Academic year
2019/2020
Teacher
Josep Macià
Department
Department of Philosophy
University
Universitat de Barcelona
Itinerary
Master courses
Module
Module 7. Issues in Contemporary Theoretical and Practical Philosophy
Code
570640
Credits
5
Language
English
Dates
2019-10-03 - 2019-12-19
Schedule
Thursdays: 16:30 - 19:30
Location
403 - Facultat de Filosofia UB

Description

The course acts as an introduction to work on foundational issues of meaning, communication and interpretation. The topics we will study include: the relation between meaning and intentions; the effect and role of context in determining what is meant; the relation between meaning and speaker’s commitments; the distinction between, on the one hand,  what is said and, on the other, what is meant or conveyed or communicated without being said (in the relevant sense): this will lead us to the study of implications, presuppositions and expressive meaning.


Methodology

There will be a reading assigned to each session. For each of the readings the teacher will provide in advance a list of “reading questions” that should help the students understand the reading and focus on its most relevant parts. In class, the teacher will typically also present and discuss some additional material. In each of the sessions, one of the students will do an initial presentation of the reading and lead the discussion.

 

Structure of the course, contents and primary readings:

 

October 3: Introduction, and Meaning and intentions

Grice, H. P. (1957) “Meaning”, Philosophical Review, 66, 377-88.

 

October 10: Meaning and intentions

Gluer, Kathrin. & Peter Pagin (2003) “Meaning Theory and Autistic Speakers”. Mind and Language. 18(1): 23-51.

 

October 17: Saying and implicating

Grice, P., (1975) “Logic and conversation” (in Grice, P.: 1989, Studies in the Way of Words, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)

 

October 24: Assertion

Stalnaker, R. (1978). “Assertion”. In P. Cole (Ed.) Syntax and semantics (Vol. 9, pp. 315–332). New York: Academic Press. Also in R. Stalnaker, Context and content. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1999, pp. 78–95.

 

October 31, November 7: Lying vs. Untruthfully Implicating

Pepp, Jessica (2019). “Assertion, Lying, and Untruthfully Implicating,” in S. Goldberg, ed., The Oxford Handbook on Assertion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.

Stokke, A. (2013b). “Lying and asserting”. Journal of Philosophy, 110(1), 33–60.

 

November 14, 21, 28: Communication and commitments

Marsili, Neri (2019) “The definition of assertion”, ms.

Geurts, B. (2019). “Communication as commitment sharing: speech acts, implicatures, common ground”. Theoretical Linguistics, 45(1-2), pp. 1-30.

Mazzarella, Diana, Robert Reinecke, Ira Noveck, Hugo Mercier (2018), “Saying, presupposing and implicating: How pragmatics modulates commitment”. Journal of Pragmatics, Volume 133, August 2018, Pages 15-27 

 

December 5, 12: Presuppositions

Soames, Scott (1989) “Presupposition”, In D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner (eds), Handbook of Philosophical Logic IV, 553-616.

Abbott, Barbara (2008). “Presuppositions and common ground”. Linguistics and Philosophy, 21, 523–538.

 

December 19: Expressive meaning

Hom, Christopher, (2010), “Pejoratives”, Philosophy Compass. Volume 5, Issue 2, 164–185


Evaluation

Class participation (10%), class presentation (10%), two or three short papers or problem sets that will be related to the reading questions (80%).

 


Bibliography

Abbott, Barbara (2008). Presuppositions and common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 21, 523–538.

Hom, Christopher, (2010), “Pejoratives”, Philosophy Compass. Volume 5, Issue 2, 164–185

von Fintel, Kai: (2008). “What is presupposition accommodation, again?Philosophical Perspectives 22 (1):137-170

García-Carpintero, M. (2018). On the Nature of Presupposition: A Normative Speech Act Account. Erkenntnis

Gauker, C. (2008). Against accommodation. Philosophical perspectives, 22, 171–205.

Gluer, Kathrin. & Peter Pagin (2003) “Meaning Theory and Autistic Speakers”. Mind and Language. 18(1): 23-51.

