Abstract
In a series of recent papers and a book Cappelen and Lepore advance the negative view that the “Context Shifting Arguments” (CSAs) utilized by proponents of radical pragmatics are unsound. And they advance the positive view that (at least some of) the problematic phenomena invoked in CSAs can be accounted for – or at least set aside – by distinguishing between the truth conditions of a sentence, and “what is said” by an utterance. My primary goal in this paper is to defend radical pragmatics from Cappelen and Lepore’s negative view. I argue that Cappelen and Lepore’s positive view – with the exception of one glitch – is an instance of the sort of view that the reformers endorse. Moreover, I argue that – though they may not be aware of it – what really compels Cappelen and Lepore to endorse their positive view is CSAs, the very arguments they claim to be unsound. Thus there is a considerable amount of tension in their views. My goal here is to resolve this tension by defending CSAs from Cappelen and Lepore's criticism, and to illustrate why one should endorse these arguments.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bach, K. (1994). Conversational impliciture. Mind and Language, 9, 124–62.
Bach, K. (2003). Comments on Herman Cappelen and Ernie Lepore, ‘Context Shifting Aruments’. Central APA, Cleveland OH, April 26, 2003.
Bezuidenhout, A. (2002). Truth conditional pragmatics. In J. Tomberlin (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives, 16, language and mind.
Borg, E. (2004). Minimal semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2003a). Context shifting arguments. Forthcoming in G. Preyer & G. Peters (Eds.), Contextualism and philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2003b). Unarticulated constituents and hidden indexicals: An abuse of context in semantics. Rutgers University Manuscript.
Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2005a). Insensitive semantics: A defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2005b). Radical and moderate pragmatics: Does meaning determine truth conditions? In Z. Gendler Szabó (Ed.), Semantics versus pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
Crimmins, M. (1992). Talk about beliefs. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lepore, E. (2004). An abuse of context in semantics: The case of incomplete definite descriptions. In A. Bezuidenhout & M. Reimer (Eds.), Descriptions and beyond: An interdisciplinary collection of essays on definite and indefinite descriptions and other related phenomena. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pietroski, P. (2005). Meaning before truth. In G. Preyer & G. Peters (Eds.), Contextualism and philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reimer, M. (2002). Do adjectives conform to compositionality? In J. Tomberlin (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives, 16, language and mind.
Salmon, N. (1886). Frege’s puzzle. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Searle, J. (1980). The background of meaning. In J. Searle, F. Kiefer, & M. Bierwisch (Eds.), Speech act theory and pragmatics. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Soames, S. (1989). Direct reference, propositional attitudes, and semantic content. Philosophical Topics, 15, 47–87.
Soames, S. (2002). Beyond rigidity: The unfinished semantic agenda of naming and necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Soames, S. (2005). Naming and asserting. In Z. Gendler Szabó (Ed.), Semantics versus pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stainton, R. (2003). Comments on Cappelen and Lepore’s context shifting arguments. Central APA, Cleveland OH, April 26, 2003.
Stainton, R. (2005). In defense of non-sentential assertion. In Z. Gendler Szabó (Ed.), Semantics versus pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stanley, J. & Szabó, Z. (2000). On quantifier domain restriction. Mind and Language, 15/2, 219–61.
Travis, C. (2000). Unshadowed thought: Representation in thought and language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Clapp, L. (2009). In Defense of Context Shifting Arguments. In: Stainton, R.J., Viger, C. (eds) Compositionality, Context and Semantic Values. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 85. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8310-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8310-5_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8309-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8310-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)