Thorsten Sander

Quite a few languages make a distinction between formal (“V”) pronouns, such as German “Sie” or Mandarin nin3, and informal (“T”) ones, such as “du” and ni2. Pace Levinson and Horn, I argue that the rule-conforming usage of T and V cannot be construed as an example of conventional implicature. The difference is, rather, a matter of use-conditional content. However, speakers may also use T/V pronouns in situations where the propriety standards are less clear. In such cases, speakers may employ T or V in order to convey which pronoun ought to be used, which may be construed as a specific kind of manner implicature. Finally, speakers may intentionally use inappropriate pronouns. In certain contexts, this may constitute a manner implicature too. In some other contexts, this may be likened to intentionally infringing on a rule of etiquette. Doing so will often be considered rude, but that does not necessarily mean that the infringement constitutes a communicative act.

This chapter offers an overview of the philosophical discussion on expressivity roughly since the time of Frege. It reviews some of the major steps towards a better understanding of expressive content and also highlights some perennial problems. Among the questions addressed in this chapter are the following: how does expressive content differ from at-issue content? How do expressives affect an interlocutor and how does this relate to their meaning? What is the relation between expressives and their descriptive counterparts? How can we tell apart emotive meaning and emotive psychological effects? Are there expressive speech acts proper? What kind of content is expressive content (is it illocutionary, use-conditional, or a conventional implicature)? Finally, can there be such a thing as a logic of expressives? Sections: 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Frege's asymmetricalism: Two kinds of content 3.3 Marty's asymmetricalism: Two kinds of mental states 3.4 Emotive meaning 3.5 Illocutionary expressivity 3.6 Can there be a logic of expressives? 3.7 Conclusion

Quite a few scholars have argued that certain subsentential items contribute illocutionary contents. For instance, according to Camp (2013, 2018) using a slur amounts to performing two speech acts at once. Such claims raise the question of how to test for the illocutionariness of an item. I criticize a recent proposal and put forward a new one, which is based on Austin’s idea that illocutionary verbs can be identified by means of his “To say x was to do y” diagnostic. The test I propose can be successfully applied to Camp’s dual act analysis, but one may still wonder whether a speech act theoretic account is ultimately preferable to what Camp calls a “two-factor view”. I conclude by discussing whether the dual act view is indeed better poised to explain the highly variable projection behaviour of slurs.

The starting point for this article is Holton’s (2017) claim that there are no anti-factive attitude verbs (in Indo-European languages). In a first step, I argue that the German verb “wähnen” (as used by Frege and his contemporaries) is a counter-example. However, it seems as though anti-factives are rarer than factives, which raises the question of how to account for that observation. Since Holton’s explanation, as well as a seemingly promising neo-Gricean explanation, turns out to be unsuccessful, I turn to the question of whether the rarity of anti-factives needs to be explained in the first place. I argue that, on closer inspection, anti-factives are not as special as they may appear, and I also argue that the comparative rarity of anti-factives can be explained via the principle of charity.

Uncovering an aspect of Gottlob Frege's linguistic theorizing that has until now received little attention, this volume offers the first detailed exposition of Frege's pragmatics. Thorsten Sander explores his views on colouring, side-thoughts, presuppositions, indexicals and illocutionary force and closely relates these to current research in philosophy of language and linguistics. Throughout his career, Frege was concerned with various secondary aspects of meaning. He claims, for instance, that the two words 'dog' and 'cur' differ not in what he calls sense, but merely in colouring. By contrast, the difference between 'morning star' and 'evening star' is supposed to be a matter of sense. How exactly does sense differ from colouring? Frege also claims that by using a proper name one presupposes the existence of its bearer and that our utterances are frequently associated with side-thoughts. What exactly does he mean by these terms, and wherein lies the difference between these phenomena. Frege's Pragmatics answers questions such as these, providing a fresh perspective on Frege's account of various pragmatic aspects of language. In this first book-length treatment, Sander makes the case that Frege's groundbreaking ideas are an essential part of his overall philosophical enterprise.

I argue that “general pejoratives” such as “jerk” or “bastard” differ crucially from items such as “that damn N”. While items such as the latter typically serve to give vent to one's attitudes, general pejoratives essentially involve judgments about a person's behaviour or character. This is particularly evident in cases where pejoratives occur not as epithets, but as predicate nominals. If we want to account for the overall contribution of words such as “jerk”, there are three kinds of content that ought to be distinguished: truth-conditional contents, evaluative presuppositions, and expressive contents that are either at-issue (in the case of expressive predicates) or non-at-issue (in the case of epithets).

What, exactly, is the difference between words such as ‘dead’ and ‘deceased’? In this paper, I argue that such differences in register, or style, ought to be construed as genuine differences in non-truth-conditional meaning. I also show that register cannot plausibly accounted for in terms of either presupposition or conventional implicature. Register is, rather, an instance of what I call pure use-conditional meaning. In the case of register, a difference in meaning does not correspond to a difference in the contents speakers intend to convey.

Quite a few scholars claim that many implicata are propositions about the speaker's epistemic or doxastic states. I argue, on the contrary, that implicata are generally non-epistemic. Some alleged cases of epistemic implicature are not implicatures in the first place because they do not meet Grice's non-triviality requirement, and epistemic implicata in general would infringe on the maxim of quantity. Epistemic implicatures ought to be construed as members of a larger family of implicature-like phenomena.

