There is a tension between John Locke’s awareness of the fundamental importance of a shared public language and the manner in which his theorizing appears limited to offering a psychologistic account of the idiolects of individual speakers. I argue that a correct understanding of Locke’s central notion of signification can resolve this tension. I start by examining a long standing objection to Locke’s view, according to which his theory of meaning systematically gets the subject matter of our discourse wrong, by making our ideas the meanings of our words. By examining Locke’s definition of “truth”, I show that Lockean signification is an expression relation, rather than a descriptive or referential relation. Consequently, the sense in which our words signify our ideas is roughly that our utterances advertise our otherwise undisclosed mental lives to each other. While this resolves one aspect of the public/private tension, I close with a brief discussion of the remaining tension, and the role for normative constraints on signification to play in generating a genuinely shared public language.

The paper presents a number of empirical arguments for the perceptual view of speech comprehension. It then argues that a particular version of phenomenal dogmatism can confer immediate justification upon belief. In combination, these two views can bypass Davidsonian skepticism toward knowledge of meanings. The perceptual view alone, however, can bypass a variation on the Davidsonian argument. One reason Davidson thought meanings were not truly graspable was that he believed meanings were private (unlike behavior). But if the perceptual view of speech comprehension is correct, then meanings (or at least conveyed meanings) are public objects like other perceivable entities. Hence, there is no particular problem of language comprehension, even if meanings originate in “private” mental states.

The arbitrariness of a sign is considered a universal feature and a well-established property of the world’s languages by many linguists, which makes languages flexible and facilitates distinguishing the particular referents to words. However, there are some exceptions in the case of Chinese, a language quite different from western languages. This article analyzes Chinese’s arbitrariness mainly from the perspective of word formation and will show that Chinese characters, which were iconic originally, depart from this universal feature to a great extent. Through many transformations and changes, Chinese characters continue to display three features: iconicity, systematicity and arbitrariness.

The internalist-externalist debate about semantic and mental contents concerns whether the contents of certain claims and beliefs depend on facts external to the people having those beliefs or not. However, rather than just join up with either side, I argue for re-casting the debate so as to allow for hybrid internalist-externalist views, on the grounds that such views can help explain certain phenomena associated with slurs and pejoratives. If the debate can indeed be recast in this way and if hybrid views offer significant explanatory power, then they deserve further exploration.

An influential view about the relationship between publicity and linguistic meaning is brought into question. It has been thought that since public languages are essentially public, linguistic meaning is subject to a kind of epistemic cap so that there can be nothing more to linguistic meaning than can be determinately known on the basis of publicly available evidence (Epistemic Thesis). Given the thinness of such evidence, a well-known thesis follows to the effect that linguistic meaning is substantially indeterminate. In this paper, we consider the sort of reasons offered for the Epistemic Thesis and uncover an unexamined presupposition about the epistemic requirements of communication and the establishment of meaning conventions. We show this presupposition is undermined by independently motivated considerations about communication and convention, giving us good reason to reject the Epistemic Thesis and its corollary about indeterminacy.

As common expressions in natural language, sentences with tense and aspect play a very important role. There are many ways to encode their contributions to meaning, but I believe their function is best understood as exhibiting relations among related eventualities (events and states). Accordingly, contra other efforts to explain tense and aspect by appeal to temporal logics or interval logics, I believe the most basic and correct way to explain tense and aspect is to articulate these relations between eventualities. Building on these ideas, I will characterize a formal semantics – Event-State Semantics (ESS) – which differs from all formal semantics based on temporal logics; in particular, one with which sentences with tense and aspect can be adequately explained, including molecular sentences and those with adverbial clauses.

A context-directed theory of communicative acts is one that thinks of a communicative act as a proposal to change the context in some way. I focus on three influential examples: Robert Stalnaker’s theory of assertion, Craige Roberts’ theory of questions, and Paul Portner’s theory of directives. These theories distinguish different categories of communicative acts by distinguishing the components of context that they aim to change. I argue that the components of context they posit turn out not to be distinct after all, and that these theories therefore col­lapse the taxonomic distinctions that they set out to draw. Although it might be possible to avoid this problem by devising a more adequate theory of the nature of context, I argue that it should be taken as a reductio of context-directed theories.

This essay highlights the theoretical relations between Weber, Jaspers and Eisenstadt on the issue of the axial age and modernity. For Weber Modernity is an “axial age” but also an event in the history of Western rationalization. So we can’t say which is his idea on this topic. For Jaspers the axial revolution took place at the same time in China, India, and Greece. Modernity can’t be an “axial age” because it took place in the West and only after in these three civilizations. For Eisenstadt, on the contrary, modernity is a second “axial age”. He thinks the XX and the XXI century as an era of multiple modernities.

