Table Of ContentIndexicality and Presupposition
Explorations beyond Truth-Conditional Information
Andreas Stokke
Athesistobesubmittedtothe
UniversityofStAndrews
forthedegreeof
DoctorofPhilosophy
DepartmentsofPhilosophy
SchoolofPhilosophical,AnthropologicalandFilmStudies
UniversityofStAndrews
May
I,AndreasStokke, herebycertifythatthisthesis, whichisapproximately.
wordsinlength,hasbeenwrittenbyme,thatitistherecordofworkcarriedout
bymeandthatithasnotbeensubmittedinanypreviousapplicationforahigher
degree.
Iwasadmittedasaresearchstudentinandasacandidateforthedegree
ofDoctorofPhilosophyin; thehigherstudyforwhichthisisarecordwas
carriedoutintheUniversityofStAndrewsbetweenand.
May
Signatureofcandidate
I, Herman Cappelen, hereby certify that the candidate has fulfilled the condi-
tionsoftheResolutionandRegulationsappropriateforthedegreeofDoctorof
PhilosophyintheUniversityofStAndrewsandthatthecandidateisqualifiedto
submitthisthesisinapplicationforthatdegree.
May
Signatureofsupervisor
In submitting this thesis to the University of St Andrews we understand that we
are giving permission for it to be made available for use in accordance with the
regulations of the University Library for the time being in force, subject to any
copyrightvestedintheworknotbeingaffectedthereby. Wealsounderstandthat
the title and the abstract will be published, and that a copy of the work may be
madeandsuppliedtoanybonafide libraryorresearchworker,thatmythesiswill
beelectronicallyaccessibleforpersonalorresearchuseunlessexemptbyaward
of an embargo as requested below, and that the library has the right to migrate
my thesis into new electronic forms as required to ensure continued access to
the thesis. We have obtained any third-party copyright permissions that may be
requiredinordertoallowsuchaccessandmigration,orhaverequestedtheap-
propriateembargobelow.
The following is an agreed request by candidate and supervisor regarding
the electronic publication of this thesis: Access to Printed copy and electronic
publicationofthesisthroughtheUniversityofStAndrews.
May
Signatureofsupervisor Signatureofcandidate
Abstract
Thisthesisconsistsoffouressaysandanintroductiondedicatedtotwomaintop-
ics: indexicalityandpresupposition.
The first essay is concerned with an alleged problem for the standard treat-
mentofindexicalsonwhichtheirlinguisticmeaningsarefunctionsfromcontext
to content (so-called characters). Since most indexicals have their content set-
tled,onanoccasionofuse,bythespeaker’sintentions,someauthorshaveargued
thatthisstandardpictureisinadequate. Bydemonstratingthatintentionscanbe
seen as a parameter of the kind of context that characters operate on, these ar-
gumentsarerejected. Inaddition,itisarguedthatamorerecent,variable-based
frameworkisnaturallyinterpretedasanintention-sensitivesemantics.
Thesecondessayisdevotedtothephenomenonofdescriptiveusesofindex-
icalsonwhichsuchanexpressionseemstocontribute,notitsstandardreference
asdeterminedbyitscharacter,butapropertytotheinterpretation. Anargument
thatsingularreadingsofthecasesinquestionareincoherentisshowntobein-
correct,andanapproachtodescriptivereadingsisdevelopedonwhichtheyarise
frome-typeusesakintootherwellknowncases. Further,descriptivereadingsof
the relevant kind are seen to arise only in the presence of adverbs of quantifi-
cation, and all sentences in which such an adverb takes scope over an indexical
are claimed to be ambiguous between a referential and an e-type (descriptive)
reading.
The third essay discusses a version of the variable analysis of pronouns on
whichtheirdescriptivemeaningsarerelegatedtotheso-calledphi-features–per-
son, gender and number. In turn, the phi-features are here seen as triggering
semanticpresuppositionsthatplaceconstraintsonthedefinednessofpronouns,
andultimatelyofsentencesinwhichtheirappear. Itisarguedthatthedescriptive
information contributed by the phi-features diverges radically from presupposi-
tional information of both semantic and pragmatic varieties on several dimen-
sions of comparison, and instead the main role of the phi-features is seen to be
v
vi Abstract
thatofguidinghearers’attemptstoascertainthespeaker’sintentions.
The fourth essay addresses an issue concerning the treatment of presuppo-
sitions in dynamic semantics. Representing a semantic treatment of pragmatic
presuppositions, the dynamic framework is shown to incorrectly regard conver-
sational infelicity as sufficient for semantic undefinedness, given the standard
wayofdefiningtruthintermsofcontextchange. Further,itisshownthatapro-
posalforasolutionfailtomakecorrectpredictionsforepistemicmodals. Anovel
frameworkisdevelopedonwhichcontextchangepotentialsactoncontextsthat
havemorestructurethanthecontextsusuallycountenancedbydynamicseman-
tics,anditisshownthatthisframeworkderivestruthfromcontextchangewhile
makingcorrectpredictionsforbothpresuppositionsandmodals.
Acknowledgements
My greatest debt in writing this thesis is owed to my supervisor, Herman Cap-
pelen. Always encouraging, infinitely patient, and ready with sound advice and
philosophical insights eight days a week, Herman has been the supervisor that
mostgraduatestudentscanonlydreamofhaving.
