Atti linguistici, contesti e comunicazione differita
Abstract
The aim of my paper is to evaluate which context determines the different speech acts performed with a recording. More precisely, my paper deals with the "metaphysical" or constitutive role of context – as opposed to its epistemic or evidential role: my aim is to determine which context is semantically relevant in order to fix the illocutionary force of a speech act, as distinct from the information the addressee uses to ascertain the semantically relevant context. I will characterise two different perspectives on this issue, a Conventionalist Perspective and an Intentionalist Perspective. Drawing on the literature on indexicals in written texts and recorded messages, I will argue in favour of the Intentionalist Perspective, and claim that the relevant context is the one intended by the speaker. Bringing intentions into the picture, however, requires qualification; in particular, I will distinguish my Weak Intentionalist proposal from a Strong Intentionalist one. I will show that the Weak Intentionalist Perspective is flexible enough to deal with cases of delayed communication, but not so unrestricted as to yield counter-intuitive consequencesReferences
AUSTIN, John L. (1962), How to do Things with Words, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
BACH, Kent (1994), Thought and Reference, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
BIANCHI, Claudia (2006), «‘Nobody loves me’: Quantification and Context» in Philosophical Studies, 130(2), pp. 377-397.
BIANCHI, Claudia (2008), «Indexicals, speech acts and pornography» in Analysis, 68, pp. 310-316.
CORAZZA, Eros, William FISH, e Jonathan GORVETT (2002), «Who is I?» in Philosophical Studies 107, pp. 1–21.
DONNELLANN, Keith (1968), «Putting Humpty Dumpty Together Again» in Philosophical Review 77, pp. 203-205.
GORVETT, Jonathan (2005), «Back through the looking glass: on the relationship between intentions and indexicals» in Philosophical Studies 124, pp. 295-312.
MIKKOLA, Mari (2008), «Contexts and pornography: a reply to Bianchi» in Analysis 68, pp. 316-317.
NEALE, Stephen (2005), «Pragmatics and Binding» in Zoltan G. SZABO’ (a cura di) Semantics versus pragmatics. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 165-285.
PREDELLI, Stefano (1998), «Utterance, interpretation, and the logic of indexicals» in Mind and Language 13, pp. 400–414.
PREDELLI, Stefano (2002), «Intentions, indexicals and communication» in Analysis 62, pp. 310–16.
PREDELLI, Stefano (2011), «I am still not here now» in Erkenntnis 74, pp. 289–303.
ROMDENH-ROMLUC, Komarine (2006), «I» in Philosophical Studies. 128, pp. 257-283.
SAUL, Jennifer (2006), «Pornography, speech acts and context” in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 106, pp. 229–248.
STOKKE, Andreas (2010), «Intention-sensitive semantics» in Synthese 175, pp. 383-404.
STRAWSON, Peter (1964), «Intention and Convention in Speech Acts» in Philosophical Review 73, pp. 439-460.
Works published in RIFL are released under Creative Commons Licence:Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.