Meaning & Communication (PH130)
Essay Topic 1: Productivity, Systematicity & Compositionality
Essential reading: Jennifer Hornsby & Guy Longworth (eds.), Introduction to
the Philosophy of Language (Blackwell: 2006) section 5
Recommended reading: Jennifer Hornsby & Guy Longworth (eds.),
Introduction to the Philosophy of Language (Blackwell: 2006) section 4
(section 3 is also useful).
These might help if you’re stuck,
Szabó, Zoltán Gendler (2004), "Compositionality", in E. N. Zalta (ed.) The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2004 Edition).
Richard, Mark (1998), "Compositionality", in E. Craig (ed.) Routledge
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge.
Essay question
Are natural languages compositional?
Your essay should consist in a single, flowing text with an introduction and
conclusion which answers the above question. In answering this question
your essay should tackle the following tasks. Re-read your essay carefully
before submitting it.
1. Someone who has mastered a formal first-order language such as FOL
has a capacity which is systematic and productive. Explain what systematicity
and productivity are.
2. Show that speakers of natural languages such as English have linguistic
capacities which are systematic and productive.
3. Formal first-order languages such as FOL are typically compositional.
Explain what it means to say that a language is compositional. Illustrate your
explanation by appeal to the semantics for a formal first-order language.
4. How could the hypothesis that natural languages are compositional be
used to explain the fact that speakers’ linguistic capacities are productive?
Topic 2: Meaning and Implicature (second seminar)
Essential reading
Grice, H. Paul “Prolegomena”, “Logic and Conversation” and “Retrospective
Epilogue”, which are chapters 1,2 and 20 of ‘Logic and Conversation’ in his
Studies in the Way of Words.
Neale, Stephen “Paul Grice and the Philosophy of Language” (1992), §§1- 3,
pp. 509-541, Linguistics and Philosophy vol. 15
This might help if you’re stuck
Davis, Wayne "Implicature", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter
2003 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/
Further reading (optional)
Bach, Kent. “Conversational implicature” Mind and Language, 9, 124–62
(1994)
Saul, Jennifer “Speaker meaning, what is said, and what is implicated” Noûs,
36, 228–48 (2002)
Travis, Charles “Annals of Analysis” (1991) Mind vol. 100, no. 387 (this article
is a review of Studies in the Way of Words)
Essay question (for second seminar)
What obstacles arise from differences between formal and natural languages
to the use of formal languages such as FOL for investigating logical validity?
To what extent does Grice’s theory of conversational implicature remove
these obstacles?
Your essay should consist in a single, flowing text with an introduction and
conclusion which answers the above question. In answering this question
your essay should tackle the following tasks. Re-read your essay carefully
before submitting it.
1. What is conversational implicature? Illustrate your answer with an
example of your own.
2. State Grice’s Cooperative Principle and Maxims. In what sense, if any,
do the Principle and Maxims apply to conversations?
3. Elucidate the role of the Cooperative Principle and Maxims in explaining
how conversational implicature arises. Apply your elucidation to explaining the
example you gave in (1).
4. According to some textbooks, the second sentence below is a correct
translation of the first sentence. Is this translation in fact correct?
i. “Either Ayesha had a haircut or Ashwin had a haircut”
ii. A∨B where A = Ayesha had a haircut and B = Ashwin had a haircut
5. The first argument below is not logically valid. Does it follow that the
second argument is not logically valid?
A
B
______
¬(A∨B)
Ayesha had a haircut
Ashwin had a haircut
______________________________________________________
It’s not true that either Ayesha had a haircut or Ashwin had a haircut
Meaning & Communication (PH130)
Further Topic : Conditionals and material implication
Essential reading
Mark Sainsbury, Logical Forms chapter 2, especially §§4-8
Paul Grice, “Indicative Conditionals” which is chapter 4 of ‘Logic and
Conversation’ in his Studies in the Way of Words, (Harvard)
E. Adams, “The Logic of Conditionals” (1965), Inquiry vol. 8, pp. 166-97,
1965 [has lots of good examples]
Further reading (optional) J. Bennett, A Philosophical Guide to Conditionals,
chapters 1–3, (OUP)
D. Edgington, “Do Conditionals Have Truth Conditions?” (1986) reprinted in
Jackson (ed.), Conditionals [advanced]
Vann McGee, “A Counterexample to Modus Ponens” (1985), Journal of
Philosophy vol. 82 [read the first two pages only if you find it too complex to
follow.]
William Hanson, “Indicative Conditionals are Truth Functional” Mind vol. 100,
issue 1, 1991, pp. 53-72
Frank Jackson (ed.), Conditionals (OUP)
Essay question
Suppose Ayesha says, “If the ball is not in the cupboard it is under the sink”
and Ben says, “The ball is in the cupboard or it is under the sink.” Could one
of these statements be true and the other false? If your answer is yes, explain
how what Ayesha says differs from what Ben says. If your answer is no, how
do you explain the fact that “The ball is in the cupboard” appears to logically
imply what Ben says but not what Ayesha says?