Deixis (Even Without Pointing)*

Stojnić, Una; Stone, Matthew; Lepore, Ernie

doi:10.1111/phpe.12033

Cited by 31 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The elaboration in (12) and the pointing gesture in (13) render a certain referent the most prominent for the subsequent anaphora; the subsequent pronoun then, as a matter of its meaning—the character, in the sense of Kaplan ()—picks out the most prominent referent . As I have argued elsewhere (Stojnić, Stone, and Lepore, , ), and will amplify on in the next section, we can capture these observations by rendering explicit the mechanisms that systematically govern the resolution of the pronoun. We can pinpoint the mechanisms that, for our purposes, play the key role in governing the resolution of context‐sensitivity by building on the resources of so called Discourse Coherence Theories.…”

Section: Part Imentioning

confidence: 79%

“…Other linguistic mechanisms, such as prosody, for example, likewise can affect the prominence in a discourse. See Stojnić, Stone, and Lepore (, ) for an account that incorporates the effects of various different linguistic mechanisms on the resolution of demonstrative pronouns.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By contrast, I have argued elsewhere that we should understand these dependencies not merely as mutual constraints between two related tasks, but rather as linguistic effects of coherence relations on pronoun resolution; coherence relations as a matter of linguistic convention make particular entities preferred candidates for subsequent anaphora. (For detailed defense of this view, see Stojnić, Stone, and Lepore (, ).) I advance considerations below that the effects of discourse coherence on modals is likewise conventionalized.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

One'sModus Ponens: Modality, Coherence and Logic

Stojnić

2016

Philos Phenomenol Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, there has been a shift away from traditional truth‐conditional accounts of meaning towards non‐truth‐conditional ones, e.g., expressivism, relativism and certain forms of dynamic semantics. Fueling this trend is some puzzling behavior of modal discourse. One particularly surprising manifestation of such behavior is the alleged failure of some of the most entrenched classical rules of inference; viz., modus ponens and modus tollens. These revisionary, non‐truth‐conditional accounts tout these failures, and the alleged tension between the behavior of modal vocabulary and classical logic, as data in support of their departure from tradition, since the revisionary semantics invalidate some of these patterns. I, instead, offer a semantics for modality with the resources to accommodate the puzzling data while preserving classical logic, thus affirming the tradition that modals express ordinary truth‐conditional content. My account shows that the real lesson of the apparent counterexamples is not the one the critics draw, but rather one they missed: namely, that there are linguistic mechanisms, reflected in the logical form, that affect the interpretation of modal language in a context in a systematic and precise way, which have to be captured by any adequate semantic account of the interaction between discourse context and modal vocabulary. The semantic theory I develop specifies these mechanisms and captures precisely how they affect the interpretation of modals in a context, and do so in a way that both explains the appearance of the putative counterexamples and preserves classical logic.

show abstract

Section: Part Imentioning

confidence: 79%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

One'sModus Ponens: Modality, Coherence and Logic

Stojnić

2016

Philos Phenomenol Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another possibility is that the utterance describes what the audience is supposed to observe in an accompanying event. We call this relation Summary in Stojnic et al (2013). Engle (2000) offers a nice illustration in (25) (her Table 13, page 44):…”

Section: Can I Borrow the Key To The Printer Room?mentioning

confidence: 96%

Meaning and Demonstration

Stone

Stojnić

2014

Rev.Phil.Psych.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In demonstration, speakers use real-world activity both for its practical effects and to help make their points. The demonstrations of origami mathematics, for example, reconfigure pieces of paper by folding, while simultaneously allowing their author to signal geometric inferences. Demonstration challenges us to explain how practical actions can get such precise significance and how this meaning compares with that of other representations. In this paper, we propose an explanation inspired by David Lewis's characterizations of coordination and scorekeeping in conversation. In particular, we argue that words, gestures, diagrams and demonstrations can function together as integrated ensembles that contribute to conversation, because interlocutors use them in parallel ways to coordinate updates to the conversational record.

show abstract

“…This approach might make use of the sort of ambiguity considered here. Hunter (2013Hunter ( , 2014, and Stojnic et al (2013) also model deictic pronouns on anaphoric pronouns. However, their discussions are embedded within the context of Discourse Representation Theory (DRT).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reviving the Parameter Revolution in Semantics

Pickel

Rabern

Dever

2018

The Science of Meaning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Montague and Kaplan began a revolution in semantics, which promised to explain how a univocal expression could make distinct truth-conditional contributions in its various occurrences. The idea was to treat context as a parameter at which a sentence is semantically evaluated. But the revolution has stalled. One salient problem comes from recurring demonstratives: “He is tall and he is not tall”. For the sentence to be true at a context, each occurrence of the demonstrative must make a different truth-conditional contribution. But this difference cannot be accounted for by standard parameter sensitivity. Semanticists, consoled by the thought that this ambiguity would ultimately be needed anyhow to explain anaphora, have been too content to posit massive ambiguities in demonstrative pronouns. This chapter aims to revived the parameter revolution by showing how to treat demonstrative pronouns as univocal while providing an account of anaphora that doesn’t end up re-introducing the ambiguity.

show abstract

Deixis (Even Without Pointing)*

Cited by 31 publications

References 33 publications

One'sModus Ponens: Modality, Coherence and Logic

One'sModus Ponens: Modality, Coherence and Logic

Meaning and Demonstration

Reviving the Parameter Revolution in Semantics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About