Arguing and Rejecting

doi:10.1017/9781108766401.020

Part VII - Arguing and Rejecting

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 October 2022

Edited by

Daniel Altshuler

Show author details

Daniel Altshuler: Affiliation:
University of Oxford

Book contents

Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Type: Chapter
Information: Linguistics Meets Philosophy , pp. 381 - 438

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108766401.020 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrusán, M. (2016). Presupposition cancellation: Explaining the ‘soft–hard’ trigger distinction. Natural Language Semantics, 24(2), 165–202.CrossRef Google Scholar

Abrusán, M. (2022). Presuppositions. In Altshuler, D. (Ed.), Linguistics Meets Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Aloni, M. (2007). Free choice, modals, and imperatives. Natural Language Semantics, 15(1), 65–94.Google Scholar

Aloni, M., Beaver, D., Clark, B., & Van Rooij, R. (2007). The dynamics of topic and focus. In Aloni, M., Butler, A., & Dekker, P. (Eds.), Questions in Dynamic Semantics (pp. 123–145). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Altshuler, D. (2016). Events, States and Times: An Essay on Narrative Discourse in English. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Anderson, A. R., Belnap, N. D. Jr., & Dunn, J. M. (2017). Entailment, Vol. II: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Asher, N. (1993). Reference to Abstract Entities. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar

Asher, N., & Gillies, A. (2003). Common ground, corrections, and coordination. Argumentation, 17(4), 481–512.CrossRef Google Scholar

Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Asher, N., & Morreau, M. (1990). Commonsense entailment: A modal theory of nonmonotonic reasoning. In van Eijck, J. (Ed.), European Workshop on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1–30). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Austin, J. L. (1975). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Beaver, D. (1985). Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar

Beaver, D. (2001). Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Beaver, D., & Krahmer, E. (2001). A partial account of presupposition projection. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 10(2), 147.Google Scholar

Belnap, N. D. (1960). Entailment and relevance. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 25(2), 144–146.Google Scholar

Bochvar, D. (1939). Ob odnom trehznachom iscislenii i ego primeneii k analizu paradoksov klassicskogo rassirennogo funkcional ‘nogo iscislenija’. Matematiciskij sbornik, 4(1981), 87–112.Google Scholar

Boghossian, P. (2014). What is inference? Philosophical Studies, 169(1), 1–18.Google Scholar

Bras, M., Le Draoulec, A., & Asher, N. (2009). A formal analysis of the French temporal connective ‘alors’. Oslo Studies in Language, 1(1), 149–170.Google Scholar

Bras, M., Le Draoulec, A., & Vieu, L. (2001a). French adverbial ‘puis’ between temporal structure and discourse structure. Semantic and Pragmatic Issues in Discourse and Dialogue: Experimenting with Current Theories, CRiSPI Series, 9, 109–146.Google Scholar

Bras, M., Le Draoulec, A., & Vieu, L. (2001b). Temporal information and discourse relations in narratives: the role of French connectives ‘puis’ and ‘un peu plus tard’. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Temporal and Spatial Information Processing, Vol. 13 (pp. 7–15). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Brasoveanu, A. (2007). Structured Nominal and Modal Reference. PhD thesis, Rutgers University.Google Scholar

Broome, J. (2013). Rationality through Reasoning. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Charlow, N. (2014). Logic and semantics for imperatives. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 43(4), 617–664.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2000). Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Del Pinal, G. (2021). Probabilistic semantics for epistemic modals: normality assumptions, conditional epistemic spaces, and the strength of ‘must’ and ‘might’. Linguistics and Philosophy, 2021, 1–42.Google Scholar

Dorr, C., & Hawthorne, J. (2013). Embedding epistemic modals. Mind, 122(488), 867–913.Google Scholar

Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2), 321–357.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dutilh Novaes, C. (2021). Argument and argumentation. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall 2021 edition.Google Scholar

Elswyk, P. van (2019). Propositional anaphora. Philosophical Studies, 176(4), 1055–1075.Google Scholar

Fogal, D., Harris, D. W., & Moss, M. (2018). New Work on Speech Acts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gillies, A. (2009). On truth-conditions for if (but not quite only if). Philosophical Review, 118(3), 325–349.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3 (pp. 43–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Groenendijk, J., et al. (2003). Questions and answers: Semantics and logic. In Proceedings of the 2nd CologNET-ElsET Symposium. Questions and Answers: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives (pp. 16–23). Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht.Google Scholar

Groenendijk, J. A. G., & Stokhof, M. J. (1982). Semantic analysis of wh-complements. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5, 175–233.Google Scholar

Hacquard, V., & Wellwood, A. (2012). Embedding epistemic modals in English: A corpus-based study. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5: 4–1.Google Scholar

Hamblin, C. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar

Heim, I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Portner, P. & Partee, B. H. (Eds.), Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings (pp. 249–260). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Heim, J., Keupdjio, H., Lam, Z. W.-M., Osa-Gómez, A., Thoma, S., & Wiltschko, M. (2016). Intonation and particles as speech act modifiers: A syntactic analysis. Studies in Chinese Linguistics, 37(2), 109–129.Google Scholar

