Topics in Semantics and Pragmatics
Basic Information
Dates
Description
The aim of the course is that students gain a good understanding of some foundational notions regarding meaning and communication, as applied to a recent significant debate in the philosophy of language, aesthetics, and linguistics. In so doing, students should acquire the ability to begin to be able to defend views of their own on some of the specific topics discussed in class.
Structure of the course, contents and readings
1. Introduction
An introduction to (a) different types of inferences in natural language & (b) subjective language
Basic reading:
- Schlenker, P. (2016). The semantics/pragmatics interface. The Cambridge handbook of formal semantics, 664-727.
- Lasersohn, P. (2005). Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and philosophy, 28(6), 643-686.
2. The acquaintance inference in aesthetics
Basic readings:
- Mothersill, Mary 1984. Beauty Restored, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- Budd, Malcom 2003. The Acquaintance Principle, The British Journal of Aesthetics 43/4: 386–92.
- Wollheim, Richard Art and Its Objects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980
3. Entailment views
Basic reading:
- Dinges, A., & Zakkou, J. (2021). Taste, traits, and tendencies: A. Dinges, J. Zakkou. Philosophical Studies, 178(4), 1183-1206.
4. Implicature views
Background reading:
- Grice, P. (1975). “Logic and conversation”. In P. Grice (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Main reading:
- Ninan, D. (2014, August). Taste predicates and the acquaintance inference. In Semantics and linguistic theory (pp. 290-309).
5. Presuppositional views
Background reading:
- Abbott, Barbara (2008). “Presuppositions and common ground”. Linguistics and Philosophy, 21, 523–538.
Main reading:
- Anand, P., & Korotkova, N. (2018). Acquaintance content and obviation. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 55-72).
6. Expressivist views (I)
Background reading:
- Ayer, A. J. (1952). Language, truth, and logic (Vol. 10). Courier Corporation (selected fragments)
- Gibbard, A. (1990). Wise choices, apt feelings: A theory of normative judgment. Harvard University Press. (selected fragments)
Main reading:
- Franzén, N. (2018). Aesthetic evaluation and first-hand experience. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 96(4), 669-682.
7. Epistemic views (or, Implicature views round 2)
Main reading:
- Felka, K. (2026). No Praise for Unknown Cakes: What Is the Source of the Acquaintance Inference?. Erkenntnis, 91(2), 769-786.
8. Expressivist views (II)
Main reading:
- Ninan, Dilip (2024). An Expressivist Theory of Taste Predicates. Philosophers’ Imprint 24 (1).
- Kennedy, C., & Willer, M. (2022). Familiarity inferences, subjective attitudes and counterstance contingency: towards a pragmatic theory of subjective meaning. Linguistics and Philosophy, 45(6), 1395-1445.
9. Latest developments / other directions
Main reading:
- Khoo, J. (2025). Judging for ourselves. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 110(3), 757-788.
- Willer, M., & Kennedy, C. (2022). Assertion, expression, experience. Inquiry, 65(7), 821-857.
- Soria-Ruiz, A. (2024, December). Expressive inferences & mighty obstacles. In Proceedings of the Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 358-364).
Learning outcomes
- C01 - Assess the impact of the philosophical theories and arguments studied, with the aim of contributing to the Sustainable Development Goals.
- C02 - Develop critical thinking that respects plurality and diversity, within a framework of respect for fundamental rights, equality, the freedom and dignity of women and men, and non-discrimination, in the context of philosophical research.
- C03 - Demonstrate attitudes consistent with ethical conceptions, deontological codes, and intellectual integrity, with awareness of the implications of the different activities carried out in relevant philosophical work.
- C05 - Apply philosophical knowledge and critical skills developed in new practical situations.
- C06 - Use diagnostic capacity and creativity to solve philosophical problems.
- C07 - Develop autonomous learning skills based on the capacity for analysis, reflection, synthesis, global perspectives, and expert critical reasoning.
- H04 - Solve problems in new or unfamiliar environments within multidisciplinary contexts related to philosophy.
- H07 - Critically assess lines of argument in specialized philosophy articles.
- K03 - Identify the central theories and arguments of contemporary practical philosophy and value theory.
- K04 - Identify methodological errors, rhetorical devices, uncritical conventional assumptions, vagueness, and superficiality.
- K09 - Identify the central theories and arguments of contemporary theoretical philosophy.
- C09 - Use appropriately the terminology, concepts, and methods of specialized philosophy in oral and written discussion.
- H06 - Review scientific evidence to support claims and contributions in philosophy.
- H08 - Illustrate general philosophical ideas or problems with examples drawn from real life or imaginary cases capable of supporting or refuting a philosophical position.
- H09 - Reconstruct arguments from specialized philosophical texts.
- H01 - Communicate effectively in spoken and written English in presentations, debates, written work, and examinations at the appropriate level for the academic context of philosophy.
