Keyboard Shortcuts?

×
  • Next step
  • Previous step
  • Skip this slide
  • Previous slide
  • mShow slide thumbnails
  • nShow notes
  • hShow handout latex source
  • NShow talk notes latex source

Click here and press the right key for the next slide (or swipe left)

also ...

Press the left key to go backwards (or swipe right)

Press n to toggle whether notes are shown (or add '?notes' to the url before the #)

Press m or double tap to slide thumbnails (menu)

Press ? at any time to show the keyboard shortcuts

\title {Words and Things \\ Lecture 08}
 
\maketitle
 

Lecture 08:

Words and Things

\def \ititle {Lecture 08}
\def \isubtitle {Words and Things}
\begin{center}
{\Large
\textbf{\ititle}: \isubtitle
}
 
\iemail %
\end{center}
 
\section{Sanford Questions}

Please write down the answers (Y/N) to each of the following three questions ...

1. Can a woman marry her daughter’s boyfriend?

2. Can a man marry his sister’s mother?

3. Can a man marry his widow’s sister?

... save your answers for later.

 

Linking Meaning and Reference: Compositionality

 
\section{Linking Meaning and Reference: Compositionality}
 
\section{Linking Meaning and Reference: Compositionality}

Why?

Some of the things you utter

are true (or false)

in virtue of how things are with Ayesha.

If Ayehsa had washed herself, your utterance of ‘Ayesha smells’ would have been false. No other cat has this counterfactual power to change the truth of your utterance in this way.
Why is this? One idea: because your utterance of the word ‘Ayesha’ refers to Ayehsa. But what is reference?

Because your utterances of ‘Ayesha’ refer to Ayesha.

But what about meaning?

‘entities such as meanings ...
are not of independent interest’

\citep[p.~154]{Davidson:1974gh}

Davidson, 1974 p. 154

Why suppose that sentences have meanings?

Why suppose that sentences have meanings (whatever meanings are)?
Two facts to be explained: \begin{enumerate} \item If someone utters a sentence and you understand her, then you will likely understand others when they utter that sentence. And conversely. \item If a sentence is used to communicate something in one situation, then it can typically be used to communicate much the same thing in another situation. \end{enumerate} An attempted explanation sketch: There are some things and nearly every sentence is related to a different thing. Communicators often know which thing is related to which sentence. This knowledge (is part of what) enables them to understand utterances of those sentences. Terminology: Call these things the ‘meanings’ of the sentences.

facts to be explained

If someone utters a sentence and you understand her, then you will likely understand others when they utter that sentence. And conversely.

If a sentence is used to communicate something in one situation, then it can typically be used to communicate much the same thing in another situation.

attempted explanation
(guess)

There are some things and nearly every sentence is related to a different thing.

Communicators often know which thing is related to which sentence.

This knowledge (is part of what) enables them to understand utterances of those sentences.

termiology

Call these things ‘meanings’.

How is the idea that
sentences have meanings
related to the idea that
utterances refer to things?

How is the idea that sentences have meanings related to the idea that utterances refer to things?
Consider two further facts to be explained: \begin{enumerate} \item \emph{Systematicity} ‘there are definite and predictable patterns among the sentences [utterances of which] we understand’ \citep{Szabo:2004cu} \item \emph{Productivity} communicators can understand utterances of an indefinitely large range of sentences we have never heard before. \end{enumerate} An attempted explanation sketch: \begin{enumerate} \item Words have meanings. \item \emph{Compositionality} The meaning of a sentence (and of any complex expression) is fully determined by its structure and the meanings of its constituent words. \end{enumerate}
If that this explanation sketch is correct, what are meanings? \begin{quote} Proposal 1: the meaning of a word is its referent. \end{quote} \begin{quote} Proposal 2: the meaning of a word is its sense. \end{quote}

facts to be explained

Let’s take a look at two further facts to be explained ...

[Systematicity] ‘there are definite and predictable patterns among the sentences [utterances of which] we understand’ (Szabó, 2004).

[Productivity] communicators can understand utterances of an indefinitely large range of sentences we have never heard before.

attempted explanation

Words have meanings (which are their referents senses).

[Compositionality] The meaning of a sentence (and of any complex expression) is fully determined by its structure and the meanings of its constituent words.

How is the idea that
sentences have meanings
related to the idea that
utterances refer to things?

A theory of reference
would be part of a
theory of meaning.

aside on method

This is a personal issue ... I was asked to teach this course ...

What is with all the facts to be explained?

the manifest image

‘the framework in terms of which we ordinarily observe and explain our world’

‘the framework in terms of which man [sic] came to be aware of himself as man-in-the-world’

Sellars, deVries

the scientific image

... allows ‘the addition to the framework of new concepts of basic objects by means of theoretical postulation’.

