00386 - Philosophy of Language

Learning outcomes

Tthe student has acquired a first knowledge of the philosophy of contemporary language.

Course contents

PLEASE NOTE: the complete course contents desciription is to be found in the syllabus

Introduction to Philosophy of Language

This introductory course on the philosophy of language will examine the contemporary debate on the nature of meaning and reference. The course will touch on topics such as the relationship between language, logic, knowledge and reality. In the last part of the course some pragmatic elements will be dealt with by deepening the relationship between the language and the acts performed through its use. No knowledge of logic or linguistics is presupposed.

The course will take place dealing with the different themes through the analysis of some central works in the analytic philosophy of language The two macrothemes treated and their authors are:

I) Meaning and reference, names and descriptions (Frege, Russell, Quine, Kripke, Putnam, Strawson, Donnellan, Perry, Lewis)

II) Pragmatics: speech acts and presuppositions (Austin, Grice, Lewis).

III) Presuppositions and attitude ascriptions (von Fintel, Yablo, Perry, Lewis) [only for 9 credits course]

 

The complete syllabus (complete bibliography, exam methods, lesson calendar, etc.) will be available on IOL e-learning.

Class schedule

IV period: Monday 11am-1pm, Wednsday h. 11am-1pm, Thursday 5pm-7pm (aula Tibiletti)

Readings/Bibliography

We will not use a manual, but we will read classics directly. The course will deal with the themes  that are treated in the following texts (during the course the exact reading list will be defined).

1. Gottlob Frege, “ Uber Sinn und Bedeutung” in Zeitschrift f ur
   Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 100 (1892), pp-25-50, rist. in G. Frege Kleine Schriften, a cura di I. Angelelli, Hildesheim, Olms,
   1990. Trad. it. di E. Picardi, “Senso e significato” in Senso, funzione
   e concetto. Scritti filosofici. a cura di C. Penco e E. Picardi, Bari,
   Laterza, 2001, (si consiglia la seconda II ristampa con correzioni
   refusi). Ristampato in in P. Casalegno, P. Frascolla, A. Iacona,
   E. Paganini, M. Santambrogio (a cura di), Filosofia del linguaggio,
   Milano: Raffaello Cortina, 2003, pp.18-41.
2. Bertrand Russell, “On Denoting”, Mind, 14: 479-493, 1905.
   Trad. it di A. Bonomi “Sulla denotazione” in in A. Bonomi (a
   cura di), La struttura logica del linguaggio, Milano: Bompiani, 1973,
   pp.179-195.
3. Bertrand Russell, “Descriptions” in Introduction to
   Mathematical Philosophy, London: George Allen and Unwin; New
   York: The Macmillan Company, 1919, pp.179-95.
   Trad. it. di A. Meotti “Le descrizioni” in L. Linsky (a cura di)
   Semantica e filosofia del linguaggio, Milano: Il Saggiatore, 1969,
   pp.133-148; rist. in P. Casalegno, P. Frascolla, A. Iacona, E. Paga-
   nini, M. Santambrogio (a cura di), Filosofia del linguaggio, Milano:
   Raffaello Cortina, 2003, pp.43-56. WIllard V.O. Quine “On What there is”, Review of Metaphysics 2 (5):21-36, 1948. ristampato con aggiunte in W.V.O. Quine, From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge (Mass.), Trad. it di P. Valore “Che cosa c’è” in Da un punto di vista logico.Saggi logico-filosofici. Cortina, Milano, 2004, pp.13-33; rist. in P. Casalegno, P. Frascolla, A. Iacona, E. Paganini, M. Santambrogio (a cura di), Filosofia del linguaggio, Milano: Raffaello Cortina, 2003.
4. Peter Frederick Strawson, 1950a, “On Referring”, Mind, 59:320-
   344. Trad. it. di G. Usberti “Sul riferimento” in Andrea Bonomi (a
   cura di), La struttura logica del linguaggio, Milano: Bompiani, 1973,
   pp. 197-224.
5. Keith Donnellan, “Reference and Definite Descriptions,” The
   Philosophical Review 75 (1966):281-304. Trad. It. in A. Bonomi (a cura di), La struttura logica del linguaggio, Milano: Bompiani, 1973, pp.225-248.
6. Saul Kripke (selezione), “Naming and Necessity” in A. P. Martinich (a
   cura di) The Philosophy of Language, IV ed., New York: Oxford
   University Press, 2001 (selezione da Saul Kripke Naming and Necessity , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980),
   selezione di pagine (si veda sotto nella trad. it). Trad. it di M. Santambrogio “Nomi e riferimento” in P. Casalegno, P. Frascolla, A. Iacona, E. Paganini, M. Santambrogio (a cura di), Filosofia del linguaggio, Milano: Raffaello Cortina, 2003, pp.151-17; selezione da S. Kripke, Nome e necessità, Torino: Bollati Boringhieri, tr. it. di M. Santambrogio, 1999, pp.29-39, 42-51, 71-85, 89-95, 98-101.
7. Hilary Putnam (selezione) “The meaning of ’meaning’ ” Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 7:131-193 (1975); tra it. “Il significato di ‘significato’ ”. Trad. it. in in H. Putnam Mente, linguaggio e realtà, Milano: Adelphi, 1987, pp.239-297.
8. Saul Kripke. Speaker's reference and semantic reference. In Peter A. French, Theodore E. Uehling Jr & Howard K. Wettstein (eds.), Studies in the Philosophy of Language. University of Minnesota Press., 1977, pp. 255-296.
9. John L. Austin. Performative Utterances. In J. O. Urmson & G. J. Warnock (eds.), Philosophical Papers. Clarendon Press, 1961.
10. Paul H.Grice, "Logic and Conversation," Syntax and Semantics, vol.3 edited by P. Cole and J. Morgan, Academic Press, 1975. Trad it. in Logica e conversazione, Bologna: Il Mulino, 1993.
    