Why did Frege offer only proper names as examples of presupposition triggers? Some scholars claim that Frege simply did not care about the full range of presuppositional phenomena. This paper argues, in contrast, that he had good reasons for employing an extremely narrow notion of ‘Voraussetzung’. On Frege’s view, many devices that are now construed as presupposition triggers either express several thoughts at once or merely ‘illuminate’ a thought in a particular way. Fregean presuppositions, in contrast, are essentially tied to names.

Dem "Manifestationsargument" zufolge steht eine realistische Semantik der Wahrheitsbedingungen im Widerspruch zu dem Gedanken, dass das Verstehen von Sätzen eine Fähigkeit ist, die sich im Handeln manifestieren können muss. – Der Aufsatz zeigt, dass sowohl Realisten als auch Anti-Realisten die These aufzugeben haben, dass das Verstehen eines Satzes im Erfassen der jeweiligen Wahrheitsbedingungenbesteht. Die realistische Annahme der Existenz verifikationstranszendenter Wahrheiten steht – unabhängig vom Manifestationsprinzip – im Widerspruch zu einer wahrheitskonditionalen Semantik. Die von heutigen Anti-Realisten vertretenen Theorien des Verstehens sind allerdings einem ähnlichen Einwand ausgesetzt, insofern sie gleichfalls nicht unsere Fähigkeit, unentscheidbare Sätze zu verstehen, erklären können.

Die Idee, daß die Bedeutung sprachlicher Ausdrücke im Rückgriff auf ihren Gebrauch in der Sprache zu klären ist, ist seit Wittgenstein gängig. Das Buch verteidigt diesen Grundgedanken durch die Ausarbeitung einer prozeduralistischen Bedeutungstheorie, die zwei theoretische Strömungen zusammenführt: eine inferentialistische Semantik und eine konventionalistische Sprechakttheorie. Das Buch bietet darüber hinaus eine gründliche Diskussion realistischer und bescheidener Bedeutungstheorien sowie alternativer gebrauchstheoretischer Ansätze.

In der neueren Sprachphilosophie ist wiederholt der soziale Charakter des Redens betont worden. Das Buch versucht, diese These auf der Grundlage einer genauen Untersuchung der Abfolge einzelner sprachlicher Handlungen zu verteidigen. Die orthodoxe Sprechakttheorie hat sich bislang weitgehend auf die Gelingensbedingungen einzelner sprachlicher Vollzüge konzentriert. Isolierte Redehandlungen stellen allerdings in der kommunikativen Praxis einen Ausnahmefall dar: Ein kompetenter Sprecher muss nicht nur die vom sprachlichen Kontext unabhängigen Korrektheitsstandards kennen; vielmehr muss er auch in der Lage sein, die eigenen Sprechakte im Rahmen eines Textes kohärent miteinander zu verknüpfen und auf Redehandlungen anderer so zu reagieren, dass ein genuiner Diskurs zwischen den Parteien entsteht – im Gegensatz zu einer bloßen Aneinanderreihung “für sich” korrekter Äußerungen. Das Buch verfolgt das Ziel, das für die Struktur derartiger Rede(handlungs)sequenzen einschlägige Reglement in seinen wesentlichen Aspekten zu rekonstruieren und insbesondere die für ein solches Projekt relevanten sprachphilosophischen Grundfragen zu klären.

Die Arbeit untersucht, in welcher Weise Regeln die Bedeutung von Sätzen bestimmen sowie eine handlungsanleitende Kraft entfalten können. Auf der Basis einer Analyse der Rede von regulativen und konstitutiven Regeln wird gezeigt, dass semantische Regeln als bedingte Erlaubnisse zu rekonstruieren sind, die es ermöglichen, die Bedeutung von Ausdrücken zirkelfrei zu bestimmen. Derartige Regeln stellen unverzichtbare Prämissen in praktischen Syllogismen dar, deren Konklusion den Vollzug eines Sprechaktes gebietet

According to the “paradox of knowability”, the moderate thesis that all truths are knowable – ... – implies the seemingly preposterous claim that all truths are actually known – ... –, i.e. that we are omniscient. If Fitch’s argument were successful, it would amount to a knockdown rebuttal of anti-realism by reductio. In the paper I defend the nowadays rather neglected strategy of intuitionistic revisionism. Employing only intuitionistically acceptable rules of inference, the conclusion of the argument is, firstly, not ..., but .... Secondly, even if there were an intuitionistically acceptable proof of ..., i.e. an argument based on a different set of premises, the conclusion would have to be interpreted in accordance with Heyting semantics, and read in this way, the apparently preposterous conclusion would be true on conceptual grounds and acceptable even from a realist point of view. Fitch’s argument, understood as an immanent critique of verificationism, fails because in a debate dealing with the justification of deduction there can be no interpreted formal language on which realists and anti-realists could agree. Thus, the underlying problem is that a satisfactory solution to the “problem of shared content” is not available. I conclude with some remarks on the proposals by J. Salerno and N. Tennant to reconstruct certain arguments in the debate on anti-realism by establishing aporias.

Allocating the burden of proof and intuitions in philosophical disputes.– This paper criticises the view that in philosophical disputes the onus probandi rests on those who advance a position that contradicts our basic intuitions. Such a rule for allocating the burden of proof may be an adequate reconstruction of everyday justification, but is unreasonable in the area of philosophy. In philosophy it is not only difficult to determine the plausibility of a proposition, at the same time contradictory claims may be equally plausible. – In contrast to such common sense proposals I try to show that in philosophical disputes the burden of proof does not depend on the material content of speech acts. A speaker simply bears the burden of proof for a proposition p if he has asserted that p and has agreed to justify it.