Tadeusz Ciecierski

The paper attempts to pose a problem for theories claiming that intentional attributions are essentially normative. Firstly, I argue that the claim is ambiguous. Secondly, that three possible interpretations of the claim can be distinguished: one that appeals to normative impositions put on agents of intentional states, another that exploits the fact that one can normatively assess the states in question and a further one that locates normativity in the domain of special intentional explanations. Thirdly, it is argued that each interpretation faces serious difficulties: they either fail to provide a justification for the claim they intend to make or they contradict certain justified observations about intentional attributions.

The phenomenon of context dependence is so multifaceted that it is tempting to classify it as hetergenous. It is especially evident in the case of the difference between context dependence as understood in the philosophy of language and context dependence as understood in the philosophy of mind. One of the aims of the present volume is to show that as varied as the phenomenon of context dependence is, the similarities between its different manifestations are profound and undeniable. More importantly, as evidenced in a number of papers presented on the subsequent pages of this volume, a broad perspective on the phenomenon of context dependence helps us to re-apply theories devised for one of the subfields of philosophy to the other subfields. Since the connections and analogies between many uses of contextualism may not be initially obvious, keeping an open perspective and the willingness to learn from the work of others may sometimes be crucial for finding new, satisfactory solutions.

Building on our diverse research traditions in the study of reasoning, language and communication, the Polish School of Argumentation integrates various disciplines and institutions across Poland in which scholars are dedicated to understanding the phenomenon of the force of argument. Our primary goal is to craft a methodological programme and establish organisational infrastructure: this is the first key step in facilitating and fostering our research movement, which joins people with a common research focus, complementary skills and an enthusiasm to work together. This statement—the Manifesto—lays the foundations for the research programme of the Polish School of Argumentation.

Artykuł dotyczy idei „nazw hybrydowych”. Krótko omówiono i porównano w nim trzy teorie nazw hybrydowych (Wolfganga Künnego, Saula Kripkego i Marka Textora) oraz problemy, z którymi się borykają. Szkicuję w artykule alternatywną koncepcję hybrydowości wyrażeń. Zgodnie z tym ujęciem wypowiedzi są kontekstowo rozciągłymi przedmiotami. Argumentuję, że aby określić kontekstową rozciągłość danej wypowiedzi, należy wziąć pod uwagę dopuszczalne dystrybucje istotnych aspektów kontekstu, ich potencjalne wartości i intencje nadawcy wypowiedzi. Na koniec krótko omawiam zalety podanej interpretacji idei hybrydowości wyrażeń.

The paper discusses the answering machine puzzle and cases of non-standard uses of ‘I’. It offers an analysis of the phenomena that is conservative with respect to the Kaplanian account of indexicality. The point of departure of the paper is the observation that some proper indexicals have demonstrative uses. It is argued that treating some occurrences of ‘now’ as cases of such uses results in an intuitive and simple solution to the answering machine puzzle. At the same time, treating some occurrences of ‘I’ in an analogous manner explains away the impression that some non-standard uses of ‘I’ enforce a modification of the standard semantics of the first-person pronoun.

This paper contains a defense of the orthodox view that knowledge entails belief. I begin with distinguishing two ways in which one can deny the knowledge-belief entailment claim. The first is incompatibilism, which claims that co-occurrence of knowledge and belief is impossible. The second is compatibilism, which claims that that co-occurrence of knowledge and belief is a contingent matter. Next, I present intuitive arguments against both kinds of denials. The arguments apply to agents that are capable of entertaining reflective metabelief and reflective meta-knowledge for every belief or knowledge state they have. I close the paper with a discussion of some possible objections to the presented arguments. The first is the problem of the interpretation of apparent “knowledge without belief” scenarios that enables the keeping of the contrast between them, and then also both “knowledge with belief” and “belief without knowledge” scenarios. Firstly, I consider the class of cases of apparent “knowledge without belief” scenarios encompassing situations in which one is disposed to assent that ‘I do not only believe that: I know it’. Secondly, I consider the class of cases of apparent “knowledge without belief” scenarios embracing, for instance, the classical Radford example in the version presented recently by Myers- Schulz and Schwitzgebel. The second problem concerns the commitment to epistemic logics. The third is the problem that the arguments appeals to reflective agents who have the disposition to form meta-attitudes, and one may still claim that compatibilism is true of agents that are not in that group (young children, some or all animals, etc.). The fourth problem is the commitment to attempts to provide sufficient and necessary conditions for the application of the concept of knowledge.

As it is broadly accepted, typical uses of demonstratives are accompanied by demonstrations. The concept of demonstration, however, manifests the action–product ambiguity analogous to that visible in the opposition between jumping and the resulting jump, talking and the resulting talk or crying and the resulting cry. It is also a heterogeneous concept that enables demonstrations to vary significantly. The present paper discusses action–product ambiguity as applied to demonstrations as well as the heterogeneity of the latter. An account that acknowledges ambiguity and heterogeneity of demonstrations is sketched in the paper. It is argued that it has a rich explanatory and descriptive potential.

