[ Home ] [Searle's homepage] [ Notes and Handouts ] [ Announcements ]

Philosophy 133

Philosophy of Language

Spring 2005

Announcements

05/02/05: My OH this week will be from 10.00 am-11.30 am on Tuesday at the Pat Brown Café.

05/01/05: A bit of help with the fourth set of the paper topics for those of you who decided to write a paper.

Question 1:

This is a very straightforward question, and we spent almost an entire section on it. You may want to look at my handout at the Notes and Handouts section of this website. As on earlier occasions, you don't need to discuss the actual example if you have some more general point to make about the similarities and differences of Davidson's and Searle's account. In order to write on this topic, you NEED to read (at least parts of) the Davidson article in the Martinich reader (pp. 435-446, short and clear) and Searle's classic piece in Expression and Meaning (pp. 76-116, not so short, but focus on the beginning and the end, skipping the discussion of 'simile theory'). The Lycan textbook has a long chapter (ch. 14) on metaphor, but I personally do not find it as useful as some other parts of this book.

Question 2:

This topic must be very easy for you if you wrote on the Tarski topic last time. The Frege and Russell story you must remember from March. It is important that you don't need to present Frege's and Russell's entire philosophy of language here. You should focus ONLY on the aspect of acquiring a truth value. So for this topic, see my Tarski notes below as well as my Tarski handout. The actual article in the Martinich reader is long and tedious, but you should focus on the first half of the article. I also give you a link to a very good (longish) summary of Tarski at the end of my handout.

Question 3:

This one is also easy if you wrote on Grice in the last round. The Grice article is in the Martinich book and it is only ten pages (pp. 165-175). Chapter 13 of the Lycan textbook is a very good and clear summary of Grice's theory. You may or may not want to spend a lot of time discussing Searle's criticism about the second Gricean maxim.

Question 4:

Here, you have to rely on the Searle paper I distributed by email. It is long, but a good read. You may want to go back an dtake another look at the Austin book if you decide to write on this topic.

Question 5:

This is tough as Searle has not discussed this topic at class at all, but if you are really interested in this one (perhaps because you wrote about Putnam on the second question), a place to start would be chapter 4 of the Lycan textbook (especially pp. 53-59), which is a very good overview. I'm afraid, the next step is the Kripke excerpt in the Martinich book (pp. 272-287), which is very difficult, but then again, some of you have written about it already.

Good luck!

04/23/05: My OH next week will be from 3.30-4.30 on Tuesday at the Pat Brown Cafe (I may have another OH on Thu, but I'm not sure).

04/17/05: A new handout on Metaphor is now at the Notes and Handouts section of the website.

04/13/05: Tomorrow (on Thursday) there's a strike on campus, so I won't take attendance.

04/12/05: I strongly recommend you to write the fourth paper, for the following three reasons:

(a) This is the best preparation for the final exam, which will be 40% of your grade. The topics are rather general, so if you write on one of them, you are in a much better position to write the final.

(b) If you have a grade you are not too happy with, make sure to write the fourth paper. The way it works is that I'll count the three best grades out of the four papers. If you don't do well on the 4th, this does no hurt you, but it can get you a better grade.

(c) If your final average is between two grades (say, between B+ and A-), if you write a 4th paper, I'll give you the better grade.

04/10/05: More help with some of the paper topics.

Question 1:

You probably should at least read the long MacFarlane handout I drew your attention to last Tuesday. Here is the link again: http://philosophy.berkeley.edu/macfarlane/142/tarski-definitions.pdf. You probably should also look at my handout on Tarski's theory of truth at the Notes and Handouts section of the website. The actual article in the Martinich reader is long and tedious, but you should focus on the first half of the article and especially on section 4. Also, Tarski explicitly addresses the question of how his theory relates to the redundancy theory in section 16. I also give you a link to a very good (longish) summary of Tarski at the end of my handout.

Question 2:

Here again, as in some of the questions in the last round, "Fregean" means "internalist". What the question asks you to do is elaborate on Searle's claim that indexicals can be explained in an internalist manner. Searle talked a bit about this in class (the famous causal self-referentiality is used heavily here), and I also talked about this at section, but the crucial text is pp. 218-230 of his Intentionality.

Question 3:

You can write either on Grice alone or on the similarities and differences between Grice's and Searle's account. If you opt for the former, just read the not too difficult Grice article in the Martinich book, which is only ten pages (pp. 165-175). Also, chapter 13 of the Lycan textbook is a very good and clear summary of Grice's theory. If you do the comparison, then read Searle's article on Indirect Speech Acts (also in the Martinich book, conveniently following Grice's article.

Question 4, Question 5:

Here, the most important text is the Background chapter of Intentionality (pp. 141-159). This topic may look very simple, but in fact it is a can of worms (you may want to look at the Background section of the book Searle and his critics to see how much it is a can of worms). A link you may find useful: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/thebackground.html It's a rather oversimplifying summary, but it's a useful start.

Question 6, Question 7:

Searle did not cover these topics at class, so I strongly encourage you not to write on these.

Good luck!

04/09/05: My emergency office hours will take place at 2pm at the lovely Café Strada on Monday the 11^th of April.

04/1/05: A bit of help with some of the paper topics, so that you can start working.

Question 1:

You may want to have a look at my handout on Tarski's theory of truth at the Notes and Handouts section of the website. The actual article in the Martinich reader is long and tedious, but you should focus on the first half of the article and especially on section 4. Also, Tarski explicitly addresses the question of how his theory relates to the redundancy theory in section 16. I also give you a link to a very good (longish) summary of Tarski at the end of my handout.