Next,IwouldliketothankCrispinWrightforearlyguidanceandinparticu-
lar for making my visit to New York University in the fall of possible. Dur-
ing my stay, I benefited greatly from conversations with Jed Lewinsohn, Jeremy
Landen,KatrinaPrzyjemski,SalvadorMascarenhas,StephenNeale,andStephen
Schiffer. Jed and Salvador deserve special thanks for making life agreeable. In
addition, I am extremely grateful to Chris Barker and Philippe Schlenker for
teachingandforconstructivesuggestions,withoutwhichseveraloftheessaysin
thisthesiswouldneverhavebeenpossible. AnemailcorrespondencewithKent
Bachduringthisperiodalsoprovidedcrucialfeedbackonworkinprogress.
Inboththespringandfallof,IvisitedCSMNattheUniversityofOslo.
Duringthesestays,myworkimprovedgreatlyfromdiscussionswithAtleGrønn,
MichaelMorreau,NicholasAllott,andOlavGjelsvik. Veryspecialthanksaredue
toKjellJohanSæbøforreadingandgivingdetailedcommentsonseveraldrafts
of papers. I would also like to thank Chris Gauker and Michael Glanzberg for
commentsattheIntentionsandContextWorkshopinFebruary.
Yetthemainformativeinspirationfortheideasinthisthesishascomefrom
thepeopleIhavebeenfortunateenoughtohavemetviathesuperlativeintellec-
tualenvironmentaffordedbyArch´eandtheStAndrewsDepartmentsofPhiloso-
phy. Thelistisendless. Butforparticularlyvaluableinputandhelp,recognition
is due to Chiara Tabet, Colin Caret, Dan López de Sa, Daniele Sgaravatti, Dirk
Kindermann,DylanDodd,EliaZardini,FedericoLuzzi,JasonStanley,JonasÅk-
erman, Jonathan Ichikawa, Josh Dever, Julia Langkau, Julien Murzi, Katherine
Hawley, Kathrin Glu¨er-Pagin, Manuel Garc´ıa-Carpintero, Margot Strohminger,
MichaelDe,MikkelGerken,PaoloSantorio,PatrickGreenough,PaulaSweeney,
vii
viii Acknowledgements
PeterClark,PeterPagin,PålAntonsen,RachelSterken,RalfBader,SimonProsser,
StephenRead,ThomasHodgson,WalterPedriali,andYuriCath. Aboveall,Iowe
a tremendous debt to Anders Schoubye, Andri Hj´almarsson, Derek Ball, Dilip
Ninan,Fran¸coisRecanati,OleHjortland,andTorfinnHuvenesforcountlessdis-
cussionsandvaluableideas. Andri,Ole,andRalfdeserveobligedcommendation
forsustainingthescafiaquadripartiteovertheyears. Finally,Iwouldliketothank
anon-humanentity,theArch´eSemanticsReadingGroup,inwhosecollegialat-
mospheremostofmyknowledgeofthetopicsofthisthesiswasborn.
IalsogratefullyacknowledgethefinancialsupportoftheAnalysisTrust.
AndreasStokke
StAndrews
May
Contents
Abstract v
Acknowledgements vii
Contents ix
Introduction
. TwoFrustrationsofOne-OneSemantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Indexicality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. EarlyHistoryofIndexicality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. Kaplan’sDoubleIndex-Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. CharactersandDescriptiveMeaning . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. VariablesandPhi-Features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Presupposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. EarlyHistoryofPresupposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. SemanticandPragmaticPresuppositions . . . . . . . . . .
.. TwoConceptionsofContext . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. TheDynamicTurn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. OverviewofEssays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IndexicalsandIntentions
. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. KaplanianSemantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. Characters,SingularTerms,andOperators . . . . . . . .
.. TheChallengefromIntention-Sensitivity . . . . . . . . .
. IntentionsandWideandNarrowContext . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. WideandNarrowContext . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. WhyIntentionsarenotPartofWideContext . . . . . . .
.. WhyIntentionsarePartofNarrowContext . . . . . . . .
.. AGeneralConstraintonIntention-Formation . . . . . . .
.. WeakandStrongIntentionalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ix
x Contents
.. FailuretoRefer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Intention-SensitiveSemantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. VariablesandAssignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. Intention-SensitiveCharacters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. DescriptiveMeaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. IncorporatingDirectReferentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. GettingtheFactsRight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. AnAlternativeFramework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. FourKindsofFactsandhowReferenceWorks . . . . . . .
.. DiscoveringNarrow-ContextualFacts . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. WhatisWrongwiththeR-Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. UnwantedIntentions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Semantics,Pragmatics,andMetasemantics . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DescriptiveIndexicalsandAdverbsofQuantification
. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. CoherenceofSingularReadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. TheArgumentfromIncoherence . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. WhySingularReadingsarenotIncoherent . . . . . . . .
. TheInadequacyoftheImplicatureAccount . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. DescriptiveReadingsasImplicatures . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. WhytheImplicatureAccountFails . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. AnE-TypeAccountofDescriptiveReadings . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. ClassifyingtheData . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. SituationSemanticsforAdverbsofQuantification . . . . .
.. AccountingforSingularandDescriptiveReadings . . . .
.. SalienceandtheRoleofPhi-Features . . . . . . . . . . .
.. TodayandHere asVariables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. CaseswithEpistemicModals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. SomeAttractionsoftheE-TypeAccount . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. AmbiguityandCancelation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. Embeddings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DescriptiveMeaning,Presupposition,andInterpretation
. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. ThePresuppositionalTheory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. WhataretheContentsoftheFeatures? . . . . . . . . . . .
.. Phi-FeaturesasPresuppositionTriggers . . . . . . . . . .
.. IndexicalityAbandoned: ContextandAssignment . . . .
. Phi-FeaturesandReference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. FeatureInformationasPre-Assertoric . . . . . . . . . . .
Description:Indexicality and Presupposition. Explorations beyond Truth-Conditional
Information. Andreas Stokke. A thesis to be submitted to the. University of St
Andrews.
