Advertisement

Superman Semantics

  • Paul Saka
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology book series (PEPRPHPS, volume 20)

Abstract

Jennifer Saul’s puzzle, a generalized version of Frege’s puzzle concerning opacity, poses troublesome triads such as: (i) Superman = Clark Kent; (ii) Superman does not wear glasses; (iii) Clark Kent does wear glasses. Proposed resolutions of the puzzle variously deny the identity claim (i) (Graeme Forbes, Joseph Moore, David Pitt); deny one or other of the predication claims (ii)/(iii) (Jennifer Saul, David Braun, Alex Barber, Alessandro Capone); or postulate equivocation (Stefano Predelli, Laurence Goldstein). I myself develop an equivocation account, using the resources of cognitive semantics (e.g. Gilles Fauconnier, George Lakoff, and Ray Jackendoff). My work shares Saul’s psychologistic turn but reaches very different conclusions. Whereas Saul regards (i) as semantically true, and others regard it as false, I regard each of (i–iii) as both true and false (true in one way and false in another). This is not to say that they are lexically, structurally, or illocutionarily ambiguous; but they do possess a kind of pragmatic indeterminacy that generates what I call ambivalence ambiguity. If my account is correct, ambivalence ambiguity is due to inconsistencies intrinsic to our mental models. My mentalist account of linguistic interpretation is both clarified and supported by analogy to cartographic interpretation, and it is additionally supported by virtue of its power to solve problems that confront referential semantics: the notorious aspect problem and the heretofore unrecognized parity problem.

Keywords

Opacity Ambiguity Mental maps Cognitive semantics Jennifer Saul 

References

  1. Armstrong, D.M. (1973). Belief, truth, and knowledge. Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  2. Atlas, Jay. (1989). Philosophy without ambiguity. Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  3. Atlas, Jay. (2005). Logic, meaning, and conversation. Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  4. Barber, Alex. (2000). A pragmatic treatment of simple sentences. Analysis 60: 300–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borges, Jorge. (1975). A universal history of infamy (translated by Norman de Giovanni). London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  6. Braun, David & Jennifer Saul. (2002). Simple sentences, substitution, and mistaken evaluations. Philosophical Studies 1–41.Google Scholar
  7. Capone, Alessandro. (2016). Embedding explicatures. This volume.Google Scholar
  8. Carroll, Lewis. (1893). Sylvie and Bruno concluded. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, Noam. (2000). New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  10. Cruse, D.A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  11. Davis, Wayne. (2003). Meaning, expression, and thought. Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  12. Dennett, Daniel. (1987). The intentional stance. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fauconnier, Gilles. (1994). Mental spaces, 2/e. Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  14. Forbes, Graham. (1997). How much substitutivity? Analysis 57: 109–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Forbes, Graham. (1999). Enlightened semantics for simple sentences. Analysis 59: 86–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frege, Gottlob. (1918). The thought. Translated in Mind 65: 289–311 (1956).Google Scholar
  17. Goldstein, Laurence. (2009). Wittgenstein and situation comedy. Philosophia 37: 605–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoffman, D., M. Singh, and C. Prakash. (2015). The interface theory of perception. Psychonomics Bulletin & Review 22: 1480–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jackman, Henry. (2017). William James’s naturalistic account of concepts and his ‘Rejection of Logic’. Philosophy of mind in the 19th century, ed. Sandra Lapointe. Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Jackendoff, Ray. (1983). Semantics and cognition. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Jaszczolt, K. (2005). Default semantics. Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  22. Kirkham, Richard. (1992). Theories of truth. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lakoff, George. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Maier, Emar. (2016). Attitudes and mental files in discourse representation theory. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 7: 473–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moltmann, Friederike. (2003). Propositional attitudes without propositions. Synthese 35: 77–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moltmann, Friederike. (2014). Propositions, attitudinal objects, and the distinction between actions and products. Canadian Journal of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  27. Moore, Joseph. (1999). Saving substitutivity in simple sentences. Analysis 59: 91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moore, Joseph. (2000). Did Clinton lie? Analysis 60: 250–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Panshin, Alexei & Panshin, Cory. (1989). The world beyond the hill. Los Angeles: Jeremy Tarcher.Google Scholar
  30. Pitt, David. (2001). Alter egos and their names. Journal of Philosophy 98: 531–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Predelli, Stefano. (2004). Superheroes and their names. American Philosophical Quarterly 41: 107–122.Google Scholar
  32. Price, Huw. (2013). Expressivism, pragmatism, and representationalism. Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  33. Recanati, Francois. (2007). Perspectival thought. Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  34. Recanati, Francois. (2013). Mental files. Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  35. Saka, Paul. (1991). Lexical decomposition in cognitive semantics. Linguistics dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  36. Saka, Paul. (1998). Meaning and the ascription of attitudes. Philosophy dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
  37. Saka, Paul. (2007a). The argument from ignorance against truth-conditional semantics. American Philosophical Quarterly 44: 157–170.Google Scholar
  38. Saka, Paul. (2007b). How to think about meaning. Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Saka, Paul. (2010). Rarely pure and never simple: tensions in the theory of truth. Topoi 29: 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Saka, Paul. (2017). Blah. blah, blah: quasi-quotation and unquotation. The semantics and pragmatics of quotation, ed. Paul Saka and Michael Johnson. Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Saul, Jennifer. (1997). Substitution and simple sentences. Analysis 57: 300–308.Google Scholar
  42. Saul, Jennifer. (1999). Substitution, simple sentences, and sex scandals. Analysis 59: 106–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Saul, Jennifer. (2000). Did Clinton say something false? Analysis 60: 255–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Saul, Jennifer. (2007). Simple sentences, substitution, and intuitions. Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  45. Searle, John. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  46. Searle, John. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  47. Snyder, John. (1993). Flattening the Earth: two thousand years of map projections. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  48. Sorensen, Roy. (2001). Vagueness and contradiction. Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  49. Talmy, Leonard. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, v. 1. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Zuber, Richard. (2006). Possible intensionality of the verb phrase position. Analysis 66: 255–256. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Saka
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Texas, Rio GrandeEdinburgUSA

Personalised recommendations