- H02 - Use information sources critically and responsibly in accordance with the standards of analytic philosophy.
- H03 - Apply philosophical knowledge in an original way in the development and implementation of ideas, especially in a research context.
- H05 - Formulate judgments based on incomplete or limited information, including consideration of social and ethical responsibilities.
- K01 - Identify the concepts and methods of contemporary analytic philosophy used in the formulation and defence of philosophical proposals.
- K02 - Recognize recent debates on different philosophical methodologies, in particular the main theories and main lines of discussion.
- K05 - Defend one’s conclusions and the underlying knowledge and reasons before both specialized and non-specialized audiences in a clear and unambiguous manner.
- K06 - Discuss problems autonomously within the domain of contemporary theoretical philosophy.
- K07 - Illustrate the implications of one of the contemporary theories discussed in its practical context.
- K08 - Recognize the fundamental problems in various areas of analytic philosophy.
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 (often it will be related to one of the reading questions).
Evaluation
Continuous assessment consists of the following activities: class participation (10%), class presentation (10%), two or three short papers or problem sets related to the reading questions (80%).
Single assessment
Under exceptional and justified circumstances, a single examination (100% of the grade) can be requested during the 30 first days of the semester using the proper form. Then, on a single deadline at the end of the term, the student will have to provide the answers to two problem sets, and a short paper (to be written on a topic to be agreed with the instructor).
Re-evaluation/Resit
The resit will consist of delivering failed assignments. Only those students who score a minimum of 3 (and less than 5) can opt for the resit. The only possible final mark after the resit will be 5. The resit takes place a week after the UB evaluation period finishes (January/February).
Bibliography
Abbott, Barbara. 2008. Presuppositions and common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 21, 523–538.
Anand, P., & Korotkova, N. (2018). Acquaintance content and obviation. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 55-72).
Ayer, A. J. (1952). Language, truth, and logic (Vol. 10). Courier Corporation (selected fragments)
Budd, Malcom 2003. The Acquaintance Principle, The British Journal of Aesthetics 43/4: 386–92.
Dinges, A., & Zakkou, J. (2021). Taste, traits, and tendencies: A. Dinges, J. Zakkou. Philosophical Studies, 178(4), 1183-1206.
Felka, K. (2026). No Praise for Unknown Cakes: What Is the Source of the Acquaintance Inference?. Erkenntnis, 91(2), 769-786.
von Fintel, K. 2008: What is presupposition accommodation, again? Philosophical Perspectives 22: 137–170.
Franzén, N. (2018). Aesthetic evaluation and first-hand experience. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 96(4), 669-682.
Gibbard, A. (1990). Wise choices, apt feelings: A theory of normative judgment. Harvard University Press.
Grice, P., (1975) “Logic and conversation” (in Grice, P (1989))
Kennedy, C., & Willer, M. (2022). Familiarity inferences, subjective attitudes and counterstance contingency: towards a pragmatic theory of subjective meaning. Linguistics and Philosophy, 45(6), 1395-1445.
Khoo, J. (2025). Judging for ourselves. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 110(3), 757-788.
Mothersill, Mary 1984. Beauty Restored, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ninan, D. (2014). Taste predicates and the acquaintance inference. In Semantics and linguistic theory (pp. 290-309).
Ninan, D. (2020). The projection problem for predicates of taste. In Semantics and linguistic theory (pp. 753-778).
Ninan, D. (2024). An Expressivist Theory of Taste Predicates. Philosophers’ Imprint 24 (1).
Pearson, H. (2013). A judge-free semantics for predicates of personal taste. Journal of semantics, 30(1), 103-154.
Schlenker, P. (2016). The semantics/pragmatics interface. The Cambridge handbook of formal semantics, 664-727.
Soames, Scott. 1989. “Presupposition”, In D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner (eds), Handbook of Philosophical Logic IV, 553-616.
Soria-Ruiz, A. (2024, December). Expressive inferences & mighty obstacles. In Proceedings of the Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 358-364).
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.
Willer, M., & Kennedy, C. (2022). Assertion, expression, experience. Inquiry, 65(7), 821-857.
Wollheim, Richard Art and Its Objects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980
Other considerations
Equality policy
In agreement with the University of Barcelona’s Equality Policy (Pla d’Igualtat), this course incorporates a gender perspective that implies, among others, the following aspects: regarding class dynamics, it is ensured that everyone feels equally welcomed and encouraged to contribute to class discussions; regarding the content of the course and the readings that are the basis for the different sessions of the course, a bibliography that takes appropriately into account the significant contributions made by women to the topics discussed is used; regarding the grading of the course, awareness is raised about unconscious gender biases that might interfere in the process of grading problem sets, papers and other aspects of the course, and mechanisms are applied to prevent them.