This is the world of philosophers.

This is not the world of philosophers.

To accept this picture of philosophy, you have to believe that philosophers are magic.

‘the aim of bringing all of one’s own opinions into equilibrium’

There’s a more charitable, less personal version ...

‘the [...] aim in philosophy of discovering the equilibrium positions that can withstand examination’

Fine to do this in evenings and weekends if it makes you happy. But it probably shouldn’t be your day job. At least not if you salary is publicly funded.

Beebee, 2017
110th Presential Address, Aristotelian Society

philosophical
methods

informal observation,

guesswork (‘intuition’),

imagining counterfactual situations
(‘thought experiments’),

reasoning,

& theoretical elegance

First, think about the methods philosophers use. Am I missing any?
Now, what can you do with these?
A clue: guesswork is important in science too ...

Philosophers use informal observation, imagination and their knowledge of scientific discoveries to ask questions;

they use reasoning to identify inconsistent patterns of answers;

and they make guesses about roughly what the answers might be (model sketches),

with the aim of facilitating discoveries.

So philosophy and science are one pursuit, not two. And philosophers have no justification at all for ignoring science. (Which is awkward for us because on this course we're ignoring scientific discoveries about language. Ooops!)
 

Knowledge of Reference and Pragmatics

 
\section{Knowledge of Reference and Pragmatics}
 
\section{Knowledge of Reference and Pragmatics}
Recall this distinction \citep{Neale:1990hg,ludlow:1991_indefinite}: \begin{enumerate} \item MS, the meaning of the sentence; \item PE, the proposition expressed; \item PM, the proposition meant; \item SG, the speaker’s grounds for making an utterance. \end{enumerate}

Reference

Steve’s 13:11 utterance of ‘Earth’ refers to Earth

Knowledge of Reference : what is meant?

1. Steve knows Earth (either by acquiantance or description).

Objection: you might be acquainted with the referent while unaware of any connection between it and the utterance. (Imagine using a foreign word just by chance ...)
Too intellecutalist ---

2. Steve knows that his 13:11 utterance of ‘Earth’ refers to Earth.

3. There is a state of Steve’s mind in virtue of which his 13:11 utterance of ‘Earth’ refers to Earth.

Q1 What, if anything, is that state of mind?

Q2 Why think there any such thing as this state of mind?

E.g. on some versions of the causal theory, states of mind are not directly relevant for utterances of words to refer.

At bottom, communication with words is a matter of following rules.

This can be done without any insight into why the rules are as they are.

Therefore mental states of communicators in virtue of which their utterances refer are unnecessary for characterising reference.

cf Putnam 1978

Refuted by Groucho.

‘I’ve had a great evening. This wasn’t it.’

Recall this distinction ...

MS, the meaning of the sentence;

PE, the proposition expressed; and

PM, the proposition meant.

Neale, 1990 p. 75

MS is a function from
The meaning of a sentence is a function from contexts of utterance to propositions. (This should really be complicated : need to go from context of utterance THROUGH context of evaluation TO a truth condition.)
I don’t think there’s any mystery about why we need a PM (actually, often more than one). This is just a matter of saying that when you utter a sentence and communication succeeds, there is something, or some things, which the audience understands.
Why suppose that there is a proposition expressed (PE)? Because Compositionality means MS has to be determined by the meanings of words plus syntactic structure, whereas reflection on Groucho’s comment shows that PM can vary wildly depending on arbitrary features of the context of utterance.
Q1 Why distinguish PE and PM? \begin{enumerate} \item (Assumption) MS is a function from contexts of utterances to propositions. \item Suppose for a contradiction that PMs were the values of this function, i.e. MS + context of utterance yields PM. \item Then Compositionality would reqiure a systematic relation between the words uttered and PM. \item (Observation) Substituting words in an utterance can cause PM to vary dramatically, as can what happens after the utterance is over (‘I’ve had a great evening. This wasn’t it’). \item Therefore: what MS + context of utterance yields is not (always) a PM. \end{enumerate} Terminology: Let PE be what MS + context of utterance yields. (Strictly speaking we need context of evaulation too, and further complexities; see \citet{speaks:2018_theories}.) The above argument shows that PE is distinct from PM.
Recall from earler ...

I have had breakfast.

I have had a kidney removed.

I have had fermented fish for breakfast.

I have had a great evening.

Why is this relevant?

Among utterances of these sentences,
there can be is variation in the PM
although Compositionality does not permit corresponding variation in MS.

On the one hand, there can be significant variation in what utterances of these sentences are communicating. That is, the PM varies.
Compositionality does not permit corresponding variation in MS because (a) the structures are similar and (b) the variations cannot be pinned on variations in the meanings of expressions which differ between these sentences. This is most clearly shown by the last two examples, which illustrate that utterances of the same sentence can involve large variations in PM.

