The Speaker Authority Problem for Context-Sensitivity (Or: You Can’t Always Mean What You Want)
- 33 Downloads
Context-sensitivity raises a metasemantic question: what determines the value of a context-sensitive expression in context? Taking gradable adjectives as a case study, this paper argues against various forms of intentionalist metasemantics, i.e. that speaker intentions determine values for context-sensitive expressions in context, including the coordination account recently defended by King (Philos Perspect 27:288–311, 2013; Noûs 48(2):219–237, 2014a; in: Burgess, Sherman (eds) Metasemantics: New essays on the foundations of meaning, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 97–118, 2014b). The paper argues that all intentionalist accounts face the speaker authority problem, that speaker intentions are just the wrong sorts of things to determine the standards for gradable adjectives in context. The problem comes to light when we look at cases in which speakers have idiosyncratic, false beliefs that cause their proper communicative intentions to come apart from the non-intentional features of context like the question under discussion, facts about the world, practical goals, and prior linguistic discourse.
Thanks to Christopher Gauker, Jeff King, and several anonymous referees for helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this paper. Thanks also to audiences at the CUNY Cognitive Science Speaker Series, the Context-Relativity in Semantics conference at the University of Salzburg, The Ninth International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modeling and Using Context in Larnaca, Cyprus, Jeff King's graduate seminar at Rutgers University, and Meaning & Other Things: A conference celebrating the work of Stephen Schiffer at NYU for helpful discussion of earlier versions of this paper.
- Bartsch, R., & Vennemann, T. (1972). The grammar of relative adjectives and comparison. Linguistische Berichte, 20, 19–32.Google Scholar
- Glanzberg, M. (2009). Not all contextual parameters are alike (unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar
- Kennedy, C. (2007). Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Journal of Semantics, 30(1), 1–45.Google Scholar
- McNally, L., & Stojanovic, I. (2014). Aesthetic adjectives. In J. Young (Ed.), Paper draft for the volume semantics of aesthetic judgement.Google Scholar
- Neale, S. (2005). Pragmatism and binding. In Z. Szabó (Ed.), Semantics vs pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Neale, S. (2007). On location. In M. O’Rourke & C. Washington (Eds.), Situating semantics: Essays on the philosophy of John Perry (pp. 251–393). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Neale, S. (2016). Silent reference. In G. Ostertag (Ed.), Meaning and other things: Essays in honor of Stephen Schiffer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Rett, J. (2015). The semantics of evaluativity Oxford studies in theoretical linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Roberts, C. (2004). Context in dynamic interpretation. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 197–220). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. Syntax and Semantics, 9, 315–332.Google Scholar
- Stanley, J. (2002b). Nominal restriction. In G. Peter & G. Preyer (Eds.), Logical form and language (pp. 365–390). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Stanley, J. (2005b). Semantics in context. In G. Peters & G. Preyer (Eds.), Contextualism (pp. 221–253). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar