lewis and t he semantics-pragmatics divide
DESCRIPTION
Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide. Ernie Lepore Matthew Stone. Outline. Rethinking semantics and pragmatics coordination (Lewis 1969) the conversational record (Lewis 1979) Linguistics and the social Implications for philosophical practice. Background. Last time: Intentions - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Department of Computer ScienceCenter for Cognitive Science
Rutgers University
Lewis andthe Semantics-Pragmatics
DivideErnie Lepore
Matthew Stone
![Page 2: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
OutlineRethinking semantics and pragmatics• coordination (Lewis 1969)• the conversational record (Lewis 1979)Linguistics and the socialImplications for philosophical practice
![Page 3: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
BackgroundLast time: Intentions• Intention recognition is an important
ingredient of understanding, collaboration
BUT• Problematic to locate linguistic
knowledge using intentions
Need to look elsewhere to get clear on the scope of linguistic rules as social constructs
![Page 4: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
CoordinationSituations where agents’ actions must
agree• but no intrinsic reason to prefer one
joint strategy over another
![Page 5: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
CoordinationExamples from Lewis (1969)• Arrange a meeting• Restart an interrupted phone call• Row a boat• Share the road when driving• Perform a search as a group• Collude to set prices• Signal a choice
![Page 6: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Coordination as a gameC1 C2 C3
R1 1;1 0;0 0;0
R2 0;0 1;1 0;0
R3 0;0 0;0 1;1
![Page 7: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Games and reasoningIf an agent chooses her action
deliberately, she must consider her expectations about her partner.
Idealization: equilibrium• no player would change his move,
given the moves the others make
![Page 8: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Games and reasoningWe generally expect equilibria in real life• where agents play repeatedly
they can learn to match one anothereven if individual decisions are heuristic
Equilibrium describes regularity in behavior
• Lets us ascribe certain states to agents (perhaps tacit or implicit)
![Page 9: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
State underlying equilibriumIt’s common knowledge that(1) everyone conforms to R(2) everyone expects everyone else to
conform to R(3) everyone prefers to conform to R on
the condition that others do
![Page 10: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Lewis: this is a conventionObjections:• Silent about how conventions are
instituted
That’s the point.• Lewis describes how we can get
convention from salience, precedents and convergence – but this is just one story among many
![Page 11: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Games and reasoningA range of mechanisms explain
equilibrium• Architecture – we’re only biologically
capable of one equilibrium• Salience – we’re so constituted that
preferred equilibrium leaps to mind• Experience – we’ve learned that others
follow a given equilibrium
![Page 12: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
All potentially relevant to language facultyArchitecture: Universal GrammarSalience: Primitive preferences for
particular patterns of interpretationExperience: Acquired lexical items,
syntactic parameter settings, etc.
![Page 13: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Lewis: this is a conventionObjections:• We don’t have to know all these things
(Burge)
Fair point – let’s talk about ‘social competence’ instead as whatever lets us solve (certain) coordination problems – not prejudging the actual status of skills, knowledge, choice & alternatives
![Page 14: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Lewis: this is a conventionObjections:• Lewis’s conventions are always
followed – this seems too strong (Gilbert, Millikan)
• Examples: handing out cigars, using ‘bank’ to mean financial institution
![Page 15: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Lewis: this is a conventionObjections:• Lewis’s conventions have to achieve
preferred outcomes – this seems too strong (Gilbert, Millikan)
• Examples: decorating for Christmas specifically with red and green
![Page 16: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Lewis: this is a conventionObjections:• Seems to assume coordination
problem exists antecedently of equilibrium – this seems too strong (Marmor)
• Examples: playing chess by the rules
![Page 17: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
ResponseIn keeping with idea of social
competence, let’s think of coordination problems are rational reconstructions
![Page 18: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Lewis on SignalingOne party produces signal,
knowing the state of the worldThe other acts,
having seen the signal
Explains information carried by signal,but a long way from meaning
![Page 19: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Signaling example‘one if by land, two if by sea’
Sexton hangs certain patterns of lightsconditional on what British are doing
Revere prepares particular pattern of defenseconditional on what lights he sees
They want equilibrium
![Page 20: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Signaling games1L2S 1S2L
1L2S 1;1 0;0
1S2L 0;0 1;1
![Page 21: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
ProblemsMeaning is underdetermined• 1 light: the British are coming by land
or• 1 light: prepare the land defenses!
or• both?
![Page 22: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
ProblemsMeaning only present at equilibrium• So what about coordination that
succeeds through other mechanisms – salience? good luck? partial or tentative precedents?
