TY - JOUR
T1 - Invisible Minimalism
AU - Falcato, Ana
N1 - info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/FCT/6817 - DCRRNI ID/UID%2FFIL%2F00183%2F2013/PT#
UID/FIL/00183/2013
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - This essay attempts a rapprochement between Kent Bach’s view on semantic minimalism and the most radical version of contextualism about language on offer: Charles Travis’s occasion-sensitivity. Despite common assumptions held by defenders of semantic literalism – which cast Bach’s proposal as a form of contextualism – Bach rejects all conceivable forms of contextualism. In this paper, I argue that in spite of his systematic rejection of contextualism, Bach’s position bears a striking resemblance to Travis’s occasion-sensitivity. Further, when analyzed in light of the conceptual framework developed by Travis, Bach’s strand of minimalism can be shown to contain a deep-rooted conceptual inconsistency to the extent that he aims to ascribe “pure semantic content” to a linguistic entity that is necessarily pragmatic.
AB - This essay attempts a rapprochement between Kent Bach’s view on semantic minimalism and the most radical version of contextualism about language on offer: Charles Travis’s occasion-sensitivity. Despite common assumptions held by defenders of semantic literalism – which cast Bach’s proposal as a form of contextualism – Bach rejects all conceivable forms of contextualism. In this paper, I argue that in spite of his systematic rejection of contextualism, Bach’s position bears a striking resemblance to Travis’s occasion-sensitivity. Further, when analyzed in light of the conceptual framework developed by Travis, Bach’s strand of minimalism can be shown to contain a deep-rooted conceptual inconsistency to the extent that he aims to ascribe “pure semantic content” to a linguistic entity that is necessarily pragmatic.
KW - Semantic minimalism
KW - Minimal propositions
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85015339834&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1515/text-2017-0001
DO - 10.1515/text-2017-0001
M3 - Article
SN - 1860-7330
VL - 37
SP - 265
EP - 282
JO - Text & Talk
JF - Text & Talk
IS - 2
ER -