Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 143, Issue 2, pp 213–221 | Cite as

Utterance at a distance

  • Graham Stevens
Article

Abstract

In this paper I defend Kaplan’s claim that the sentence “I am here now” is logically true. A number of counter-examples to the claim have been proposed, including occurrences of the sentence in answerphone messages, written notes left for later decoding, etc. These counter-examples are only convincing if they can be shown to be cases where the correct context with respect to which the utterance should be evaluated is the context in which it is decoded rather than encoded. I argue that this is not the case, and draw on the distinction between force and content to suggest an alternative account of how information is communicated in these cases that is consistent with Kaplan’s semantic theory.

Keywords

Indexicality Kaplan Semantics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the University of Southampton. I would like to thank the audience there, as well as an anonymous referee, for helpful comments.

References

  1. Corazza, E. (2006). On the alleged ambiguity of “now” and “here”. Synthese, 138, 289–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Corazza, E., Fish, W., & Gorvett, J. (2002). Who is I? Philosophical Studies, 107, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. MacFarlane, J. (2007). Nonindexical contextualism. Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-007-9286-2.Google Scholar
  5. Predelli, S. (1996). Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. Analysis, 56, 85–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Predelli, S. (1998). I am not here now. Analysis, 58, 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Predelli, S. (2002). Intentions, indexicals, and communication. Analysis, 62, 310–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Predelli, S. (2005). Contexts: Meaning, truth and the use of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Recanati, F. (2003). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Romdenh-Romluc, K. (2002). Now the French are invading England! Analysis, 62, 34–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sidelle, A. (1991). The answering machine paradox. The Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 21, 525–539.Google Scholar
  12. Voltolini, A. (2006). Fiction as a base of interpretation contexts. Synthese 153, 23–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations