Joanna Odrowąż-Sypniewska

In a recent paper Mandy Simons has argued that in a Gricean framework there is room for embedded pragmatic effects. One of her goals has been to demonstrate that an argument put forward by François Recanati to the effect that it is not possible to apply Gricean reasoning to generation of local pragmatic effects is mistaken. In his commentary Recanati maintains that the view suggested by Simons can be called Gricean only in a very broad sense and insists that the process responsible for local effects is essentially different from the one which generates conversational implicatures. In my view their exchange highlights important issues concerning the way in which local pragmatic effects are generated and is worthy of a careful analysis. In what follows I critically examine Simons’s and Recanati’s views and then suggest the view that in the light of this analysis seems to me the most adequate. In particular, I argue—against Recanati—that during the interpretation process interpreters construct literal propositional nuclei, which usually fell short of being truth-evaluable but which play an important role in the interpretation. I claim that the view that assumes that such literal propositions are constructed in the process of interpretation is more universal and may be used to analyse a wider range of examples than the view that does not postulate such constructions. Nevertheless, I maintain—against Simons—that the global and local pragmatic inferences are importantly different.

Drobňák and Kaluziński argue that normative inferentialism is an attractive theory of meaning, which can play an important part in the semantic minimalism—contextualism debate. In particular it can explain such phenomena as context-sensitivity, ambiguity and conversational implicatures. In what follows I’ll critically asses their approach, point out its weaknesses and suggest possible improvements and modifications. In Sect. 2 I take issue with some of the analyses of contextualists’ scenarios proposed by Kaluziński and offer a more uniform treatment. I also argue—pace Kaluziński and following Drobňák—that inferentialism is best seen as a variant of contextualism. In Sect. 3 I describe Drobňák’s approach to implicatures, homonymy and polysemy, whereas in Sect. 4 I analyze this approach in detail and indicate its shortcomings. I also suggest an alternative analysis of implicatures and an important modification of the way in which inferential significances are constructed. As far as I can see, my suggestions are in line with inferentialism’s spirit and could easily be incorporated within its framework.

One of the challenges that any theorist of vagueness faces is to account for there being two kinds of disagreement over vague predicates like “tall” and “rich”: canonical disagreements concerning clear cases and faultless disagreements concerning borderline cases. I’ll argue that one needs to maintain that the illocutionary force of borderline utterances is different from that of clear utterances. Whereas the latter might be correct assertions, the former should be assertives weaker than assertions, since they express only a weak belief of the speaker. The degree of commitment to the truth of what is said in a borderline utterance is lower and neither speaker of two opposing verdicts makes a mistake.

In this text I briefly describe the main trends in the analytic philosophy of language in the 21st century. Among the most important developments that influenced the way in which the philosophy of language is done I mention experimental philosophy and conceptual engineering. Among the new topics I highlight the social and political turn of the analytic philosophy of language with its focus on gender terms, slurs, fig leaves, dog whistles and other linguistic phenomena that have significant societal impact. I also mention the debate between semantic minimalism, contextualism and relativism, which has its roots in earlier philosophy but which has been very lively in the first quarter of the 21st century.

In the paper I describe John MacFarlane’s version of relativism about truth. I begin by discussing Twardowski’s (1900) and Kokoszynska’s (1948; 1951) arguments against relativism. They think — just as Haack does (see 2011) — that sentences may be relatively true, if they are incomplete, but once they are completed they become true (or false) absolutely. MacFarlane distinguishes between nonindexical contextualism (which was anticipated by Kokoszynska (sic!)) and relativism which requires the introduction of the context of assessment. According to him only the view which postulates double-indexed (to contexts of utterance and to contexts of assessments) truth is able to explain disagreement in subjective domains and contradicting intuitions about the truth-value of future-contingents

Semantic contextualism claims that sentences ascribing knowledge or lack thereof (sentences like "S knows that p" and "S doesn't know that p") are context dependent: they express different propositions in different contexts of utterance. "Knows that" is either indexical or elliptical and refers to different relations in different circumstances. Invariantism argues in turn that the knowing relation is just one and the proposition expressed by a given knowledge ascription does not depend on context. A special case of invariantism is interest-relative invariantism proposed recently by Jason Stanley. According to |R| knowledge is conceptually linked to practical interests. Whether or not true beliefs count as knowledge depends on the costs of being wrong; on the stakes in a given situation (I may know that the bank will be open on Saturday if I have no important business to be done in the bank; if however I have an impending bill coming due I will not count as knowing that the bank will be open on Saturday even though my evidence as regard bank opening hours has not changed). It is argued in the paper that the difference between various contexts in which knowledge ascriptions are made is not a difference in stakes. Moreover knowledge has to be distinguished from willingness to be sure. One may know something but not be sure about it and may be sure about something but not to know it. The higher the stakes the more sure one usually wants to be, but the height of the stakes does not have such an impact on knowledge