![Page 23: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Lewis on ConventionLewis attempts to generalize to
languageby directly understanding truth conditionsas conventions for agents to use certain sentences in certain conditions(namely, when they are true)
![Page 24: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Lewis on ConventionThis is very cumbersomeAnd doesn’t seem to get at the real
difficulties
![Page 25: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Another ideaLanguage combines social competence
with specific institutions targeted at meaning
Specifically: the conversational record (Lewis 1979)
![Page 26: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Conversational recordList of propositions associated with
discourseSpecifies• interlocutors’ environment• what has been said already• what the purposes and plan is• what standards of meaning are in play• what issues are open• what conversation is committed to(Lewis 1979, Thomason 1990)
![Page 27: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Conversational recordRecord is dynamic• topic can change• meaning standards can be negotiated• presuppositions can be challenged• interlocutors can commit to new
propositions or rescind previous commitments
Utterances specify updates• generally, as a matter of meaning
![Page 28: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Conversational recordAbstraction• Free to specify discourse referents,
standards for vague predicates,other constructs from formal theories
• Need not be tied to interlocutors’ knowledge or belief
![Page 29: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Record is arbitraryIn key respects, it’s up to us how the
record changes
So it’s natural to think of the record as an object of coordination
![Page 30: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Coordinating on the RecordOne way of thinking• I have my version of what’s happened• You have your version of what’s
happened• When it lines up, we’ve communicated
Compare Neale’s presentation here
![Page 31: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Coordinating on the RecordOne way of thinking• I have my version of what’s happened• You have your version of what’s
happened• When it lines up, we’ve communicated
Drawback: describing cases of miscommunication, clarification, etc.
![Page 32: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Coordinating on the RecordAn indirect way of thinking• Each of us defers to practices• Meanings specify how to update the
record• We coordinate on what we defer to
![Page 33: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Coordinating on the RecordAn indirect way of thinking• Each of us defers to practices• Meanings specify how to update the
record• We coordinate on what we defer to
Promises a better handle on miscommunication, clarification
![Page 34: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
The Received ViewSemantics• linguistic specification of reference,
truth• settles what the speaker is saying
Pragmatics• general principles of inference and
strategy• settles what speaker is doing
![Page 35: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
ProblemsFails to describe linguistic knowledge• more linguistic facts than supposes• e.g., rules for indirection,
presupposition, information structure, etc.
Fails to describe interpretive inference• wide range of practices for engaging
with imagery, drawing insights
![Page 36: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Overall pictureKey theoretical notion is inquiry• process (normally collaborative)
in which interlocutors settle how things are
Requires• public meanings• open to negotiation, debate
![Page 37: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Overall pictureInquiry privileges conventional meaning• depends on conversational record• depends on coordination
Allows for a broad understanding of meaning
Excludes insight or point of open-ended, idiosyncratic engagement with utterance
![Page 38: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Inquiry and CRConversational record tracks inquiry• Assertion registers proposition on
recordas commitment of one party
• Enables further follow up, such asclarification questions,arguments for or against,agreement or disagreement by other parties
Record ensures a shared interpretation
![Page 39: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
How will this affect philosophy?Better arguments, but more difficult
ones.
Close with case study:• Grice versus ordinary language
philosophers
![Page 40: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Color: the dialecticClaim: color supervenes on appearance• Something is red just in case it looks
red under normal conditions to appropriately endowed observers.
Objection (Austin):• Hogwash! You’d only say something
looked red if it wasn’t red!
![Page 41: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Color: the dialecticReply (Grice):• Well, yes, you wouldn’t say something
looks red unless it wasn’t red.• But, that’s not part of the meaning of
“it looks red”, it’s an implicature.
Us:• Sorry Grice, your linguistics is bogus.
![Page 42: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
What next?Us:• Sorry Austin, your linguistics is bogus
too!
Often say “something looks red” when it is:
• His fake tan looks orange.• Contaminated water still looks clear.• The distant shores look green and
inviting.(examples after google
searches)
![Page 43: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
What next?Us:• Sorry Austin, your linguistics is bogus
too!
When “it looks red” means it’s not, it’s because of intonation.
No objection to analysis of color,as long as you don’t use that intonation!
![Page 44: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Similar casesBelieve and know.Try and succeed.Or and and.
Ordinary language folks: 1st suggests not 2nd
Grice: That’s just an implicature.Us: You’re both wrong.
1st suggests not 2nd if marked elsewherelots of times 1st doesn’t suggest not 2nd.
![Page 45: Lewis and t he Semantics-Pragmatics Divide](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568165a5550346895dd888bb/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Basic point Our theories need to acknowledge the richness and complexity of language and communication.
We can do the linguistics and philosophy we want without unhelpful categories like “conversational implicatures”.