Scorekeeping in a defective language game

Author: Scharp, Kevin A.¹

Source: Pragmatics & Cognition, Volume 13, Number 1, 2005 , pp. 203-226(24)

Publisher: John Benjamins Publishing Company

Key:

- Free Content

- New Content

- Subscribed Content

- Free Trial Content

Abstract:

One common criticism of deflationism is that it does not have the resources to explain defective discourse (e.g., vagueness, referential indeterminacy, confusion, etc.). This problem is especially pressing for someone like Robert Brandom, who not only endorses deflationist accounts of truth, reference, and predication, but also refuses to use representational relations to explain content and propositional attitudes. To address this problem, I suggest that Brandom should explain defective discourse in terms of what it is to treat some portion of discourse as defective. To illustrate this strategy, I present an extension of his theory of content and use it to provide an explanation of confusion. The result is a theory of confusion based on Joseph Camp’s recent treatment. The extension of Brandom’s theory of content involves additions to his account of scorekeeping that allow members of a discursive practice to accept different standards of inferential correctness.

Keywords: Boderline cases; confusion; default and challenge; indeterminacy; inferential standard; scorekeeping commitments; semantic position; vagueness

Document Type: Research article

DOI: 10.1075/pc.13.1.14sch

Affiliations: 1: University of Pittsburgh

The full text electronic article is available for purchase. You will be able to download the full text electronic article after payment.

$38.49 plus tax Refund Policy