Question 2:

Question 3:

Well, we have not talked about this, but Searle told me that he would spend some time on this on Tuesday. But you can easily write this paper if you read the not too difficult Grice article in the Martinich book, which is only ten pages (pp. 165-175). Also, chapter 13 of the Lycan textbook is a very good and clear summary of Grice's theory.

Question 5:

Question 4, Question 6, Question 7:

Searle did not cover these topics at class, so I strongly encourage you not to write on these.

Good luck!

03/31/05: A new handout on Tarski's theory of truth is now at the Notes and Handouts section of the website. Check it out.

03/30/05: My office hours this week: Thu1-2, Thu 3.30-4.30 Pat Brown Café.

03/29/05: The next emergency OH: Wednesday the 6^th of April from 4pm Café Strada.

03/10/05: Emergency OH: Sunday 10.30-11.30 (am) Café Strada.

03/10/05: A bit of help with the five paper topics: where to turn if you got stuck.

Question 1:

The best reader on this topic is Logicism and the philosophy of Language edited by A. Sullivan (2003). It has a good introduction and very good selections of texts from Frege and Russell. The crucial text in the Martinich reader on Russell's account is around p. 217. There's very little on Frege's suggestion about this in your readings, but we have talked about it at section (hint: this was the indirect sense/indirect reference business). When analyzing Russell's account, make sure that you mention his primary/secondary occurance distinction.

Question 2:

Make sure that you mention Russell's two possible readings of the sentence. The crucial text in the Martinich reader on Russell's distinction is around p. 218. The Lycan book has a good introductory text on exactly the question you need to answer on pp. 13-26. Again, you can have a look at Logicism and the philosophy of Language edited by A. Sullivan (2003). You CANNOT answer this question unless you have read the Strawson article.

Question 3:

Note that 'Frege' in the prompt is to be understood as 'the internalist'. For a beginner's introduction see the Lycan textbook pp. 66-68. You should read Searle's classic text too which is in his Intentionality, pp. 197-231. See also his other (much shorter) relevant chapter in the same book on pp. 262-272. And of course the Putnam classic in your Martinich reader. You may also find it useful to look at Putnam's other classic, called Brains in a vat, which is available online, so I'm sure you can find it with google. If not, I would be happy to send you the link.

Question 4:

The Lycan textbook has a very nice and brief summary (pp. 26-31). See also Searle in his Expression and Meaning (a longish article pp. 137-161). But if you do choose this topic, DO READ the original Donnellan paper (in the Martinich reader).

Question 5:

Note that 'Frege' in the prompt is to be understood as 'the internalist'. Again, the Lycan textbook is a good starting point, its third chapter is entirely on proper names and Kripke's account is explained and analyzed on pp. 52-66. His critique of Searle's account is on pp. 43-48. Searle's account is right before that. The Kripke text you find in the Martinich reader is a compilation, which covers pretty much those pointsyou need to cover, but you may want to look at the uncut original if you write on this topic.

03/05/05: My office hours this week: Thu1-2, Thu 3.30-4.30 Pat Brown Café.

03/04/05: A new handout on Externalism and Internalism about Meaning is now at the Notes and Handouts section of the website. Check it out.

02/22/05: A new handout on Frege's sense/reference distinction and his solution to the problem of predication is now at the Notes and Handouts section of the website.

02/22/05: I'm about to hand you back your first paper, so a word on my policy for handling complaints about the grade. You are more than welcome to make your case for a better grade. You can do so by email or live. You have a certain time window for doing so, though, which starts 24 hours after you get back your paper and ends a week after you get back your paper.

02/21/05: Office hour this week: Thu 1-2, at the Pat Brown café, which is just in front of the lecture theatre.

02/11/05, Valentine's Day: I forgot to mention the issue of plagiarism. Well, don't do it, if you don't want to get an F. I have a special plagiarism-tracking device that never fails, so don't even try.

02/11/05: So about the paper: The maximum length is THREE pages, double spaced, times new roman font, 12 points. No tricks with the margins please. Also, as I mentioned at class, if you recapitulate the arguments in the book in a clear, well-organized manner, you can get an A-. If you want an A, you need some original contribution.

02/07/05: My emergency office hours next week, that is, the day before the paper is due is on Monday from 2.30-4.00. This should be early enough for you to be able to write your paper and then go on your Valentine's Day date afterwards. Good luck (with both).

02/06/05: My office hours this week will be on Thursday. 1pm - 2pm and 3.30pm -4.30pm. Note that they will NOT take place in Café Strada, but in the café next to the entrance of the lecture theatre.

02/05/05: About the papers: Quite a few people asked me whether I would be willing to read outlines or drafts of your papers. The answer is: I am happy to read outlines, but not drafts. For bridging the gap between the outline and the draft, please read my little handout on HOW TO WRITE A PHILOSOPHY PAPER at the Notes and Handouts section of the website.

02/02/05: Another handout, this time on Grice's definition of meaning and on the various objections against it. You can find it under the Notes and Handouts heading.

02/01/05: So we have the paper topics that are due on the 15^th. If you don't have them (which means that you missed lecture today), just Send me an email and I'll give you one.

01/31/05: My handout on Grice's theory of meaning and especially on his distinction between natural and nonnatural meaning is now online. Check the Notes and Handouts section of the website above.

01/29/05: I will hold office hours on Tuesday the 1^st from 3.30pm (right after class) until 5pm in Café Strada (Bancroft and College).

01/21/05: The website is up and running. I hope you like the color.