File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Book Chapter: Assertion: A Defective Theoretical Category

TitleAssertion: A Defective Theoretical Category
Authors
KeywordsAssertion
Norms
Commitments
Causes
Cappelen
Issue Date2020
PublisherOxford University Press.
Citation
Assertion: A Defective Theoretical Category. In Goldberg, SC (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Assertion, p. 139-156. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2020 How to Cite?
AbstractThis chapter defends the view that research about language and communication should not appeal to anything that falls under the label “assertion.” According to the No-Assertion view (Cappelen 2011), what philosophers have tried to capture by the term “assertion” is largely a philosopher’s invention. It fails to pick out an act type that we engage in, and it is not a category we need in order to explain any important component of our linguistic practice. The phenomena that theories of assertion aim to explain are better accounted for by appeal to the notion of what is said. Sayings are governed by variable norms, come with variable commitments, and have variable causes and effects. This chapter outlines the No-Assertion view, presents some of the core arguments in favor of it, and responds to some criticisms.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/290387
ISBN
Series/Report no.Oxford Handbooks

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCappelen, Herman-
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-27T03:34:41Z-
dc.date.available2020-10-27T03:34:41Z-
dc.date.issued2020-
dc.identifier.citationAssertion: A Defective Theoretical Category. In Goldberg, SC (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Assertion, p. 139-156. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2020-
dc.identifier.isbn9780190675233-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/290387-
dc.description.abstractThis chapter defends the view that research about language and communication should not appeal to anything that falls under the label “assertion.” According to the No-Assertion view (Cappelen 2011), what philosophers have tried to capture by the term “assertion” is largely a philosopher’s invention. It fails to pick out an act type that we engage in, and it is not a category we need in order to explain any important component of our linguistic practice. The phenomena that theories of assertion aim to explain are better accounted for by appeal to the notion of what is said. Sayings are governed by variable norms, come with variable commitments, and have variable causes and effects. This chapter outlines the No-Assertion view, presents some of the core arguments in favor of it, and responds to some criticisms.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherOxford University Press.-
dc.relation.ispartofThe Oxford Handbook of Assertion-
dc.relation.ispartofseriesOxford Handbooks-
dc.subjectAssertion-
dc.subjectNorms-
dc.subjectCommitments-
dc.subjectCauses-
dc.subjectCappelen-
dc.titleAssertion: A Defective Theoretical Category-
dc.typeBook_Chapter-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190675233.013.6-
dc.identifier.hkuros326957-
dc.identifier.spage139-
dc.identifier.epage156-
dc.publisher.placeNew York, NY-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats