Shared assumptions: Semantic minimalism and Relevance Theory

2007 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 647-681 ◽  
Author(s):  
DANIEL WEDGWOOD
Keyword(s):  
Speech Act ◽  
Relevance Theory ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Semantic Theory ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Linguistic Communication ◽  
Content Sharing ◽  
Shared Content ◽  
Semantic Minimalism

Cappelen & Lepore (2005, 2006a, 2007) note that linguistic communication requires ‘shared content’ and claim that Relevance Theory makes content sharing impossible. This criticism rests upon two important errors. The first is a flawed understanding of Relevance Theory, shown in the application of an omniscient third party perspective to parts of Relevance Theory that depend only upon subjective judgements made by the addressee of an utterance. The second is confusion about different definitions of content. Cappelen & Lepore's evidence actually involves the communication of what they term Speech Act content, which need not be perfectly ‘shared’ according to their own position. Looking beyond this flawed criticism, a general comparison of Relevance Theory with Cappelen & Lepore's semantic minimalism reveals significant parallels, pointing to a notable convergence of two distinct approaches – one cognitive-pragmatic, the other philosophical-semantic – on the rejection of currently dominant assumptions in linguistic semantics. The key remaining difference is Cappelen & Lepore's claim that shared content is propositional. This contradicts other claims made for such content and in any case plays no active role in the explanation of communication. Cappelen & Lepore's position thus poses no threat to Relevance Theory; rather, Relevance Theory can benefit from their philosophical analysis of the state of semantic theory.

scholarly journals Communicated and non-communicated acts in relevance theory

Pragmatics ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Nicolle
Keyword(s):  
Speech Acts ◽  
Speech Act ◽  
Relevance Theory ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Contextual Effects ◽  
The Other ◽  
Socially Relevant

According to relevance theory (Sperber and Wilson 1986; Blakemore 1991) some cases of communication depend on the hearer recognising that a particular speech act, for example admitting, betting or promising, is being performed. These are ‘communicated’ acts. Other cases of communication do not depend on the hearer recognising that a particular speech act, for example predicting, warning or permitting, is being performed. These are ‘non-communicated’ acts. In the case of non-communicated acts communication is successful so long as the hearer recovers adequate contextual effects without having to recognise the speaker’s intentions. Against this view, I will argue that each of the speech acts considered to be non-communicated in the relevance theory literature fall into one of two categories. The speech acts in one category contribute to the strength of associated assumptions, and those in the other convey socially relevant information. I will argue that according to relevance theory both types of speech act must be recognised and that they are in fact communicated. If relevance theory is to be internally consistent, therefore, the distinction between communicated and non-communicated speech acts must be abandoned.

Sentence mood

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Portner
Keyword(s):  
Speech Act ◽  
Speech Act Theory ◽  
The Other ◽  
Major Topic

Sentence mood is the linguistic category which marks the fundamental conversational function, or “sentential force,” of a sentence. Exemplified by the universal types of declarative, interrogative, and imperative sentences (as well as by less-common types), sentence mood has been a major topic of research in both linguistics and philosophy. This chapter identifies the two main theories which address the topic, one based on speech act theory and the other on dynamic approaches to meaning. It explains and evaluates current research which uses the two theories, and identifies the most important insights which come out of each.

scholarly journals The Speech Act Fallacy Fallacy

1982 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 509-526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Hurka
Keyword(s):  
Speech Act ◽  
Illocutionary Force ◽  
The Other ◽  
John Searle ◽  
Speech Act Analysis

John Searle has charged R.M. Hare's prescriptivist analysis of the meaning of ‘good,’ ‘ought’ and the other evaluative words with committing what he calls the ‘speech act fallacy.’ This is a fallacy which Searle thinks is committed not only by Hare's analysis, but by any analysis which attributes to a word the function of indicating that a particular speech act is being performed, or that an utterance has a particular illocutionary force. ‘There is a condition of adequacy which any analysis of the meaning of a word must meet,’ Searle writes, ‘and which the speech act analysis fails to meet. Any analysis of the meaning of a word must be consistent with the fact that the same word (or morpheme) can mean the same thing in all the different kinds of sentences in which it can occur.' Hare maintains that the word ‘good’ is used to indicate the speech act of prescribing. He maintains that one of the principal functions of this word is to indicate that utterances of sentences containing it have prescriptive illocutionary force, and that an analysis of its meaning must make explicit and ineliminable reference to this force-indicating function. But ‘good’ regularly occurs in sentences utterances of which appear to have no prescriptive illocutionary force.