Given that MS is a function from contexts of utterance to propositions,
the values of this function will not typically be a PM.

Terminology: Call the value of MS in a given context of utterance the ‘proposition expressed (PE)’.

Recall this distinction ...

MS, the meaning of the sentence;

PE, the proposition expressed; and

PM, the proposition meant.

Neale, 1990 p. 75

An utter’s \emph{knowledge of reference} concerning her utterance of ‘Earth’ is that state of her mind in virtue of which this utterance refers to Earth.
Q2: Why suppose that there is any such thing as knowledge of reference?
Successful communication with words involves specifying a PM to be communicated and selecting words which will communicate this PM to your audience. In successfully selecting the words, you manifest sensitivity to the relations between MS, PE and PM. But the relation between PE and PM is defined in terms of cooperation (Grice) or relevance (Sperber & Wilson); it involves uncodifiable dependence on arbitrary features of the context of utterance. And the only available models of how to get from PM to words involves reasoning about PE, MS and either cooperation or relevance. Therefore, you (or something in you) probably has to represent both MS and PE in order to select words which will communicate the specified PM to your audience

How do you get from PE to PM?

reasoning about cooperation (Grice)

searching for relevance (Sperber & Wilson)

At bottom, communication with words is a matter of following rules.

This can be done without any insight into why the rules are as they are.

Therefore mental states of communicators in virtue of which their utterances refer are unnecessary for characterising reference.

cf Putnam 1978

Two Arguments

1. Communication with words involves successful communication of a PM.

2. Which PMs an utterance communicates depends on context in arbitrarily complex, uncodifiable ways.

Therefore,
3. communication with words cannot be entirely a mechanical, script-following, rule-bound activity.

1. Arriving at a PM depends on taking the PE and searching for cooperation or relevance.

Therefore,
2. communication requires representing PEs, which requires knowledge of reference.

Reference

Steve’s 13:11 utterance of ‘Earth’ refers to Earth

Knowledge of Reference : what is meant?

1. Steve knows Earth (either by acquiantance or description).

3. There is a state of Steve’s mind in virtue of which his 13:11 utterance of ‘Earth’ refers to Earth.

Q1 What, if anything, is that state of mind?

Q2 Why think there any such thing as this state of mind?

E.g. on some versions of the causal theory, states of mind are not directly relevant for utterances of words to refer.
Recall this question from an earlier lecture

When the utterance of a word refers to a thing,
must the utterer have knowledge of reference?

The main question for this course is:

What is the relation between
an utterance of a word (or phrase)
and a thing
when the utterance refers to the thing?

It is a psychological relation.

The main conclusion I draw:
 

Lexical Innovation

 
\section{Lexical Innovation}
 
\section{Lexical Innovation}

Suppose there are two people and a word and that when communicating by language the second person once uses the word with the same meaning the first person once used it with, and that the sameness of meaning is non-accidental.

Is the existence of such a pair of people and a word necessary for there to be linguistic communication?

Crispin Wright would give a positive answer. In fact, he asserts something much stronger.

“It is a convention of English that ‘red’ in its most basic, literal sense, is correctly predicated only of things which are red. Speakers of English who are credited with an understanding of ‘red’ in its most basic and literal sense are thereby credited, inter alia, with the intention to uphold this pattern of predication as a matter of convention”

\citep[.~220]{Wright:1986wi}.

Wright, 1986 p. 220

In fact, a positive answer to the question is taken as barely controversial among several philosophers of language and some scientists too ...

“The role of symbols in language is evident: the meaning of a word or phrase is fixed (at least in part) by the conventions or rules that govern its use”

\citep[p.~98]{Hookway:2000yu}.

Hookway, 2000 p. 98

“A language is a set of historically evolved social conventions by means of which intentional agents attempt to manipulate one an¬other’s attention”

\citep[p.~1120]{Tomasello:2001ic}.

Tomasello 2001, p. 1120

As the context and \citet[p.~358]{Tomasello:2000gx} make clear, Tomasello’s conventions include word¬–object mappings.
I want to argue that all of these views are false, and that the answer to The Question is no. Of course, I’m not going to do that here. But I will suggest a series of considerations which collectively motivate at least questioning these assumptions.

1. Can a woman marry her daughter’s boyfriend?

2. Can a man marry his sister’s mother?

3. Can a man marry his widow’s sister?

“N. N. is in negotiations with the hostages [meaning captors]” (BBC Radio 4, News at 5pm, 12/11/03).

“When an aircraft crashes, where should the survivors be buried?” (Sanford 2002: 193)

lexical innovation

\emph{Lexical innovation} is either coining a new word or using an old word to mean something it hasn’t already been used to mean.

