A Mental Spaces Analysis of the Answering Machine Paradox: The Agent of the Context of Utterance Revisited
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Kaplan (1989a) claims that sentence P (I am here now) is logically true – i.e. true in every context of utterance. Its negation ~P (I am not here now) would then be logically false. Vision (1985), however, argued that ~P uttered in a voice message apparently stands for a true proposition. In the literature, this puzzle is called the Answering Machine Paradox (AMP) and has received the continuous attention of philosophers. Some scholars identify the reference of ‘I’ in the recording context. Others argue that the reference of ‘I’ is determined by elements such as the speaker’s intention, the linguistically competent and attentive audience, and the convention in which an answering machine is used. In any case, previous works hold, just like Kaplan, that the agent of ~P (and P) should be an individual and therefore that there is no agent in the playback context. In this position, the case of AMP would then be dismissed as an ‘improper utterance’, which goes beyond the scope of Kaplan’s theory. This paper provides a novel analysis of this philosophical issue from a cognitive scientific perspective, using the mental spaces framework. AMP is explained in two steps. The key proposal made in the first step is to introduce the agent of the utterance with one’s logical identity but without his/her physical identity (Agent_log). This notion of Agent_log is given a theoretical basis in terms of a cognitive blend of mental spaces. In the second step, the voice message involves a pragmatic mapping from the Agent_log to a relevant individual, who is the ultimate reference of ‘I’. The apparent puzzle in question is attributed to Kaplan’s empirical assumption that the agent should be an individual, as in a face-to-face communication. With the introduction of the notion of Agent_log, a wider range of messages can be accommodated as proper utterances and Kaplan’s theory of indexicals is essentially defended.
Abstract
Kaplan (1989a) claims that sentence P (I am here now) is logically true – i.e. true in every context of utterance. Its negation ~P (I am not here now) would then be logically false. Vision (1985), however, argued that ~P uttered in a voice message apparently stands for a true proposition. In the literature, this puzzle is called the Answering Machine Paradox (AMP) and has received the continuous attention of philosophers. Some scholars identify the reference of ‘I’ in the recording context. Others argue that the reference of ‘I’ is determined by elements such as the speaker’s intention, the linguistically competent and attentive audience, and the convention in which an answering machine is used. In any case, previous works hold, just like Kaplan, that the agent of ~P (and P) should be an individual and therefore that there is no agent in the playback context. In this position, the case of AMP would then be dismissed as an ‘improper utterance’, which goes beyond the scope of Kaplan’s theory. This paper provides a novel analysis of this philosophical issue from a cognitive scientific perspective, using the mental spaces framework. AMP is explained in two steps. The key proposal made in the first step is to introduce the agent of the utterance with one’s logical identity but without his/her physical identity (Agent_log). This notion of Agent_log is given a theoretical basis in terms of a cognitive blend of mental spaces. In the second step, the voice message involves a pragmatic mapping from the Agent_log to a relevant individual, who is the ultimate reference of ‘I’. The apparent puzzle in question is attributed to Kaplan’s empirical assumption that the agent should be an individual, as in a face-to-face communication. With the introduction of the notion of Agent_log, a wider range of messages can be accommodated as proper utterances and Kaplan’s theory of indexicals is essentially defended.
참고문헌 (33)
- Åkerman, J, "Indexicals and reference-shifting: towards a pragmatic approach", Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, pp.12216~ (2015)[DOI]
- Austin, J., "How to do things with words" (1975), Harvard University Press
- Bianchi, C, "How to do with (recorded) words", Philosophical Studies, 167, pp.485~495 (2014)
- Cohen, J, "Indexicality and The Puzzle of the Answering Machine", Journal of Philosophy, 110, pp.5~32 (2013)
- Cohen, J., "Indexicality and The Answering Machine Paradox", Philosophy Compass, 8, pp.580~592 (2013)
- Corazza, E. Fish, W., "Who is I?", Philosophical Studies, 107, pp.1~21 (2002)
- Colterjohn, J., "Gerald Vision and indexicals", Analysis, 47, pp.58~60 (1987)
- Fauconnier, G., "Mental Spaces" (1994), Cambridge University Press
- Fauconnier, G., "Mappings in Thought and Language" (1997), Cambridge University Press
- Goffman, E., "Forms of talk" (1981), University of Pennsylvania Press
- Hiraga, M, "Blending and an interpretation of haiku: a cognitive approach", Poetics Today, 20, pp.461~481 (1999)
- Kaplan, D., "Themes from Kaplan", pp.481~563 (1989), Oxford University Press
- Kaplan, D., "Themes from Kaplan", pp.565~614 (1989), Oxford University Press
- McCawley, J. D, "Participant roles, frames, and speech acts", Linguistics and Philosophy, 22, pp.595~619 (1999)
- Michaelson, E, "Shifty characters", Philosophical Studies, 167, pp.519~540 (2014)
- Mount. A, "The impurity of “pure” indexicals", Philosophical Studies, 138, pp.193~209 (2008)
- Nunberg, G., "The pragmatics of reference" (1978), Indiana University Linguistic Club
- Nunberg, G, "Indexicality and dexis", Linguistics and Philosophy, 16, pp.1~43 (1993)
- Predelli, S, "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today", Analysis, 56, pp.85~91 (1996)
- Predelli, S, "I am not here now", Analysis, 58, pp.107~115 (1998)
- Predelli, S, "Intentions, indexicals, and communication", Analysis, 62, pp.310~316 (2002)
- Predelli, S, "I am still not here now", Erkenntnis, 74, pp.289~303 (2011)
- Romdenh-Romluc, K., "I. Philosophical Studies", 128, pp.257~283 (2006)
- Rubba, J., "Spaces, Worlds and Grammar", pp.227~261 (1996), University of Chicago Press
- Sidelle, N, "The answering machine paradox", Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 21, pp.525~539 (1991)
- Simpson, P, "Here and now", Analysis, 47, pp.61~62 (1987)
- Stevens, G, "Utterance at a distance", Philosophical Studies, 143, pp.213~221 (2008)
- Turner, M., "Conceptual integration and formal expression", Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10, pp.183~204 (1995)
- Veale, T., "Computation for Metaphors, Analogy, and Agents", pp.37~51 (1999), Springer
- Vision, G, "I am here now", Analysis, 45, pp.198~199 (1985)
- Vision, G, "Antiphon", Analysis, 47, pp.124~128 (1987)
- Voltolini, A, "Fiction as a base of interpretation contexts", Synthese, 153, pp.123~147 (2006)
- Whitsey, M., "Discourse context and indexicality", Proceedings of the 4th International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modeling and Using Context (CONTEXT2003), pp.356~386 (2003), Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2680