KEPEMILIKAN DAN PENGUASAAN OBJEK JAMINAN FIDUSIA APABILA TERJADI SENGKETA WANPRESTASI DALAM PERJANJIAN KREDIT

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 78
Author(s):  
Dija Hedistira ◽  
' Pujiyono
Keyword(s):  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

<p>Abstract<br />This article aims to analyze the ownership and mastery of a fiduciary collateral object, in cases that often occur today, many disputes between creditors and debtors in fiduciary collateral agreements are caused because creditors assume that with executive rights as fiduciary recipients, the fiduciary collateral object legally owned by creditors and creditors the right to take and sell fiduciary collateral objects when the debtor defaults unilaterally, as well as the debtor who considers that the fiduciary collateral object is owned by him because the object is registered on his name, so that the debtor can use the object free as  giving to a third party or selling the object of fiduciary guarantee unilaterally. the author uses a normative <br />juridical approach, and deductive analysis method based on the Civil Code and fiduciary law applicable in Indonesia, Law No. 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees. The conclusion of the discussion is the ownership of the object of the Fiduciary Guarantee is owned by the debtor in accordance with the Law, mastery of the object of collateral controlled by the debtor for economic benefits, the procedure of execution The object of Fiduciary Guarantee is carried out in accordance with the Fiduciary Guarantee Act, an alternative mediation in resolving the dispute. There needs to be clarity in the use of language in making a law, so as not to conflict with each other between Article one and the other Articles.<br />Keywords: Ownership; Mastery; Object of Fiduciary Guarantee; Debtor; Creditors.</p><p>Abstrak<br />Artikel ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis tentang kepemilikan dan penguasaan suatu objek jaminan fidusia, dalam kasus yang saat ini sering terjadi, banyak sengketa antara kreditur dan debitur dalam perjanjian jaminan fidusia disebabkan karena kreditur beranggapan bahwa dengan adanya hak eksekutorial sebagai penerima fidusia, maka objek jaminan fidusia tersebut secara sah dimiliki oleh kreditur dan kreditur berhak mengambil dan menjual objek jaminan fidusia saat debitur cidera janji<br />(wanprestasi) secara sepihak, begitupun dengan debitur yang menganggap bahwa objek jaminan fidusia tersebut dimiliki olehnya karena objek tersebut terdaftar atas namannya, sehingga debitur dapat mempergunakan objek tersebut secara bebas seperti menyerahkan kepada pihak ketiga atau menjual objek jaminan fidusia tersebut secara sepihak. penulis menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif, dan metode analisis deduktif yang didasarkan pada Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata<br />dan hukum jaminan fidusia yang berlaku di Indonesia, Undang-Undang No. 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia. Kesimpulan pembahasan adalah Kepemilikan Objek Jaminan Fidusia dimiliki oleh debitur sesuai Undang-undang, penguasaan objek jaminan dikuasai debitur untuk manfaat ekonomis, prosedur eksekusi Objek Jaminan Fidusia dilakukan sesuai dengan Undang-Undang Jaminan Fidusia, alternatif secara mediasi dalam menyelesaikan sengketa yang terjadi. Perlu ada kejelasan dalam<br />penggunaan bahasa pada pembuatan suatu Undang-Undang, agar tidak saling bertentangan antar Pasal satu dengan Pasal yang lainnya. <br />Kata Kunci: Kepemilikan; Penguasaan; Objek Jaminan Fidusia; Debitur; Kreditur.</p>

scholarly journals South-South Cooperation: Brazilian experiences in South America and Africa

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberta de Freitas Santos ◽  
Mateus Rodrigues Cerqueira
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
South America ◽  
Health Sector ◽  
Active Role ◽  
The Other ◽  
Technical Cooperation ◽  
Technical Work ◽  
Power Asymmetries ◽  
Development Goals

Over recent years Brazil has played an increasingly active role internationally, the result of its model of integration and its foreign policy directives. The health sector is a valuable and strategic area for Brazilian technical cooperation to achieve various objectives, including its development goals. This article describes the main directives of Brazilian foreign policy, conceptually defining and characterizing South-South Cooperation, illustrated through an analysis of two Brazilian technical cooperation initiatives in healthcare: one in South America, the other in Africa. The study concludes that, irrespective of the interests and power asymmetries existing in South-South Cooperation, the objectives of this cooperation were achieved through the technical work

scholarly journals Speech Act Classification and Request Strategy in “Tall Girl” Movie Directed by Nzingha Stewart