... often depends on facts about how words have been used in the past

... can result in meanings that persist.

Nouning] “you will you be ... my total big disorientator” (Karl Hyde, “Mmm Skyscraper I Love You”).

Malaprop] “Charles was wearing an old-fashioned mourning suit with a silk caveat around his neck and a monocycle in one eye.”

Joyce] “The Gracehoper was always jigging ajog, hoppy on akkant of his joyicity” (Finnegans Wake 408.22).

Malaprop and other forms of lexical innovation are “in the nature of things, atypical cases: if taken as a prototype for linguistic communication, they prompt the formulation of an incoherent theory”

Dummett, 1986 p. 472

1. Conventions are at most indirectly relevant to determining what utterances mean (the PE).

2. Any successful use of a word can establish expectations as to future meanings.

3. Successful communication involves creating and violating expectations no less than it involves conforming to them.

 

Sense and Descriptions

 
\section{Sense and Descriptions}
 
\section{Sense and Descriptions}

Samantha is Samantha

Samantha is Charly

Samantha Caine

Suburban homemaker and the ideal mom to her 8 year old daughter Caitlin. She lives in a New England small town, teaches in a local school and makes the best Rice Krispie treats in town.

Charly Baltimore

a highly trained secret agent and cold-blooded killer involved in the government's most unscrupulous affairs.

It is perhaps tempting to think of senses as descriptions ... at least, this way you can see how sense fulfils the three functions given on the previous slide

?

The sense of my utterance of ‘Charly Baltimore’ is this description:
the highly trained secret agent suffering from amnesia in New England.

The sense of my utterance of ‘Samantha Caine’ is this description:
the New England teacher with an 8 year old daughter who makes the best Rice Krispie treats in town.

‘all that anyone has been able to think of is that different [i.e. senses] are a matter of different descriptions being associated with the signs.

Some other views have been tried ... But these ideas have not been found compelling’

Campbell, 2011 p. 340

I wish someone had told me this before. I have the sense that the answer was out there and I could not find it.
‘all that anyone has been able to think of is that different modes of presentation [i.e. senses] are a matter of different descriptions being associated with the signs. Some other views have been tried, such as those that say all uses of co-referential terms in a single discourse must be anaphorically linked. But these ideas have not been found compelling’ \citep[p.~340]{campbell:2011_visual}.
This isn’t an argument ... we can do better
Is this correct?

?

The sense of my utterance of ‘Charly Baltimore’ is this description:
the highly trained secret agent suffering from amnesia in New England.

The sense of my utterance of ‘Samantha Caine’ is this description:
the New England teacher with an 8 year old daughter who makes the best Rice Krispie treats in town.

Contrast that utterance of ‘Charly is Charly’ with the utterance ‘Charly is Samantha’

ftbe: These may differ in informativeness.

Terminology: call whatever aspect of meaning explains the difference ‘sense’.

If senses are descriptions, can they explain why one utterance is informative and the other not?
Jein: Ja--we can see that the descriptions are different; Nein--what does this have to do with informativeness?
To understand sense, we need to link it to knowledge of reference (as I explained last time) ...

The sense of an utterance of a word (or phrase)
is what you know when you
have knowledge of reference.

NB: sense isn’t knowledge of reference, but the think known.
How are these connected?

Contrast that utterance of ‘Charly is Charly’ with the utterance ‘Charly is Samantha’

ftbe: These may differ in informativeness.

Terminology: call whatever aspect of meaning explains the difference ‘sense’.

So if senses are descriptions and if sense are what you know when you have knowledge of reference, can we explain the difference in informativeness?
Yes, absolutely.

?

The sense of my utterance of ‘Charly Baltimore’ is this description:
the highly trained secret agent suffering from amnesia in New England.

The sense of my utterance of ‘Samantha Caine’ is this description:
the New England teacher with an 8 year old daughter who makes the best Rice Krispie treats in town.

If we connect sense with knowledge of reference in this way, then we have to ask whether descriptions can fulfil these functions ...

ftbe:

Communicators can know, sometimes,
whether they are understanding.
How?

Utterers make rational, voluntary use of some regularites
while merely conforming to others.
How is this possible?

∴ there is a mental state of the utterer in virtue of which her utterance refers to ‘Earth’.

Call this mental state ‘knowledge of reference’.

?

The sense of my utterance of ‘Charly Baltimore’ is this description:
the highly trained secret agent suffering from amnesia in New England.

The sense of my utterance of ‘Samantha Caine’ is this description:
the New England teacher with an 8 year old daughter who makes the best Rice Krispie treats in town.

?

The sense of my utterance of ‘Charly Baltimore’ is this description:
the highly trained secret agent suffering from amnesia in New England.

