Peter Ludlow

In this paper I examine cases in which we attach different meanings to words and in which we litigate or argue about the best way of defining the term in dispute. I reject the idea that this is just a matter of imposing our will on our interlocutors – I think that the process of litigation is normative. To some extent recent work in the theory of argumentation has shed considerable light on this process, but we will need to retrofit that work for the kinds of considerations we are engaged with here. I’ll begin in Section 1, with some important terminological preliminaries. Then in Section 2, I will offer a general description of how we come to notice that there are disputes about meaning and how we engage the meaning variance once it is recognized. In section 3 I’ll then take up a case that is relatively less controversial – the definition of ‘planet’ – and use it to construct a model for our meaning litigation works. Finally, in section 4 I’ll then turn to more contentious and substantial issues – the definition of ‘rape’ and the definition of ‘person’ and begin exploring how disputes about the meanings of those terms can be normative and fail to be normative.

'Knowledge' doesn't correctly describe our relation to linguistic rules. It is too thick a notion. On the other hand, 'cognize', without further elaboration, is too thin a notion, which is to say that it is too thin to play a role in a competence theory. One advantage of the term 'knowledge'-and presumably Chomsky's original motivation for using it-is that knowledge would play the right kind of role in a competence theory: Our competence would consist in a body of knowledge which we have and which we may or may not act upon-our performance need not conform to the linguistic rules that we know. Is there a way out of the dilemma? I'm going to make the case that the best way to talk about grammatical rules is simply to say that we have them. That doesn't sound very deep, I know, but saying that we have individual rules leaves room for individual norm guidance in a way that 'cognize' does not. Saying we have a rule like subjacency is also thicker than merely saying we cognize it. Saying I have such a rule invites the interpretation that it is a rule for me-that I am normatively guided by it. The competence theory thus becomes a theory of the rules that we have. Whether we follow those rules is another matter entirely.

Part of what makes working with modals such a tricky business is that apparent modal forms are deployed in all sorts of ways in language. In this paper I explore an interesting example of an apparent modal—the Blofeld case—which was introduced by Gilles and von Fintel as part of their argument against context of assessment accounts of epistemic modals. I argue that the example is subtle, and that the apparent modal may not be an epistemic modal at all—it could be a scalar modifier that merges or “incorporates” with the matrix verb, weakening the meaning of the matrix verb. If apparent modals are used as scalar modifiers and are subject to movement and incorporation, then the surface language of modality may be throwing us some crafty head fakes. Caution is advised.

Kenneth Taylor's book, Referring to the World: An Opinionated Introduction to the Theory of Reference, is an exploration of the cognitive resources required to refer to things in the external world. According to Taylor, there is a lot going on. One needs the appropriate internal syntactic objects (which are, on Taylor's view, the product of discursive activity), plus the appropriate internal conceptions, plus of course, the things in the external world that are causally related to our sense organs. His project then is to direct this symphony of moving parts.

It appears that indexicals must have fine-grained senses for us to explain things involving human action and emotions, and we typically identify these different senses with different modes of expression. On the other hand, we also express the very same thought in very different ways. The first problem is the problem of cognitive significance. The second problem is what Branquinho (1999) has called the problem of cognitive dynamics. The question is how we can solve both of those problems at the same time. Vojislav Božičković (2021) offers one solution in which the cognitive dynamics runs through the objects of the attitudes. I discuss this solution and offer an alternative in which the theory of cognitive dynamics has no use for the objects of the attitudes to unify expressions of attitudes. When we say or believe “the same thing” using different modes of expressions, it is by virtue of our deploying a dynamic theory of attitude expression. Like Lewis Carrol’s Red Queen, we must run to stay in place.

This thesis is divided into two parts. Part I consists of a discussion of how a Davidsonian semantic theory might be enriched by some of the resources of modern linguistic theory. Two chapters are found in this part of the dissertation. Chapter 1 sets up the general theoretical framework, discussing the Davidsonian program and showing how the task of semantic theory is to define a truth predicate off of the LF representations of natural language sentences. Chapter 2 sketches the shape that such a formal truth predicate might take. Special attention is given to natural language quantification and to attributive modifiers. ;Part II of the thesis focuses on a problem that has taken up much attention from those doing semantics within the model-theoretic tradition, namely the problem of the attitudes. Much of their work has proceeded under the assumption that such problems can only be treated in a semantic theory endowed with a fairly rich model theory and a possible world ontology. Part II of this thesis may be regarded as an attempt not so much to show an error in the model-theoretic approach, but merely to show that there is an alternative. ;We focus only on a certain class of attitude reports in this thesis, namely "referential attitude reports". These are distinguished from propositional attitudes, in that there is no "that-clause" signaling the intensional environment. Typical examples of referential attitudes include sentences like 'John seeks a donkey' and 'Bill is hoping for the fastest bus'. ;Two difficulties arise for any treatment of referential attitudes. First, there is the problem of how one is to get what is sometimes called the "non-specific" or "attributive" reading. It is this problem that takes up our attention in chapter 3. The second problem concerns the "specific" readings of referential attitude reports, particularly when it seems that the object of intention is non-existent . This problem is addressed in chapter 4

One of the most provocative projects in recent analytic philosophy has been the development of the doctrine of externalism, or, as it is often called, anti-individualism. While there is no agreement as to whether externalism is true or not, a number of recent investigations have begun to explore the question of what follows if it is true. One of the most interesting of these investigations thus far has been the question of whether externalism has consequences for the doctrine that we have authoritative, a priori self-knowledge of our mental states. The selected works presented in this volume, some previously published, some new, are representative of this debate and open up new questions and issues for philosophical investigation, including the connection between externalism, self-knowledge, epistemic warrant, and memory