La inefabilidad en el lenguaje natural

Los casos de variación en las condiciones de satisfacción de enunciados sin deícticos, junto con la asunción de un principio de proposicionalidad, han llevado a filósofos como Carston a defender la idea de que nuestros pensamientos son inefables, esto es, no codificables en lenguaje natural. En contra de este enfoque argumentaré, por un lado, que esta teoría no puede aplicarse al pensamiento consciente y, por otro, que podemos explicar tanto los casos exitosos de comunicación como aquellos en los que es necesario que el hablante precise qué quería decir sin recurrir a pensamientos inefables

Utterance content, speaker’s intentions and linguistic liability

According to contextualists, communication has to do with pragmatically adjusted content, not with conventional meaning. This pragmatic content is sometimes identified with speaker meaning or with the thought the speaker intends to express. I will argue that given the sociolinguistic role of utterance content—the fact it provides reasons for action, liabilities and entitlements—locutionary content should not be modelled as a variety of speaker meaning.; De acuerdo con los contextualistas, la comunicación tiene que ver con contenidos pragmáticamente ajustados al contexto. Este contenido pragmático es a veces identificado con el significado del hablante o con el pensamiento que el hablante tiene intención de expresar. Argumentaré que, dada la función sociolingüística de la noción de contenido de la preferencia—el hecho de que proporciona razones para la acción, responsabilidades y permisos—el contenido locucionario no debe ser modelado como una variedad de significado del hablante

Homophonic reports and gradual communication

Pragmatic modulation makes contextual information necessary for interpretation. This poses a problem for homophonic reports and inter-contextual communication in general: of co-situated interlocutors, we can expect some common ground, but non-co-situated interpreters lack access to the context of utterance. Here I argue that we can nonetheless share modulated contents via homophonic reports. First, occasion-unspecific information is often sufficient for the recovery of modulated content. Second, interpreters can recover what is said with different degrees of accuracy. Homophonic reports and inter-contextual communication are often successful because the reporting context does not demand full accuracy

Utterance content, speaker’s intentions and linguistic liability

According to contextualists, communication has to do with pragmatically adjusted content, not with conventional meaning. This pragmatic content is sometimes identified with speaker meaning or with the thought the speaker intends to express. I will argue that given the sociolinguistic role of utterance content—the fact it provides reasons for action, liabilities and entitlements—locutionary content should not be modelled as a variety of speaker meaning

No todos los hablantes son iguales: daño y posición conversacional

McGowan has provided a linguistic mechanism that explains how speech can constitute harm. Her idea is that utterances routinely enact s-norms about what is permissible in a given context. My aim is to argue that these s-norms are sensitive to the conversational standing of the speaker. In particular, I claim that the strength of the norm enacted depends on the standing of the speaker. In some cases, the speaker might even lack the standing required to enact new s-norms.McGowan ha proporcionado un mecanismo lingüístico que explica cómo el lenguaje puede constituir daño. Su idea es que las proferencias de manera rutinaria establecen normas-s sobre qué está permitido en un contexto dado. Mi objetivo es argumentar que estas normas-s son sensibles a la posición conversacional del hablante. En concreto, sostengo que la fuerza de la norma establecida depende de la posición del hablante. En algunos casos, el hablante puede incluso carecer de la posición requerida para establecer nuevas normas-s

Are utterance truth-conditions systematically determined?

ABSTRACT Truth-conditions are systematically determined when they are the output of an algorithmic procedure that takes as input a set of semantic and contextual features. Truth-conditional sceptics have cast doubts on the thesis that truth-conditions are systematic in this sense. Against this form of scepticism, Schoubye and Stokke : 759–793) and Dobler : 451–474.) have provided systematic analyses of utterance truth-conditions. My aim is to argue that these theories are not immune to the kind of objections raised by truth-conditional sceptics. In particular, I argue that the use of Questions Under Discussion and ways of being is problematic

Distorted Debates

One way to silence the powerless, Langton has taught us, is to pre-emptively disable their ability to do things with words. In this paper I argue that speakers can be silenced in a different way. You can let them speak, and obscure the meaning of their words afterwards. My aim is to investigate this form of silencing, that I call retroactive distortion. In a retroactive distortion, the meaning of the words of a speaker is distorted by the effect of a subsequent speech act by a different speaker. After introducing this notion, I explore some reasons why retroactive distortions can be difficult to challenge and argue that, besides constituting a communicative injustice, they can eliminate topics from public consideration and therefore erode public debate

Metaphor Identification beyond Discourse Coherence

In this paper, we propose an account of metaphor identification on the basis of contextual coherence. In doing so, we build on previous work by Nicholas Asher and Alex Lascarides that appeals to rhetorical relations in order to explain discourse structure and the constraints on the interpretation of metaphor that follow from it. Applying this general idea to our problem, we will show that rhetorical relations are sometimes insufficient and sometimes inadequate for deciding whether a given utterance is a case of metaphor. They are insufficient, since rhetorical relations fall short at times of providing a basis for disambiguating between literal and metaphorical interpretations. In such cases, contextual information other than previous discourse needs to enter the picture. To this effect, we bring the idea of external consistency into play. Beyond that, though, we will argue that rhetorical relations are sometimes inadequate to account for coherence, if conceived as relations among sentences only. The reason is that extra-linguistic elements of the situation in which the sentence is uttered may be crucial for getting at the preferred interpretation. To account for these cases, we allow rhetorical relations to connect both with previous discourse and with extra-linguistic situations. In our final refinement of the notion of contextual coherence, we forfeit any appeal to rhetorical relations in favour of Questions Under Discussion (QUD). We defend the view that this account does not only explain the same sort of cases. What is more, it solves the issue of metaphor identification in impoverished contexts