The sense of my utterance of ‘Samantha Caine’ is this description:
the New England teacher with an 8 year old daughter who makes the best Rice Krispie treats in town.

recall campbell’s picture ...

‘There is a common-sense picture of the relation between knowledge of reference and pattern of use.

... you use the word the way you do because you know what it stands for’

Campbell, 2002 p. 4

The definition: “‘Elmo’ refers to the oldest tree in this garden.” What does this statement do? “By defining what has to be the case for a proposition involving the name ‘Elmo’ to be true, this statement of reference defines the objective at which the introduction rule aims, and allows you to determine what we should take to be the implications of a statement using the name. In that sense, it justifies the use of those introduction and elimination rules above.” (25) Cf. #83 (p. 226) and especially #84 (p. 226)

?

The sense of my utterance of ‘Charly Baltimore’ is this description:
the highly trained secret agent suffering from amnesia in New England.

The sense of my utterance of ‘Samantha Caine’ is this description:
the New England teacher with an 8 year old daughter who makes the best Rice Krispie treats in town.

Are senses descriptions?

No because of the elephant (perceptual demonstratives ...)

Example (use 1): “A bear is about to attack me”

contrast: ‘A bear is about to attach Steve’

The sense of ‘I’ cannot be the sense of ‘Steve’.

Example (use 2): “A bear is about to attack me”

“When you and I entertain the sense of "A bear is about to attack me," we behave similarly. We both roll up in a ball and try to be as still as possible …

“When you and I both apprehend the thought that I am about to be attacked by a bear, we behave differently. I roll up in a ball, you run to get help.”

Perry, 1977 p. 494

Could the sense ‘I’ be a description?

Are senses descriptions?

I think senses are not descriptions and that we need to go back to what Rusell said about acquaintance ...
 

Trading on Identity

 
\section{Trading on Identity}
 
\section{Trading on Identity}

Are senses descriptions?

Andrea is in her office speaking on the telephone to her friend Ben. As she looks out of the window, Andrea notices a man on the street below using his mobile phone. He’s not looking where he’s going; he’s about to step out in front of a bus. Andrea does not realise that this man is Ben, the friend she is speaking to. She bangs the window and waves frantically in an attempt to warn the man, but says nothing into the phone.

\citep[adapted from][p.~439]{Richard:1983rl}

adapted from Richard, 1983 p. 439

He [‘the man on the street’] is in danger.

∴ He [‘the man I am speaking with’] is in danger.

valid-1 = the premises cannot be true unless the conclusion is true

valid-2 = knowledge of the premises suffices for knowledge of the conclusion

Since the man on the street is the man Andrea is speaking with, this inference is valid-1 but not valid-2.

Sense is that which determines whether
such inferences are valid-2
(Campbell, 1992).

‘Sense is that, sameness of which makes trading on identity legitimate, difference in which means that trading on identity is not legitimate’ (legitimate: that is, knowledge of the premises suffices for knowledge of the conclusion) \citep[p.~59]{Campbell:1997tk}.

Are senses descriptions?

I think senses are not descriptions and that we need to go back to what Rusell said about acquaintance ...

Three One Topics

Acquaintance

Sense

Knowledge of reference

Connected these in a previous lecture ...
The key idea is that Knowledge of reference is causation by acquaintance.
I.e. you have knowledge of reference concerning the utterance of a word when your use of that word on this occasion is appropriately caused by your acquaintance with an object.
Twist: The utterance refers to the object in virtue of it being your acquiantance with this object appropriately causing your use of it.
... then I connected these ...
The sense of an utterance of a word (or phrase) is what you know when you have knowledge of reference.
... next I want to connect these ...
 

Sense and Acquaintance

 
\section{Sense and Acquaintance}
 
\section{Sense and Acquaintance}
One aim of this unit: understand this quote ...

‘the normativity of the mental requires the world-involving character of the mind.’

\citep[p.~292]{campbell:1987}

Campbell, 1987 p. 292

Start with it’s formal properties ...

‘Acquaintance ... essentially consists in a relation between the mind and something other than the mind’

\citep[chapter 4]{Russell:1912ln}

Russell, 1912 Chapter 4

But which relation is acquaintance? ...
What else can we say about acquaintance?

‘we have acquaintance with anything of which we are directly aware, without the intermediary of any process of inference or any knowledge of truths’

\citep[chapter 5]{Russell:1912ln}

Russell, 1912 chapter 5

What does this mean? Nothing, by itself. But Russell goes on to explain what he means:
Contrast: infer existence of a phone in your washing machine from the bumps vs opening it and finding the phone.

Modes of acquaintance (?):
perception?
memory?
self-awareness?
attention?

How might sense and acquaintance be linked?

I’m not sure we can connect them ... natural to think acquaintance is a relation you either do or do not stand in to an object.