This paper is concerned with the question which role intentions play in verbal action. In many (mainly cognitively oriented) branches of linguistic research, as well as in the philosophy of language, it is (often implicity) assumed that speakers' intentions are the most important element for the explanation of linguistic behavior. This position has also been challenged, however, mainly by anthropologically and sociolinguistically oriented scholars. In this paper I will try to adress this issue in the framework of a more general discussion concerning the functionality of language. In the first section I will briefly consider the framework sketched in the first part to discuss the arguments which have been put forward in the literature against the intention-dominated view of linguistic behavior.

I shall propose that the primary form of all references is that reference to ourselves that we normally express when we use the first-person pronoun. In the case of believing, this reference may be called 'direct attribution'. Our reference to all other things is by way of such reference to ourselves. I shall argue that; although we express ourselves in first-person sentences, the reference to ourselves that we thus express does not involve the acceptance of first-person proposition- for, I shall contend, there is no good reason to assume that there are such propositions. The primary form of believing is not a matter of accepting propositions; it is a matter of attributing properties to pneself I am the primary object of my own attributions and the properties are the content

There has always been criticism against the "Theory of Communicative Action". Some aspects of criticism were terms such as "Communicative Action" or "Strategic Action", the postulate of "two distinct types of interaction" and the thesis of the "primacy of non-strategic communication".Habermas answered his critics in a number of essays and replies. The numerous modifications and reformulations don't make orientation in this field easier, however. In this essay the criteria which Habermas uses to characterize communicative and strategic action shall be named. It then has to be discussed whether these distinctive criteria are sufficient to justify the dichotomy of two types of interaction. Finally, Habermas' argumentation in favor of the primacy of non-strategic communication shall be outlined and scrutinized under the aspect of plausibility

Illocutionary acts are best looked upon as being communicative acts. Reasons are eiven for this thesis) which is quite contrary to what classical Speech Act Theory (SAT) holds to be true. It is proposed to define illocutionary intentions via (some very special sort of) perlocutionary intentions. This is not to deny the importance of this central SAT- aistmction, to the contrary, it is suggested that this distinction be reconcilable with the basic concepts of a theory of communicative actions.

It is shown that at least part of the terminology of the theory of speech acts can be methodically introduced within the constructive ortholanguage-programm. There is evidence that a methodical constraint leads the reconstruction of the basic speech-act-types from requests via statements to questions. Moreover there is evidence that requests and questions don't involve "propositional acts".

Any classification of illocutionary acts to be well-founded has to be based on logical principles characteristic of the different types of these acts; and the relevant principles nave to be couched in terms of general action theory. This approach is specified for informatives and directives, and the essential connections between these two (most basic?) types of illocutionary acts are explicated and diagrammed - showing the primacy of informatives. Discussion of why, in talking about communicative acts, some divergence from ordinary language is to be recommended.

The object of this paper is to provide an overview of several concepts of linguistic discourse research. The central question is the relationship between a Speech Act Theory (SAT) on the one hand and a Discourse Theory (DT) on the other, in the first section, Searle’s SAT is compared to Ethnomethodologv against the background of a brief explanation of linguistic discourse research in the 19th century. Following this is a review of two concepts, one which pleads for a ’pure' SAT without any reference to discourse (Motsch), and one which proposes replacing a SAT by a linguistic DT (Weigand). The article concludes with an overview of a range of concepts which attempt to mediate between a SAT and a DT.

Most texts on argumentation theory stress the importance of formal logic for the study of arguments. This paper raises some doubts about the usefulness of logic for the study of argumentation. In fact\ the basic analogy between logical proofs ana arguments in natural language does not seem to hold. There seems to be a basic circularity in everday arguments which cannot be reconstructed by the standard logical tools. Therefore we habe to look for some non-logical forms of representation. Some hints for this new type of argument representation are given.

Aim of the deliberation is to identify the presuppositions for the analysis of use of language on the level of semantic interpretation. Pragmatics has no self-sufficiency semantic core-theory. The requirements of theories in semantic are discussed ana further the consens and disserts of the approaches in semantic analysis is demonstrated. Special references are the problem of analytic and synthetic (W.v.O. Quine. J.J. Katz, S. Haack, H. Pumam, D. Davidson), the debat about B. Russells analysis of denoting and the critics of P.F. Strawson ana K.S. Donnellan. The non-self-sufficiency of the semantic conceptualization on the level of pragmatics is valid even though semantic is deliminated through pragmatics.

This article tries to give a partial answer to the question how to analyse and describe verbal quarreling and squabbling by investigating three types of speech acts: reproaching, insisting and calling someone names. A distinction is being drawn between interaction in conflict and quarreling. Essential features of quarreling-specific speech acts are to be seen in their expressive ana offending quality in connection with certam situational factors. In a methodological perspective the focus is set upon the rules of emotion management in dialogical situations and on the relation of pragmatical linguistics to psychology and sociology.