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-34
Author(s):  
Ary Iswanto Wibowo ◽  
Gilang Cempaka
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Analysis ◽  
Speech Act ◽  
Analysis Data ◽  
The Other ◽  
Dominant Form ◽  
Illocutionary Act ◽  
Descriptive Qualitative

The research is aimed to find out the speech act classification and types of request strategy from a dialogue of the characters in Tall Girl movie. The method of this study is descriptive qualitative analysis. Data is taken out of all dialogues of the characters and is observed by using theories. In this analysis, the writers found the speech Act Classification and Types of Request Strategy in the Speech Act. The speech act is classified in declaration, representatives, directives, commissives, and expressive. Directives served the dominant form among the five types of illocutionary act mostly expressed their utterance. And as request strategy is typed in mood derivable, explicit performative, hedged performative, locution derivable, want statement, suggestive formula and preparatory. Mood derivable served the dominant form among the other types to deliver their willingness.  

scholarly journals KONTRAKT SPÓŁKI JAKO PODSTAWA ODPOWIEDZIALNOŚCI IN SOLIDUM W PRAWIE RZYMSKIM

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 43
Author(s):  
Zuzanna Służewska
Keyword(s):  
Civil Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Roman Law ◽  
Joint And Several Liability ◽  
Internal Relation ◽  
Common Opinion ◽  
Formal Procedure ◽  
The Common

THE CONTRACT OF PARTNERSHIP AS A BASE OF IN SOLIDUM LIABILITY IN ROMAN LAWSummary In the modern civil law joint and several liability of partners in a partnership is a rule rather than an exception. According to the common opinion this concept did not originate in the Roman law but was first invented in the medieval times by glossators and commentators. The Roman partnership created only a private relation between partners (who, due to a conclusion of that contract were reciprocally obliged to act together in accordance with a good faith in order to conduct common business and to divide profits and bear losses in proportion to their respective shares) and its conclusion did not affect their liability against third parties. The partners had no right to bind themselves contractually to any third parties, unless they all acted jointly (in this case, however, their joint representation was derived from their expressed declarations and not the existence of a contract o f partnership). Thus, any commitment made by an individual partner, even if made within the scope of a partnership having obtained other partners’ consent, was treated as a personal debt of this partner and the remaining partners were not liable against his contractor. Then, of course, the partner who made a commitment (acting within the partnership’s business) could claim a part of what he had paid to a third party from other partners in proportion to their respective shares in the common enterprise.Such a solution was necessary because of the purely consensual character o f the Roman partnership and the lack of any formal procedure of its conclusion and dissolution. The existence of that contract could not affect the model of the external liability of partners, because it would be too risky for third parties, which had no possibility to make sure if a contract of partnership between some persons had been actually concluded or not. Thus, the role of a contract of partnership in the Roman law was only limited to determine a mutual liability o f partners, to specify their respective rights and obligations and to define the scope of their liability against other partners.There are only a few written sources concerning so called specific kinds of partnership characterized by untypical joint and several responsibility of partners. Moreover these texts are not very clear and are difficult to interpret, so the issue of specific kinds of a partnership is a matter of doubts among Romanists. Some authors even believe that the specific types of partnership did not exist in the Roman law at all.It should be firstly observed that the texts regarding a contract of partnership itself (the texts included in the title pro socio of Justinian’ Digest) did not raise the question of the external liability of partners because they were devoted to internal settlement o f accounts within sociu Thus, taking into account only these texts one cannot ascertain that a conclusion of a contract of partnership could not affect in any way the model of the partners’ liability against third parties.Secondly, the other texts concerning the regulation of conducting an economic activity in the Roman law (actio institoria, actio exercitoria and actio de peculio) present some regularity in an introduction of joint and several liability of debtors.On the one hand that model of the liability was introduced in situations in which protecting safety of trade required that the creditor be able to claim a whole amount o f the debt from one person only.On the other hand this model of liability could be introduced only in these cases in which some internal relation existed between several debtors. On the grounds of such relations the debtor who satisfied in full the creditor’s claim could sue other debtors in order to recover their respective parts in the debt. In the Roman law that internal relation that guaranteed the possibility of a recourse could be either a joint-ownership or a partnership.Having considered that, one may say that the texts concerning specific kinds o f partnership do not prove existence of any special type of societas. These sources regard only the situations when a joint and several liability between several debtors was introduced because it was justified by the circumstances: that is the necessity to protect the safety of trade on one hand and the existence of the contract of partnership that guaranteed a possibility to realize the recourse, on the other.In conclusion one may say that although a closing of a contract of partnership did not create a joint and several liability of partners, in some cases its existence was decisive for introducing this model of liability since it guaranteed to every party a possibility to act against the others to obtain the recourse. Thus, Roman jurisprudence made an important step towards the future introduction o f joint and several liability of partners as a rule of a civil law.