Are senses ways of being acquainted?

You are acquainted with the elephant in one way when you see it through this window, and in another way when you see it through that window.
Frege talked about modes of presentation. We don’t know what those are either.
The problem is that we don’t know what is ways of being acquainted are. So here’s a rough idea we could develop into a proposal, maybe.
But in advance of it being developed, we are in no position to evaulate it.
One way of developing it is proposed by John Campbell ...
recall campbell’s picture ...

‘There is a common-sense picture of the relation between knowledge of reference and pattern of use.

... you use the word the way you do because you know what it stands for’

Campbell, 2002 p. 4

‘by thinking of knowledge of reference as explained by conscious attention to the object, we can see how to reinstate the common-sense picture’

\citep[p.~4]{Campbell:2002ge}.

Campbell, 2002 p. 4

What does this mean? ‘knowledge of reference as explained by conscious attention to the object’?

There are acts of attention (e.g. tracking an elephant walking ahead).

Re-identification is needed only when there are two acts of attention.

For example, you are tracking Elmar but then look away, distracted by a bird. You look back and reassure yourself that this elephant is the one that was there before.

Two thoughts about this elephant can depend on one act of attention.

When this happens, trading on identity is legitimate.

Sense is that, sameness of which makes trading on identity legitimate.

When two thoughts about this elephant depend on one act of attention, they involve a single sense.

?

same act of attention -> same sense

When two utterances of a word (or phrase) are controlled by a single act of attention, they have the same sense.

Note the parallel with Russell

‘the notion of conscious attention to an object has an explanatory role to play: it has to explain how it is that we have knowledge of the reference of a demonstrative.

‘This means that conscious attention to an object must be thought of as more primitive than thought about the object.

‘It is a state more primitive than thought about an object, to which we can appeal in explaining how it is that we can think about the thing’

Campbell, 2002 p. 45

‘the notion of conscious attention to an object has an explanatory role to play: it has to explain how it is that we have knowledge of the reference of a demonstrative. This means that conscious attention to an object must be thought of as more primitive than thought about the object. It is a state more primitive than thought about an object, to which we can appeal in explaining how it is that we can think about the thing’ \citep[p.~45]{Campbell:2002ge}.
I’m offering an inaccurate, incorrect portrayal of Campbell’s view. Here is a MORE CAREFUL STATEMENT which we will ignore.

‘We might argue that the mode of presentation of a perceptually demonstrated object has to be characterized
... in terms of the property that the subject uses to select that object perceptually.
Sameness of mode of presentation is the same thing as sameness of the property on the basis of which the object is selected;
difference of mode of presentation is the same thing as difference of the property on the basis of which the object is selected.’

\citep[p.~341]{campbell:2011_visual}.

Campbell, 2011 p. 341

The problem is to explain this idea: it require a deep-dive into psychological theories of attention. (Of course, if you really want to understand sense, this is inescapable.)
To evaluate this idea, we run it by the things that senses are supposed to explain ...

?

same act of attention -> same sense

When two utterances of a word (or phrase) are controlled by a single act of attention, they have the same sense.

What is sense supposed to do?

1. Sense explains the difference in informativeness between the utterance of ‘Charly is Charly’ and ‘Charly is Samantha’.

2. Sense determines reference.

3. A statement showing the sense of a name specifies what you need to know about the utterance of a name in order to understand it.

?

same act of attention -> same sense

When two utterances of a word (or phrase) are controlled by a single act of attention, they have the same sense.

The sense of an utterance of a word (or phrase)
is what you know when you
have knowledge of reference.

If we connect sense with knowledge of reference in this way, then we have to ask whether descriptions can fulfil these functions ...

ftbe:

Communicators can know, sometimes,
whether they are understanding.
How?

Utterers make rational, voluntary use of some regularites
while merely conforming to others.
How is this possible?

∴ there is a mental state of the utterer in virtue of which her utterance refers to ‘Earth’.

Call this mental state ‘knowledge of reference’.

What is going wrong here?

same act of attention -> same sense

within a person ✓

between people (an utter and her audience) ✗

Contrast descriptions: understanding you means associating the same description with the word.

This is what explains my dissatisfaction ...

Conscious attention isn’t enough for understanding because ‘it can happen that I am consciously attending to the building to which you are referring, even though I do not realize that it is the building to which you are referring. Conscious attention to the building is not in itself an understanding of your remark: I have to make a link between that conscious attention and the demonstrative you use [see chapters 1-2 and 6-7]’

Campbell, 2002 p. 5

\citep[p.~5]{Campbell:2002ge}.
There is supposed to be a solution but I don’t understand it.

?

same act of attention -> same sense

When two utterances of a word (or phrase) are controlled by a single act of attention, they have the same sense.