Maximilian de Gaynesford has argued against the standard view that the reference of the first-person pronoun ‘I’ is determined by a rule linking the referent to some feature of the context of use. In this paper, we argue that de Gaynesford's arguments are inconclusive. Our main aim, however, is to formulate a novel version of the reference rule for ‘I’. We argue that this version can deal with several problematic cases. Our strategy involves analysing the so-called agent of the context as the person responsible for a particular speech act. From this analysis, we exclude a particular class of uses of ‘I’, uses that we believe are best understood as demonstrative.

The paper aims to add contextual dependence to the new directival theory of meaning, a functional role semantics based on Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz’s directival theory of meaning. We show that the original formulation of the theory does not have a straight answer on how the meaning of indexicals and demonstratives is established. We illustrate it in the example of some problematic axiomatic and inferential directives containing indexicals. We show that the main reason why developing the new directival theory of meaning in this direction is difficult is that the theory focuses on the notion of a sentence (and not the notion of an utterance). To add the latter notion to the theory, we introduce the idea of admissible contextual distribution being an interpretation of the hybrid expression view on indexicals and demonstratives. We argue that this idea introduces a small but important modification to the concept of language matrix and gives way to define two distinct concepts of meaning: for an expression type and for a use of an expression type.

This paper presents a dual intention model (DIM) of demonstrations as actions to show the agentive nature of demonstrations. According to the DIM, demonstrations are complex actions that contain as components at least three elements: an abductive intention, a deictic intention, and a basic ostensive act of indication. This paper unpacks these three components and discusses their roles from the viewpoint of the philosophy of action and the philosophy of language. It also shows how the DIM applies in selected practical examples and explains the merits of the model in the context of other views on demonstrations and demonstratives.

The article presents two concepts of indexicality. The first, more standard and narrow, identifies indexicality with systematic (meaning controlled) context-sensitivity. The second, broader (derived from the work of Jerzy Pelc), conceives indexicality in terms of the potential variability of the general semiotic characteristics expressions (with respect to the context of use). The text introduces the concept of a pragmatic matrix that serves for a schematic representation of contextual variation. I also recapitulate briefly the views of Jerzy Pelc on the meaning (manner of use) and use of expressions, and briefly indicate its relationship approaches with contemporary debates around contextualism and status of non-sentential speech acts. Finally, the relationship between the broader notion of indexicality and the directival theory of meaning is analyzed.

The popular interpretation of token‐reflexivism states that at the level of logical form, indexicals and demonstratives are disguised descriptions that employ complex demonstratives or special quotation‐mark names involving particular tokens of the appropriate expression‐types. In this article I first demonstrate that this interpretation of token‐reflexivism is only one of many, and that it is better to think of token‐reflexivism as denoting a family of distinct theoretical frameworks. Second, I contrast two interpretations of the idea of the token‐reflexive paraphrase of an indexical sentence. The utterance approach claims that token‐reflexive paraphrases involve tokens of entire utterances. The sub‐utterance approach maintains that token‐reflexive paraphrases involve tokens of the particular indexical words used in the utterance. Next, I pose a problem that shows that neither of the two approaches is correct. The problem shows that the only viable version of the token‐reflexive proposition must somehow take into account the referential intentions of the speaker of the context. Therefore I conclude the article by sketching the framework of restricted intentional token‐reflexivism. I argue that it is an attractive semantic theory of distributed utterances that, among other things, enables automatic and intentional indexicals to be distinguished.

Dnia 2 czerwca zmarł w Warszawie Jerzy Pelc, założyciel oraz wieloletni redaktor „Studiów Semiotycznych”. Przez prawie pół wieku troszczył się On o to, aby na ich łamach ukazywały się wspomnienia pozgonne upamiętniające polskich i zagranicznych uczonych semiotyków. Wspomnienia te albo pisał sam, albo prosił o ich napisanie osoby najlepiej znające dorobek i działalność naukową zmarłego. Jego odejście postawiło nas wszystkich w sytuacji niemożliwej: sam nie może być autorem wspomnienia, a tylko On mógłby kompetentnie napisać kilka słów o swoim ogromnym dorobku naukowym [...].

Leon Koj napisał w zakończeniu do Problemów semiotyki logicznej, że nie sposób sobie wyobrazić semiotyki w Polsce bez Jerzego Pelca. Można opinię tę rozumieć tak, że Jerzy Pelc wywarł na semiotykę polską wpływ, bez którego to, co w niej najlepsze, nie przybrałoby nigdy formy rozwiniętej, nie ujrzałoby światła dziennego oraz nie znalazłoby odbicia w dydaktyce uniwersyteckiej. Jest to opinia trafna, a rozprawy zawarte w niniejszym – poświęconym Jerzemu Pelcowi – tomie Studiów Semiotycznych są oznakami tego wpływu.