Affiliation:
1. Department of Philosophy , Georgetown University , Washington, DC , USA
Abstract
Abstract
Peter Hanks and Scott Soames have developed a theory of propositions as structured cognitive event types, as have I in earlier works. They use the theory to offer similar accounts of transparent propositional relation reports, and very different accounts of opaque reports. For both, the sentences used to report propositional attitudes or speech acts are semantically unambiguous. Hanks invokes context-sensitivity, Soames pragmatics, to account for the different interpretations. I raise problems and offer solutions. Their accounts succumb to the non-compositionality of transparent reports, and wrongly predict that all propositional relation reports have both transparent and opaque interpretations. Soames’s pragmatic enrichment account of the opaque interpretation is unfounded, and forces him to conclude that competent speakers do not know what the sentences they use mean. The notion of an “object-dependent” or “bare” proposition is both problematic and unnecessary. I offer a new account, on which propositional relation reports have the semantic ambiguity characteristic of idioms, with the transparent interpretation being highly but not completely compositional.
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Communication,Language and Linguistics
Reference46 articles.
1. Bach, Kent. 2000. Do belief reports report beliefs. In Katarzyna M. Jaszczolt (ed.), Pragmatics of propositional attitude reports, 111–136. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Bach, Kent. 2005. The emperor’s new ‘knows’. In Gerhard Preyer & Georg Peter (ed.), Contextualism in philosophy: Knowledge, meaning, and truth, 51–90. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
3. Capone, Alessandro. 2008. Belief Reports and Pragmatic Intrusion (the Case of Null Appositives). Journal of Pragmatics 40. 1019–1040.
4. Capone, Alessandro. 2016. The pragmatics of indirect reports. Cham: Springer.
5. Crimmins, Mark & John Perry. 1989. The prince and the phone booth: Reporting puzzling beliefs. Journal of Philosophy 86. 685–711.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献