‘Nobody Loves Me’: Quantification and Context

In my paper, I present two competing perspectives on the foundational problem (as opposed to the descriptive problem) of quantifier domain restriction: the objective perspective on context (OPC) and the intentional perspective on context (IPC). According to OPC, the relevant domain for a quantified sentence is determined by objective facts of the context of utterance. In contrast, according to IPC, we must consider certain features of the speaker’s intention in order to determine the proposition expressed. My goal is to offer a plausible and fair reconstruction of IPC. Drawing a parallel between quantifier domain restriction and standard cases of context dependence as indexicality, I argue that the speaker’s intentions can play a semantic role only if they satisfy an Availability Constraint: an intention must be made available or communicated to the addressee, and for that purpose the speaker can exploit any feature of the objective context (words, gestures, relevance or uniqueness of either the quantificational domain or of the referent in the context of utterance). An intention satisfying the Availability Constraint must be something that a hearer in normal circumstances is able to work out by relying on the physical surroundings of the utterance situation, on utterances exchanged during the previous conversation, and on background knowledge shared by speaker and addressee.

[1]  Lawrence D. Roberts How Reference Works: Explanatory Models for Indexicals, Descriptions, and Opacity , 1993 .

[2]  Margaret Reimer,et al.  Quantification and Context , 1998 .

[3]  Christopher Gauker Intelligibility in semantics: reply to van Deemter , 1998 .

[4]  Jason Stanley,et al.  On Quantifier Domain Restriction , 2000 .

[5]  L. Roberts How demonstrations connect with referential intentions , 1997 .

[6]  Margaret Reimer Demonstratives, demonstrations, and demonstrata , 1991 .

[7]  Christopher Gauker What Is a Context of Utterance? , 1998 .

[8]  M. Reimer Do demonstrations have semantic significance , 1991 .

[9]  Manuel García-Carpintero,et al.  Indexicals as token-reflexives , 1998 .

[10]  David Kaplan Demonstratives: An Essay on the Semantics, Logic, Metaphysics and Epistemology of Demonstratives and other Indexicals , 1989 .

[11]  Robert Stalnaker Context And Content , 1999 .

[12]  B. Hale,et al.  A Companion to the Philosophy of Language , 1997 .

[13]  Kent Bach,et al.  Intentions and demonstrations , 1992 .

[14]  Claudia Bianchi,et al.  Context of Utterance and Intended Context , 2001, CONTEXT.

[15]  V. Deemter Domains of discourse and the semantics of ambiguous utterances : a reply to Gauker , 1998 .

[16]  Christopher Gauker,et al.  Domain of discourse , 1997 .

[17]  K. Bach,et al.  How performatives really work: A reply to searle , 1992 .

[18]  Howard K. Wettstein,et al.  Themes from Kaplan , 1989 .

[19]  Marina Sbisà,et al.  Speech Acts in Context , 2002 .

[20]  Keith S. Donnellan Putting Humpty Dumpty Together Again , 1968 .

[21]  Claudia Bianchi,et al.  How to Refer: Objective Context vs. Intentional Context , 2003, CONTEXT.

[22]  H. H. Clark Arenas of language use , 1993 .

[23]  Christopher Gauker Situated Inference versus Conversational Implicature , 2001 .

[24]  Claudia Bianchi,et al.  The semantics/pragmatics distinction , 2004 .

[25]  Kent Bach Paving the road to reference , 1992 .

[26]  La Dipendenza Contestuale: Per una Teoria Pragmatica del Significato: Bianchi, Claudia; Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane (Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Centro di Studio sulla Filosofia Contemporanea, n. 79), Napoli, 2001, 383 pages, EUR 27.89 , 2004 .