11. David Lewis (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1):339--359.
12. von Fintel, Kai (2004). Would you Believe It? The King of France is Back! (Presuppositions and Truth-Value Intuitions). In Marga Reimer & Anne Bezuidenhout (eds.),Descriptions and Beyond. Clarendon Press.
13. Yablo, Stephen (2006). Non-catastrophic presupposition failure. In Judith Jarvis Thomson & Alex Byrne (eds.),Content and Modality: Themes From the Philosophy of Robert Stalnaker. Oxford University Press.
14. Perry, John (1979). The problem of the essential indexical.Noûs 13 (1):3-21.
15. Lewis, David (1979). Attitudes de dicto and de se. Philosophical Review 88 (4):513-543.

Teaching methods

Together with the standard classroom lectures, I will employ quizzies on the elearning system and I will experiment the teaching method of peer instruction.

Assessment methods

EXAM

The exam will consist in the elaboration of a written essay. The length of the paper is diversified depending on whether you are attending or not.

• ATTENDANTS short essay: at least 1500 words and no more than 3000 words (all inclusive: name, surname, serial number, course of study, title, bibliography.)
• NON-ATTENDANTS long essay: at least 3000 words and not more than 4000 words (all inclusive: name, surname, serial number, course of study, title, bibliography.

 EVALUATION CRITERIA

I will use these criteria to determine the following assessment thresholds:

30 and praise excellent proof, both in knowledge and in the critical and expressive articulation.

30 excellent test, complete knowledge, well articulated and correctly expressed, with some critical ideas.


27-29 good test, comprehensive and satisfactory knowledge, substantially correct expression.


24-26 discrete test, knowledge present in the substantial points, but not exhaustive and not always correctly articulated.


21-23 sufficient proof, knowledge present in a sometimes superficial way, but the general thread is understood. Short and often inappropriate and incomplete expression and articulation.


18-21 superficial knowledge, the common thread is not understood with continuity. The expression and the articulation of the discourse also have significant gaps.


<18 insufficient evidence, absent or very incomplete knowledge, lack of orientation in the discipline, defective and inappropriate expression. Examination not passed.

Teaching tools

Slides, elearning and Wooclap software for the peer instruction method.

Office hours

See the website of Sebastiano Moruzzi