**** TODO Summary

NEXT : ensuring matching acts of attention (why might you point, or move next to someone when using a perceptual demonstrative?)

 

The Picture

 
\section{The Picture}
 
\section{The Picture}

What are the facts to be explained?

In order of appearance ...

1. This utterance of ‘Ayesha smells’ depends for its truth on how Ayesha is, unlike that utterance of ‘Beatrice smells’. Why?

2. This utterance of ‘Charly is Charly’ was less revelatory than that utterance of ‘Charly is Samantha’. Why?

3. Humans successfully achieve ends by uttering words. How?

4. Communicators can know, sometimes, whether they are understanding. How?

5. Utterers make rational, voluntary use of some regularites while merely conforming to others. How is this possible?

Facts to be explained (in order of appearance): \begin{enumerate} \item This utterance of ‘Ayesha smells’ depends for its truth on how Ayesha is, unlike that utterance of ‘Beatrice smells’. Why? \item This utterance of ‘Charly is Charly’ was less revelatory than that utterance of ‘Charly is Samantha’. Why? \item Humans successfully achieve ends by uttering words. How? \item Communicators can know, sometimes, whether they are understanding. How? \item Utterers make rational, voluntary use of some regularites while merely conforming to others. How is this possible? \end{enumerate}

The Picture

#1 ∴ there is a word-thing relation; call it ‘reference’.

Reference, if it exists, must explain #1 and #3.

#2 ∴ meaning isn’t only reference; call the aspect which explains #2 ‘sense’.

Knowledge of reference, if it exists must explain #4 and #5.

The sense of an utterance is what you know when you have knowledge of reference.

Sometimes the sense of an utterance is a description.

But not always.

Sometimes the sense of an utterance is individuated by an act of attention.

conclusion: some senses are descriptions, others are modes of acquaintance.

Anything fundamental about the acquaintances? Massive reduplication ...
 

Massive Reduplication

 
\section{Massive Reduplication}
 
\section{Massive Reduplication}
Consider three possibilities

If your utterance of a word refers to a thing, then ...

1. you must be acquainted with that thing;

2. you must either be acquainted with it or else know it by description; or

3. you need neither acquintace nor knowledge by description.

Despite thinking we shouldn’t hold the strong line, I do think that there’s something fundamental about acquiantance ... and this is what really matters!
Why not hold the strong line? Because it avoids a claim about proper names for which there appears to be no justification ...

Russell’s idea:

Reference requires acquaintance knowledge of reference

Objection: in uttering ‘Julius Caesar drank the Rubicon’, I refered to Julius despite not being acquainted with him.

Reply: ‘Julius Caesar’ is actually a quantifier phrase (specifically, a description), so I did not refer.

Objection: rigid designators (Kripke)

Reply: descriptions can be rigidified

Objection: ...

...

Despite thinking we shouldn’t hold the strong line, I do think that there’s something fundamental about acquiantance ... and this is what really matters!

For all we know, a distant region of the universe may contain qualitatively indistinguisable duplicates of everything here.

Therefore: For all we know, even our most elaborate descriptions may fail to pick out individuals.

Therefore: When we rely on descriptions, we may fail to single out a unique object for all we know.

Therefore: If we relied only on descriptions, we may, for all we know, never single out a unique object.

But: We know that our utterances sometimes succeed in singling out a unique object.

 

Knowledge of Reference and Pragmatics

 
\section{Knowledge of Reference and Pragmatics}
 
\section{Knowledge of Reference and Pragmatics}
Recall this distinction \citep{Neale:1990hg,ludlow:1991_indefinite}: \begin{enumerate} \item MS, the meaning of the sentence; \item PE, the proposition expressed; \item PM, the proposition meant; \item SG, the speaker’s grounds for making an utterance. \end{enumerate}

Reference

Steve’s 13:11 utterance of ‘Earth’ refers to Earth

Knowledge of Reference : what is meant?

1. Steve knows Earth (either by acquiantance or description).

Objection: you might be acquainted with the referent while unaware of any connection between it and the utterance. (Imagine using a foreign word just by chance ...)
Too intellecutalist ---

2. Steve knows that his 13:11 utterance of ‘Earth’ refers to Earth.

3. There is a state of Steve’s mind in virtue of which his 13:11 utterance of ‘Earth’ refers to Earth.

Q1 What, if anything, is that state of mind?

Q2 Why think there any such thing as this state of mind?

E.g. on some versions of the causal theory, states of mind are not directly relevant for utterances of words to refer.

At bottom, communication with words is a matter of following rules.

This can be done without any insight into why the rules are as they are.

Therefore mental states of communicators in virtue of which their utterances refer are unnecessary for characterising reference.

cf Putnam 1978

Refuted by Groucho.

‘I’ve had a great evening. This wasn’t it.’

