Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:33:33.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Context, Compositionality and Amity: A Response to Rett1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Adam Sennet
Adam Sennet*
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis, CA95616USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In an insightful and provocative paper, Jessica Rett (2006) claims that attempts to locate the (non-indexical, non-demonstrative) semantic contributions of context in syntax run into problems respecting compositionality. This is an especially biting problem for hidden indexical theorists such as Stanley (2000, 2002) who deploy hidden variables to provide a compositional theory of semantic interpretation. Fortunately for the hidden indexical theorists, her attack fails, albeit in interesting and subtle ways.

The following paper is divided into four sections. Section I presents a skeletal version of Rett's argument. Those already familiar with Rett (2006) can skip ahead without shame. Section II offers a defense to the hidden indexical theorists.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 29 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bach, K. 2000. ‘Quantification, Qualification, and Context: A reply to Stanley and Szabó,’ Mind & Language 15: 262—83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borg, E. 2004. Minimal Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelen, H. and Lepore, E.. 2005. Insensitive Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, J. 1986. ‘Thought Without Representation,’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Supp. vol.) 60: 137–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, F. 2002. ‘Unarticulated Constituents,’ Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 299–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rett, J. 2006. ‘Context, Compositionality and Calamity,’ Mind & Language 21: 541–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sennet, A. 2008. ‘The Binding Argument and Pragmatic Enrichment, or, Why Philosophers Care Even More Than Weathermen About “Raining.”’ Philosophy Compass 3:135–57.Google Scholar
Sennet, A. 2011. ‘Unarticulated Constituents and Propositional Structure,’ Mind and Language 26: 412–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, J. 2000. ‘Context and Logical Form,’ Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 391–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, J. 2002. ‘Making it Articulated,’ Mind and Language 17: 149–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, J. and Szabó, Z. 2000: ‘On Quantifier Domain Restriction,’ Mind & Language 15: 219–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar