Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
PHL451 Q5 and Q6
PHL451 Stalnaker
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| What are the four pillars of Stalnaker's framework? | 1 Language-use is a rational activity 2 All rational activities involve agents choosing between possibilities 3 Commuication is a joint-rational activity based on excluding and including posibilities 4 Uterring is proposing to update common ground |
| What is a proposition according to Stalnaker? | A function from possible worlds to truth values. |
| What is Stalaker's argument for his view of propositions? | Inference to the best explanation: 1. The truth of an utterance is its coorespondance to the world 2. What is the least demanding account of what a proposition is that will respect this basic truth-value-determining role? 3. S's Def. |
| What is a major coorelary to Stalnaker's definition of propositions? | Propositions have ‘the properties that have traditionally been ascribed to them’: they may be considered (i) aside from the sentences that express them and (ii) aside from the speech acts in which they figure. |
| How does Stalnaker define semantic presupposition? | q is semantically presupposed by p iff q is entailed by both p and ~p. OR q is semantically presupposed by utterance u iff the truth of q is required for u to express a proposition carrying a truth value. |
| How does Stalnaker define pragmatic presupposition? | q is pragmatically presupposed by Speaker S iff S takes q for granted and others do the same. It would further be inapropriate to not take it for granted. |
| What is Stalnaker's contention vis a vis pragmatics and semantics? | if a conversation is a shared rational activity directed at narrowing the live options, it makes sense to treat presupposition as a pragmatic phenomenon. Which worlds should be ruled out by a proposition? |
| How does Stalnaker understand conversational implicature? | cases where speaker S makes an asertion which will be in good order only if p is presupposed, in order to get hearer H to add it to the context set. |
| What is the context set? | The set of shared presupposed jointly compatible worlds. |
| What is the basic aim of conversation? | To reduce the context set. |
| What are the horizontal and vertical axes on a propositional concept matrix? | - The vertical axis displays possible worlds in their role as determining proposition expressed. - The horizontal axis displays possible worlds in their role as arguments to propositions (to be taken to value T or F). |
| What do propositional concepts represent? | An utterance relative to a context set. |
| How can Kaplan's charachter be understood with Stalnaker's propositional concept? | at the point where we ask what determines the horizonal proposition expressed by an utterance as made in a world. ie. how you assign one proposition across different worlds. |
| What is the function of a diagonal / dagger proposition? | This is the proposition as if it were analyzed in every world according to the world of utterance. This is what you come to know if you come to know that u is true without knowing what u says. |
| What are Stalnaker's 3 principles of assertion? | 1) You should not assert p if either p or not-p is already presupposed. 2) Assert only propositions that have truth value in every world of the context set. 3) Assert only sentences that are the same in every world in the context set. |
| How does an assertion change the context set? | 1) The belief that the speaker is proposing x is added to the context set. 2) Assuming its true, all the propositions inconsistent with X are elimiated from the set. |
| What fixes do we make to account for violations of the principles of assertion? | Change ones understanding of the context set, OR reinterpet the proposition (say, with the dagger). |
| How does Stalnaker handle the contingent a-priori? | Contingent a-priori truths correspond to propositional concepts with contingent horizontals but a necessary diagonal |
| How does Stalnaker handle the necessary a-posteriori? | A necessary a-posteriori truth corresponds to a propositional concept which has a necessary horizontal relative to the actual world, but which, for some world in the context set, determines a proposition which is false at that world. |
| How does Stalnaker handle negative existentials?/Empty Names? | An utterance of ‘Sherlock Holmes does not exist’ does not determine the same proposition in every world in the context set. So a fix needs to be made on the propositional concept. The dagger gives "Whatever thing 'SH' refers to, that does not exist" |
| How does Stalnaker handle the referential-attributive distinction? | If the common ground is informationally impoverished relative to the description, there is no unique satisfier of the description across the worlds of the context set, a referential reading violates 2 and 3 of the rules of assertion. |
| What is Stalnaker's referential reading of definite descriptions? | The proposition expressed is determined by an interaction between the context and the rule associated with the description. The rule is the ToD. |
| What is Stalnaker's attributive reading of definite descriptions? | The rule connecting the description with its satisfier is part of the proposition expressed. |
Created by:
Allie1234