Grice, H. P. (1957) “Meaning”, Philosophical Review, 66, 377-88 (also in Grice (1989))

Grice, H. P. (1969) “Utterer’s meaning and intentions”, (in Grice (1989))

Grice, P., (1975) “Logic and conversation” (in Grice, P (1989))

Grice, P., (1978) "Further notes on Logic and Conversation" (in Grice, P. (1989))

Grice, P. (1989) Studies in the Way of Words, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

Geurts, B. (2009) “Scalar implicatures and local pragmatics”. Mind and Language, 24-1, 51–79

Geurts, B (2018) Convention and common ground, Mind and Language 33 (2):115-129
Geurts
, B. (2019). “Communication as commitment sharing: speech acts, implicatures, common ground”. Theoretical Linguistics, 45(1-2), pp. 1-30.

Geurts, B. (2019) Commitments continued. Communication as commitment sharing: speech acts, implicatures, common ground. Theoretical Linguistics, 45(1-2), pp. 111-125.

Jeshion, Robin (2013). “Slurs and stereotypes”. Analytic Philosophy, 54(3): 314–329

Marsili, Neri (2019) “The definition of assertion”, ms.

Mazzarella, Diana, Robert Reinecke, Ira Noveck, Hugo Mercier (2018), “Saying, presupposing and implicating: How pragmatics modulates commitment”. Journal of Pragmatics, Volume 133, August 2018, Pages 15-27 

Pagin, Peter. 2009. Assertion Not Possibly Social. Journal of Pragmatics 41 (12): 2563–67.

Pagin, Peter. 2014. Assertion. Stanford Enciclopedia of Philosophy.

Pepp, Jessica (2019). “Assertion, Lying, and Untruthfully Implicating,” in S. Goldberg, ed., The Oxford Handbook on Assertion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.

Potts, Christopher, (2007) “The expressive dimension”. 2007. Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 165–197.

Reboul, Anne (2006), HOT Theories of Meaning: The Link Between Language and Theory of Mind. Mind & Language, Vol. 21 No. 5 November 2006, pp. 587–596.

Sennet, A. (2018). Presupposition triggering and disambiguation. In G. Preyer, Beyond Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: OUP.

Simons, Mandy. (2003). Presupposition and accommodation: Understanding the stalnakerian picture. Philosophical Studies, 112, 251–278.

Simons, M., Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., & Roberts, C. (2011). What projects and why. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), 22, 309–327.

Soames, Scott (1989) “Presupposition”, In D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner (eds), Handbook of Philosophical Logic IV, 553-616.

Stalnaker, R. (1978). “Assertion”. In P. Cole (Ed.) Syntax and semantics (Vol. 9, pp. 315–332). New York: Academic Press. Also in R. Stalnaker, Context and content. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1999, pp. 78–95.

Stalnaker, R. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 701–721.

Stokke, A. (2013b). “Lying and asserting”. Journal of Philosophy, 110(1), 33–60.

Williamson, T. (1996/2000). Knowing and Asserting. Philosophical Review 105, pp. 489–523; included with some revisions as chapter 11 of his Knowledge and its limits. New York: Oxford UP, 2000.


Other considerations

Other considerations: General Learning outcomes:

CB6 – Students should be able to critically understand central texts in the philosophy of language in a way that puts them in a position to develop and apply original ideas.

CB9 - Students should be able to communicate their knowledge and their arguments to specialized audiences in a clear and articulate way.

CG2. Students should be able to design, create, develop and undertake new and innovative projects in their area of ​​expertise.

CG3. Students should be able to engage both in general and specific discussions in the domain of the philosophy of language. They should be able to conduct a philosophical discussion (orally and in written form), by putting forward, for example, general arguments or specific examples, in support of one’s position.

CG4. Students should be able to work both independently and in a team, in an international environment.

CG5. Students should be able to identify methodological errors, rhetorical, conventional and uncritical assumptions, vagueness and superficiality.

CE1. Students should be able to critically engage with the concepts and methods of contemporary philosophy of language.

CE2. Students should be able to identify the core arguments and theories of contemporary philosophy of language.

CE4. Students should be able to assess the writings of leading contemporary philosophers in the field of philosophy and the cognitive sciences.

CE5. Students should be able to identify and critically engage with the current state of a particular philosophical debate, and form a reasoned view, even if provisional, about it.

CE7. Students should be able to critically use specialized terminology in the field of philosophy of language.