scholarly journals Public Private Partnerships and the Prospects for Sustainable ICT Projects in the Developing World

2007 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Fife ◽  
Laura Hosman
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Success Factors ◽  
Public Services ◽  
Developing World ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Non Profit ◽  
Current State ◽  
The One

This paper analyses the recent phenomenon of private/public partnerships (PPPs) in the ICT sector of the developing world. The partners may come to these projects with divergent motivations: profit on the one hand and the provision of public services on the other, but at the end of the day, the interests of the partners that are symbiotic can – and indeed should – be aligned to ensure successful long-term projects. To investigate what can be done to promote successful and sustainable PPPs, this paper extends the traditional two-actor analysis to include both a third-party non-profit-oriented facilitating organization and the technology recipients that are the targets of these projects. Following an overview of the current state of PPPs in the developing world, the paper provides two case studies, based in Vietnam, where all four of the above-mentioned stakeholders were involved. The cases reveal important success factors that can be applied to future PPPs in the ICT sector.

scholarly journals PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM BAGI KREDITUR PEMEGANG HAK TANGGUNGAN TERHADAP SENGKETA AGUNAN YANG MENGAKIBATKAN BATALNYA PERJANJIAN KREDIT

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 26
Author(s):  
Fransisca Kusuma Aryani ◽  
Gunawan Djajaputra
Keyword(s):  
Legal Protection ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
District Court ◽  
Good People ◽  
Warning Letter ◽  
The Law ◽  
Debt Repayment ◽  
Credit Agreement

The process of granting credit with the guarantee of Mortgage Rights experienced many obstacles, one of which is the cancellation of credit agreement due to a lawsuit from a third party. Examples of problems that will researchers take is a case between PT PNM as creditor and Erlinawati as a debtor. Erlinawati applied for credit to PT PNM and pledged SHM No. 1716 without her husband's agreement, Bagus Satriya. As time went by, Erlinawati could not fulfill its obligations as stipulated in the credit agreement, and then PT PNM sent a warning letter to Erlinawati. Good people who know the land and buildings of his property are used as a direct guarantee to file a lawsuit to the Blora District Court. The Blora District Court ruled that credit agreements and Deed of Mortgage Rights (APHT) are invalid and null and void. So far the legal protection for debtors who have sued from the other party on the guarantee given by the creditor has not been regulated specially in the legislation. The law only regulates bad debts and debt repayment through the execution process stipulated in the Law on Banking and Insurance Rights Act. Legal protection that creditor can use when obtaining a lawsuit from a third party is by using the general guarantees provided for in Articles 1131 and 1132 of the Civil Code.

Optimal trade-in and third-party collection authorization strategies under trade-in subsidy policy

Kybernetes ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (5) ◽  
pp. 854-872 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaiying Cao ◽  
Qiushi Bo ◽  
Yi He
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Profit Maximization ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Subsidy Policy ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Third ◽  
Optimal Decisions ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose This paper aims to study whether the recycling of a third party competes with the trade-in service of a manufacturer, and explores the optimal trade-in and third-party collection authorization strategies for the manufacturer. Design/methodology/approach According to whether to authorize a third party to collect its used products, the manufacturer has two choices: one is not authorization (NA); the other is authorization (A). This paper uses profit-maximization model to investigate the optimal decisions of the manufacturer and the third party under NA and A, respectively, and then explores which choice is better for the manufacturer. Findings It is observed that there is a competition between trade-in service and third-party recycling when the durability parameter of the used product is relatively small. Moreover, when the durability parameter of the used product is relatively large, A is always better choice for the manufacturer; otherwise, NA is a better choice except for the case that the unit trade-in subsidy is low and the salvage of the used product is high. Practical implications These results provide managerial insights for the manufacturer and the third party to make decisions in the field of recycling. Originality/value This paper is among the first papers to study the competition between trade-in program and third party’s collecting program under government’s trade-in subsidy policy. Moreover, this paper presents the conditions under which the manufacturer should authorize or not authorize the third party to collect its used products.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document