Recall this distinction ...

MS, the meaning of the sentence;

PE, the proposition expressed; and

PM, the proposition meant.

Neale, 1990 p. 75

MS is a function from
The meaning of a sentence is a function from contexts of utterance to propositions. (This should really be complicated : need to go from context of utterance THROUGH context of evaluation TO a truth condition.)
I don’t think there’s any mystery about why we need a PM (actually, often more than one). This is just a matter of saying that when you utter a sentence and communication succeeds, there is something, or some things, which the audience understands.
Why suppose that there is a proposition expressed (PE)? Because Compositionality means MS has to be determined by the meanings of words plus syntactic structure, whereas reflection on Groucho’s comment shows that PM can vary wildly depending on arbitrary features of the context of utterance.
Q1 Why distinguish PE and PM? \begin{enumerate} \item (Assumption) MS is a function from contexts of utterances to propositions. \item Suppose for a contradiction that PMs were the values of this function, i.e. MS + context of utterance yields PM. \item Then Compositionality would reqiure a systematic relation between the words uttered and PM. \item (Observation) Substituting words in an utterance can cause PM to vary dramatically, as can what happens after the utterance is over (‘I’ve had a great evening. This wasn’t it’). \item Therefore: what MS + context of utterance yields is not (always) a PM. \end{enumerate} Terminology: Let PE be what MS + context of utterance yields. (Strictly speaking we need context of evaulation too, and further complexities; see \citet{speaks:2018_theories}.) The above argument shows that PE is distinct from PM.
Recall from earler ...

I have had breakfast.

I have had a kidney removed.

I have had fermented fish for breakfast.

I have had a great evening.

Why is this relevant?

Among utterances of these sentences,
there can be is variation in the PM
although Compositionality does not permit corresponding variation in MS.

On the one hand, there can be significant variation in what utterances of these sentences are communicating. That is, the PM varies.
Compositionality does not permit corresponding variation in MS because (a) the structures are similar and (b) the variations cannot be pinned on variations in the meanings of expressions which differ between these sentences. This is most clearly shown by the last two examples, which illustrate that utterances of the same sentence can involve large variations in PM.

Given that MS is a function from contexts of utterance to propositions,
the values of this function will not typically be a PM.

Terminology: Call the value of MS in a given context of utterance the ‘proposition expressed (PE)’.

Recall this distinction ...

MS, the meaning of the sentence;

PE, the proposition expressed; and

PM, the proposition meant.

Neale, 1990 p. 75

An utter’s \emph{knowledge of reference} concerning her utterance of ‘Earth’ is that state of her mind in virtue of which this utterance refers to Earth.
Q2: Why suppose that there is any such thing as knowledge of reference?
Successful communication with words involves specifying a PM to be communicated and selecting words which will communicate this PM to your audience. In successfully selecting the words, you manifest sensitivity to the relations between MS, PE and PM. But the relation between PE and PM is defined in terms of cooperation (Grice) or relevance (Sperber & Wilson); it involves uncodifiable dependence on arbitrary features of the context of utterance. And the only available models of how to get from PM to words involves reasoning about PE, MS and either cooperation or relevance. Therefore, you (or something in you) probably has to represent both MS and PE in order to select words which will communicate the specified PM to your audience

How do you get from PE to PM?

reasoning about cooperation (Grice)

searching for relevance (Sperber & Wilson)

At bottom, communication with words is a matter of following rules.

This can be done without any insight into why the rules are as they are.

Therefore mental states of communicators in virtue of which their utterances refer are unnecessary for characterising reference.

cf Putnam 1978

Two Arguments

1. Communication with words involves successful communication of a PM.

2. Which PMs an utterance communicates depends on context in arbitrarily complex, uncodifiable ways.

Therefore,
3. communication with words cannot be entirely a mechanical, script-following, rule-bound activity.

1. Arriving at a PM depends on taking the PE and searching for cooperation or relevance.

Therefore,
2. communication requires representing PEs, which requires knowledge of reference.

Reference

Steve’s 13:11 utterance of ‘Earth’ refers to Earth

Knowledge of Reference : what is meant?

1. Steve knows Earth (either by acquiantance or description).

3. There is a state of Steve’s mind in virtue of which his 13:11 utterance of ‘Earth’ refers to Earth.

Q1 What, if anything, is that state of mind?

Q2 Why think there any such thing as this state of mind?

E.g. on some versions of the causal theory, states of mind are not directly relevant for utterances of words to refer.
Recall this question from an earlier lecture

When the utterance of a word refers to a thing,
must the utterer have knowledge of reference?

The main question for this course is:

What is the relation between
an utterance of a word (or phrase)
and a thing
when the utterance refers to the thing?

It is a psychological relation.

The main conclusion I draw: