Contextual Domains

  • F. Recanati
Part of the Philosophical Studies Series book series (PSSP, volume 72)


Natural language quantifiers often seem implicitly restricted. Thus when we say ‘The burglar took everything’, we have the feeling that ‘everything’ ranges over the domain of valuable objects in the house—not everything in the world. (In this case, it can be argued that there has to be some contextual restriction or other, for a totally unrestricted notion of ‘everything in the world’ hardly makes sense.) In the same way, someone who says ‘Most students came to the party’ is likely to have a particular group of students in mind, such that most students in that group came to the party.


Actual World Hypothetical Situation Parent Space Complement Clause Fictional World 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Austin, J. L. (1970) Philosophical Papers. Second edition. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  2. Barwise, J. and Etchemendy. J. (1987) The Liar. Oxford University Press. New York.Google Scholar
  3. Barwise, J. and Perry, J. (1983) Situations and Attitudes, MIT Press. Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  4. Bencivenga, E. (1983) An Epistemic Theory of Reference. Journal of Philosophy 80, 785–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Currie, G. (1990) The Nature of Fiction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fauconnier, G. (1985) Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. MIT Press/Bradford Books, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  7. Geach, P. (1972) Logic Matters, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  8. Kaplan, D. (1986) Opacity, in L. Hahn and P. A. Schilpp (eds.). The Philosophy of W. V. Quine, Open Court, La Salle. Illinois, pp. 229–89.Google Scholar
  9. Kempson, R. (forthcoming) Language and Cognition: A Licensing Grammar. Google Scholar
  10. Kuroda, S.Y. (1982) Indexed Predicate Calculus. Journal of Semantics 1. 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Langacker, R. (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1. Stanford University Press. Stanford.Google Scholar
  12. Lewis, D. (1978) Truth in Fiction. American Philosophical Quarterly 15. 37–46.Google Scholar
  13. Lewis, D. (1979) Scorekeeping in a Language Game, in D. Lewis. Philosophical Papers, vol. 1. Oxford University Press. 1983. New York, pp. 233–49.Google Scholar
  14. McCawley, J. (1981) Everything that Linguists have Always Wanted to Know about Logic. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  15. Quine, W. v. O. (1956) Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes, in W. v. O. Quine, The Ways of Paradox and Other Essays, revised edition. Harvard University Press, 1976. Cambridge, Mass. pp. 185–196.Google Scholar
  16. Recanati, F. (1987) Contextual Dependence and Definite Descriptions. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 87, 57–73.Google Scholar
  17. Recanati, F. (1989a) Referential/Attributive: A Contextualist Proposal. Philosophical Studies 56, 217–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Recanati, F. (1989b) The Pragmatics of What is Said. Mind and Language 4, 295–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Recanati, F. (1993) Direct Reference: From Language to Thought. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  20. Recanati, F. (1994) Contextualism and Anti-Contextualism in the Philosophy of Language, in S. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Foundations of Speech Act Theory, Routledge, London, pp. 156–66.Google Scholar
  21. Soames, S. (1986) Incomplete Definite Descriptions. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 27, 349–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986) Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  23. Stalnaker, R. (1974) Pragmatic Presuppositions, reprinted in S. Davis (ed.), Pragmatics: A Reader, Oxford University Press, New York. 1991, pp. 471–82.Google Scholar
  24. Stalnaker, R. (1978) Assertion, in P. Cole (ed.). Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, Academic Press, 1978, New York, pp. 315–22.Google Scholar
  25. Walton, K. (1990) Mimesis as Make-Believe. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Mass.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Recanati
    • 1
  1. 1.CREA (Ecole Polytechnique/CNRS)ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations