PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE
PHIL 425, Sec. 1001: MW 1pm-2:15pm in CBC C146
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Spring 2022
Professor: James Woodbridge
email address:
Course Webpage: http://jwood.faculty.unlv.edu/unlv/Phil425S22.htm
Office Hours: T 12:30pm-2pm, W 2:30pm-4pm, and by appointment
Office: CDC 426
Office Phone: 895-4051
Dept. Phone: 895-3433
FIRST PAPER
Pick one of following topics and write a 6-8 page/2000-2800 word paper fulfilling the tasks assigned.
Do not use any outside sources: just the course readings and discussion, and your own thinking.
Your paper is due via WebCampus, through the Turnitin.com program linked to the Assignment listing, before midnight, Friday 3/11. The file that you send me for your paper must have the following format for its filename: yourstudentnumber.PHIL425S22.paper1.docx. So that I can grade “blind”, your name should not appear anywhere on your paper. Finally, you must submit a .docx (or .doc or .docm) file so that I can use Word to make comments on it. If you do not use Word, you must convert your file to this format before submitting it.
Topics:
1. Explain the general idea of the pragmatic aspect of language that Austin calls "illocutionary force" in "Lecture VIII" from How to Do Things with Words, distinguishing it from the semantic/content aspect of language by giving your own examples of different linguistic items with i) the same content but different illocutionary force and ii) the same illocutionary force but different content. (Kemp, Ch. 7 can help here.) Austin holds that the performance of an illocutionary act is a matter of convention. In your own words, explain and motivate this position by examining some particular type of speech-act and going over what is involved in performing it. (The Kukla article can help here.) In contrast, Grice, in the article "Meaning", holds that the type of speech-act one performs (along with the content, or meaningNN, one expresses) is a matter of certain complex intentions that the speaker has. In your own words, explain how this is supposed to work by going over what this approach says is involved in performing some particular type of speech-act. Which seems to be the more plausible (and explanatory) basis for illocutionary force, convention or intention? Discuss what you take to be the most significant benefit of, and the strongest concern facing, each approach. How might each respond to the concern you have identified? Determine which of the two does a better job overall and provide reasons for favoring it over the other.
2. One of the puzzles about language we have considered is the problem of empty names -- names that do not pick out any objects and so would seem to have no bearers (no references, no semantic-values). This phenomenon includes both fictional names, such as 'Santa Claus' and 'Sherlock Holmes' as well as expressions not tied to works of fiction, e.g., 'Vulcan' (the name for the hypothetical planet between Mercury and the Sun, postulated by a 19th century astronomical theory). What exactly is the problem of empty names, that is, why do they present a puzzle? (Kemp, Ch. 2 can help here.) Explain and contrast the different ways that Meinong (as related by Russell), Frege, and Russell try to deal with this puzzle. Explain their views in your own words, but be sure to make citations to the relevant articles when discussing this. (Kemp, Chs. 2 and 3 can help here as well.) What objections do each of these views face? Are there modifications we might make to the views to deal with the objections? Which approach do you think does the best job (or faces the least problems)? Be sure to back up your position here with reasons.
Be sure to look at my Paper Requirements and Policies and check this Numbered Writing Comments Sheet to be aware of various writing infelicities that you should avoid.
Keep your paper within the page limit!