W artykule zwracam uwagę na trudności jakie napotyka ktoś, kto chce wcielać w życie postulaty krytycyzmu dotyczące precyzji językowej. Zgodnie z tymi postulatami powinno się mówić jednoznacznie i precyzyjnie, a zatem unikać wyrażeń wieloznacznych, nieostrych i chwiejnych znaczeniowo. Jednakże postulaty te jest znacznie trudniej spełnić niż mogłoby się wydawać, bowiem istotne wątpliwości dotyczą samych zjawisk niejasności, nieostrości czy wieloznaczności. Wydaje się, że chcąc nauczyć innych unikania na przykład wypowiedzi wieloznacznych, powinniśmy dysponować adekwatną charakterystyką wieloznaczności i potrafić ją właściwie diagnozować. Tymczasem, sytuacja jest niesamowicie zagmatwana i w literaturze czy to filozoficznej, czy językoznawczej, nie ma jednej ustalonej definicji, czy choćby zgody co do tego, które wyrażenia są wieloznaczne. Nie ma także zgody co do tego, w jaki sposób charakteryzować polisemię i jak odróżniać ją np. od zależności kontekstowej. Wątpliwości budzi także charakterystyka nieostrości i właściwego klasyfikowania przypadków granicznych wyrażeń nieostrych. Nie ma natomiast wątpliwości, że większość wyrażeń języka naturalnego jest i nieostra, i zależna od kontekstu, i jednocześnie polisemiczna. Co więcej w wielu wypadkach te cechy wcale nie są defektami naszego języka, a wręcz usprawniają komunikację i umożliwiają nam szybkie przekazanie treści. Postulat unikania tego rodzaju wyrażeń jest po prostu nierealizowalny. Kierowanie się zasadami krytycyzmu pozwala jednak na łatwiejsze dostrzeżenie i unikanie wadliwości i uchybień wobec poprawności językowej w tych sytuacjach, gdy takie wadliwości utrudniają sprawną komunikację.

The traditional conception of lying, according to which to lie is to make an assertion with an intention to deceive the hearer, has recently been put under pressure by the phenomenon of bald-faced lies i.e. utterances that _prima facie_ look like lies but because of their blatancy allegedly lack the accompanying intention to deceive. In this paper we propose an intuitive way of reconciling the phenomenon of bald-faced lies with the traditional conception by suggesting that the existing analyses of the phenomenon overlook a non-obvious category of hearers whom the speakers of bald-faced lies intend to deceive. Those hearers are institutions represented by the people involved, such as courts or secret police. We also criticize two recent rival accounts (Jessica Keiser’s and Daniel Harris’s) that attempt to save the traditional conception by saying that some bald-faced lies are not assertions, because they are conventional—rather than illocutionary—speech acts.

The Agreement-Based Tests for Context SensitivityIn my paper, I present and discuss Cappelen and Lepore's context sensitivity tests, which appeal to says-that reports. In Relativism and Monadic Truth (2009) Cappelen and Hawthorne criticize those tests and propose agreement-based tests instead. I argue that such tests do not fare much better. The original Cappelen and Lepore's tests presupposed a minimal notion of says-that. One might postulate a parallel notion of "thin" agreement, according to which people agree that p if they all believe the minimal proposition that p. In this sense we might say - as opposed to what Cappelen and Hawthorne say - that A and B agree that Nicola is smart, even though A thinks that she is smart because she stands way back against strong servers, while B thinks that she is smart because she invested all her money in penny stocks. The paper ends with a critical gloss concerning the case in which Joe Coach predicates tall of people who are over six-foot-eight and Joe Normal, who applies tall to anyone over six-foot tall. I conclude that agreement and disagreement tests are poor indicators of context sensitivity, since their result depends on the prior theoretical standpoint one adopts.

In this paper I argue that metalinguistic negotiations are not as common as David Plunkett and Timothy Sundell assume. They make two related controversial claims: the claim that speakers don’t know what they say and the claim that they directly communicate metalinguistic contents. These two claims generate two challenges that the metalinguistic-negotiation view should meet. Firstly, it should clarify why speakers are oblivious to what they are saying and communicating, and secondly, it should explain the mechanism that transforms what seems like a typical object-language disagreement into a metalinguistic dispute. I argue that the way in which Plunkett and Sundell meet these challenges is unsatisfactory. Regarding their answer to the first challenge, I’ll argue that the theoretical cost of postulating massive semantic and pragmatic blindness in otherwise competent speakers is too high. Regarding what they say in relation to the second challenge, I’ll claim that metalinguistic contents can only be conveyed when speakers uttering apparently contradicting claims know that they are using terms with different meanings. If my arguments are correct, then metalinguistic negotiations are certainly not ubiquitous.

In my paper I argue that a successful theory of vagueness should be able to account for faultless disagreement concerning borderline cases.Firstly, I claim that out of the traditional conceptions of vagueness the best equipped to account for faultless disagreement areparaconsistent solutions. One worry concerning dialetheism is that it seems to allow not only for faultless disagreements between different speakers, but also for such ‘disagreements’ between the given speaker and himself. Another worry, at least for some people, is that subvaluationism and dialetheism account for faultless disagreements by allowing contradictions. Next, I go on to argue that contextual conceptions, which are free from this latter worry, are equally well able to account for such disagreements. To this aim I offer a new account of the usage of personal taste predicates and suggest that we model the usage of all vague predicates on them. The idea is that in clear cases “a is F” means “a is F simpliciter”, whereas in borderline cases it means “a is F-to-me”. Since the boundary between borderline and nonborderline cases depends on context, my solution weds content-contextualism with truth-contextualism.