Topics in semantics and pragmatics
Basic Information
Dates
Description
This course is conceived as an introduction to some foundational topics on meaning and communication, as well as to the study of some recent developments and applications of some central notions in Semantics and Pragmatics.
Week 1 - Introduction
Week 2 - Conversational implicatures
- Grice, Paul (1975). “Logic and conversation”. In P. Grice (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press.
- Levinson, Stephen (2000) "Presumptive meanings. The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature". MIT Press. (Pages 11-42)
Week 3 - Presuppositions
- Stalnaker, Robert (1973). Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2 (4): 447 - 457.
Week 4 - Conventional implicatures
- Bach, Kent (1999). The Myth of Conventional Implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22(4), 327–366.
Week 5 - Slurs
- Jeshion, Robin (2013), Slurs and Stereotypes. Analytic Philosophy, 54: 314-329. https://doi.org/10.1111/phib.12021
Week 6 - Generic generalizations
- Haslanger, Sally (2011). Ideology, Generics, and Common Ground. In Charlotte Witt (ed.), Feminist Metaphysics. Springer Verlag. pp. 179-207.
Week 7 - Generics and social cognition
- Saul, Jennifer (2023) Are Generics Especially Pernicious? Inquiry, 66 (9). pp. 1689-1706. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2017.1285995
- Leslie, Sarah-Jane (2017). The Original Sin of Cognition: Fear Prejudice, and Generalization. Journal of Philosophy 114 (8):393-421.
Week 8 - Gender-fair language
- Moulton, Janice (1981). The myth of the neutral ’man’. In Mary Vetterling-Braggin (ed.), Sexist Language: A Modern Philosophical Analysis. Littlefield, Adams. pp. 100-16.
- Horn, Laurence and Steven Kleinedler (2000). Parasitic reference vs. R-based narrowing: Lexical pragmatics meets He-Man. Paper presented at annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Chicago.
Week 9 - Speech acts
- Austin, John (1961). Performative Utterances. In J. O. Urmson & G. J. Warnock (eds.), Philosophical Papers. Clarendon Press.
- Searle, J. (1975). A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts. Language, Mind, and Knowledge, Minneapolis Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 7, 344-369.
Week 10 - Discursive injustice
- Kukla, Rebecca (2014). Performative Force, Convention, and Discursive Injustice. Hypatia 29 (2): 440-457.
- Bianchi, Claudia (2020). Discursive Injustice: The Role of Uptake. Topoi 40 (1): 181-190.
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.
Methodology
A reading is assigned to each session. For each of the readings the lecturer provides in advance a list of “reading questions” that should help the students understand the reading and focus on its most relevant parts. In class, these reading questions are discussed and the lecturer typically presents and discusses some additional material. In each of the sessions, one of the students gives a short presentation on one particular issue within the topic discussed in that session.
Evaluation
Class participation (15%), class presentation (15%), a written essay (70%).
Bibliography
- Austin, John (1961). Performative Utterances. In J. O. Urmson & G. J. Warnock (eds.), Philosophical Papers. Clarendon Press.
- Bach, Kent (1999). The Myth of Conventional Implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22(4), 327–366. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25001747
- Bianchi, Claudia (2020). Discursive Injustice: The Role of Uptake. Topoi 40 (1):181-190.
- von Fintel, Kai (2008). “What is presupposition accommodation, again?” Philosophical Perspectives 22 (1):137-170
- Grice, Paul (1975). “Logic and conversation” (in Grice, P (1989))
- Haslanger, Sally (2011). Ideology, Generics, and Common Ground. In Charlotte Witt (ed.), Feminist Metaphysics. Springer Verlag. pp. 179--207.
- Horn, Lawrence and Steven Kleinedler (2000). Parasitic reference vs. R-based narrowing: Lexical pragmatics meets He-Man. Paper presented at annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Chicago.
- Jeshion, Robin (2013). “Slurs and stereotypes”. Analytic Philosophy, 54(3): 314–329
- Karttunen, Lauri & Peters, Stanley. (1979). Conventional Implicature. Syntax and semantics. 11. 1-56.
- Kukla, Rebecca (2014). Performative Force, Convention, and Discursive Injustice. Hypatia 29 (2):440-457.
- Leslie, Sarah-Jane (2017). The Original Sin of Cognition: Fear Prejudice, and Generalization. Journal of Philosophy 114 (8):393-421.
- Levinson, Stephen (2000). "Presumptive meaning. The theory of generalized conversational implicatures". MIT Press.
- Moulton, Janice (1981). The myth of the neutral ’man’. In Mary Vetterling-Braggin (ed.), Sexist Language: A Modern Philosophical Analysis. Littlefield, Adams. pp. 100-16.
- Potts, Christopher (2005) "The logic of conventional implicatures". Oxford University Press
- Potts, Christopher (2015). Presupposition and implicature. In Shalom Lappin & Chris Fox
- (eds.), Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Wiley-Blackwell.
- Saul, Jenny (2023) Are Generics Especially Pernicious? Inquiry, 66 (9). pp. 1689-1706. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2017.1285995
- Searle, John (1975). A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts. Language, Mind, and Knowledge, Minneapolis Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 7, 344-369.
- Stalnaker, Robert (1973). Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2 (4):447 - 457.
- Tonhauser, Judith, David Beaver, Craige Roberts and Mandy Simons (2013). Toward a Taxonomy of Projective Content. Language. 89. 66-109. 10.2307/23357722.