar’. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2: 509–534.

Partee, Barbara H. 2004. ‘Reflections of a Formal Semanticist’. In Barbara H. Partee (ed.) ‘Compositionality in Formal Semantics’, Oxford: Blackwell.

Partee, B.H. 1979. ‘Semantics — mathematics of psychology?’ In Rainer Bäuerle, Urs Egli & Arnim von Stechow (eds.) ‘Semantics from different points of view’, pp. 1–14. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Quine, Willard Van Orman. 1960. ‘Translation and Meaning’. In W.V.O. Quine (ed.) ‘word and Object’, Cambridge: MIT Press.

Quine, Willard Van Orman. 1987. ‘Indeterminacy of Translation again’. Journal of Philosophical Logic 84: 5–10.

Recanati, François. 1994. ‘Contextualism and Anti-Contextualism in the Philosophy of Language’. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (ed.) ‘Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives’, London and New York: Routledge. Pp. 156–66.

Recanati, François. 2005. ‘Literalism and contextualism: Some varieties’. In Gerhard Preyer & Georg Peter (eds.) ‘Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth’, pp. 171–196. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Recanati, François. 2006. ‘Crazy Minimalism’. Mind and Language 21, no. 1: pp. 21–30.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00303.x

Roberts, Craige. 1996. ‘Information structure in discourse’. In J. H. Yoon & A. Kathol (eds.) ‘Working Papers in Linguistics 49’, pp. 91–136. Ohio State University.

Roberts, Craige. 2004. ‘Context in dynamic interpretation’. In Laurence Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.) ‘Handbook of Contemporary Pragmatic Theory’, Blackwell.

Stanley, Jason. 2005. ‘Semantics in context’. In Gerhard Preyer & Georg Peter (eds.) ‘Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth’, pp. 221–253. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stokhof, Martin. 2007. ‘Hand or Hammer’. The Journal of Indian Philosophy 35: pp. 597–626.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10781-007-9023-7

Tarski, Alfred. 1944. ‘The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 4.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1922. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Oxford: Routledge and Kegan. Originally appeared in 1921 as Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung in the Annalen der Naturphilosophie, 14.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophische Untersuchungen/Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell. Translation by G.E.M. Anscombe.

Download

Share

COinS