Hempel, C. G. (1962). Deductive-nomological vs. statistical explanation. Critica, 1(3), 120–127.Google Scholar

Hobbs, J. R. (1985). On the Coherence and Structure of Discourse. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Horn, L. (1972). The Semantics of Logical Operators in English. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Horn, L. (1985). Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language, 61(1), 121–174.CrossRef Google Scholar

Incurvati, L., & Schlöder, J. J. (2019). Weak assertion. The Philosophical Quarterly, 69(277), 741–770.Google Scholar

Jasinskaja, K., & Karagjosova, E. (2020). Rhetorical relations. In Matthewson, L., Meier, C., Rullmann, H., Zimmermann, T. E., & Gutzmann, D. (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics (pp. 1–29). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar

Karttunen, L. (1973). Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry, 4(2), 169–193.Google Scholar

Karttunen, L. (1974). Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics, 1, 181–94.Google Scholar

Kaufmann, S. (2000). Dynamic context management. In Faller, M., Kaufmann, S., & Pauly, M. (Eds.), Formalizing the Dynamics of Information, pages 171–188. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Kocurek, W. A., & Pavese, C. (2021). The dynamics of argumentative discourse. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 51(2), 413–456.Google Scholar

Koralus, P., & Mascarenhas, S. (2013). The erotetic theory of reasoning: Bridges between formal semantics and the psychology of deductive inference. Philosophical Perspectives, 27, 312–365.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kratzer, A. (1977). What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1(3), 337–355.Google Scholar

Kratzer, A. (2002). The notional category of modality. In Portner, P. & Partee, B. H. (Eds.), Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings (pp. 289–323). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Krifka, M. (2013). Response particles as propositional anaphors. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 23, 1–18.Google Scholar

Le Draoulec, A., & Bras, M. (2007). ‘Alors’ as a possible temporal connective in discourse. In de Saussure, L., Moeschler, J., & Puskas, G. (Eds.), Tense, Mood and Aspect (pp. 81–94). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Lewis, D. (1972). General semantics. In Davidson, D. & Harman, G. (Eds.), Semantics of natural language (pp. 169–218). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Longino, H. (1978). Inferring. Philosophy Research Archives, 4, 17–26.Google Scholar

MacColl, H. (1908). ‘If’ and ‘Imply’. Mind, 17(67), 453–455.Google Scholar

Mandelkern, M. (2016). Dissatisfaction theory. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 26, 391–416.Google Scholar

Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behaviorial and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–74.Google Scholar

Meyer, J.-J. C., & van der Hoek, W. (1993). A default logic based on epistemic states. In European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty (pp. 265–273). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Morreau, M. (1992). Epistemic semantics for counterfactuals. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 21(1), 33–62.CrossRef Google Scholar

Murray, S. (2014). Varieties of update. Semantics and Pragmatics, 7, 2–1.Google Scholar

Murray, S., & Starr, W. (2018). Force and conversational states. In Fogal, D., Harris, D., & Moss, M. (Eds.), New Work on Speech Acts (pp. 202–236). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Murray, S., & Starr, W. (2020). The structure of communicative acts. Linguistics and Philosophy, 44(2), 425–474.Google Scholar

Needham, S. M. (2012). Propositional Anaphora in English: The Relationship between ‘So’ and Discourse. PhD thesis, Carleton University.Google Scholar

Neta, R. (2013). What is an inference? Philosophical Issues, 23(1), 388–407.Google Scholar

Papafragou, A. (2006). Epistemic modality and truth conditions. Lingua, 116(10), 1688–1702.Google Scholar

Parsons, J. (2011). Cognitivism about imperatives. Analysis, 72(1), 49–54.Google Scholar

Parsons, J. (2013). Command and consequence. Philosophical Studies, 164(1), 61–92.Google Scholar

Parsons, T. (1996). What is an argument? The Journal of Philosophy, 93(4), 164–185.Google Scholar

Pavese, C. (2017). On the meaning of “therefore”. Analysis, 77(1), 88–97.Google Scholar

Pavese, C. (2021). Lewis Carroll’s regress and the presuppositional structure of arguments. Linguistics and Philosophy, 45(1), 1–38.CrossRef Google Scholar

Pearson, H. (2010). A modification of the ‘hey, wait a minute’ test. Snippets, 22, 7–8.Google Scholar

Pollock, J. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11(4), 481–518.Google Scholar

Pollock, J. (1991a). Self-defeating arguments. Minds and Machines, 1(4), 367–392.Google Scholar

Pollock, J. (1991b). A theory of defeasible reasoning. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 6(1), 33–54.CrossRef Google Scholar

Pollock, J. (2010). Defeasible reasoning and degrees of justification. Argument and Computation, 1(1), 7–22.Google Scholar

Portner, P. (2004). The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 14, 235–252.Google Scholar

Portner, P. (2007). Imperatives and modals. Natural Language Semantics, 15(4), 351–383.Google Scholar

Potts, C. (2007). Into the conventional-implicature dimension. Philosophy Compass, 2(4), 665–679.CrossRef Google Scholar

Potts, C. (2015). Presupposition and implicature. The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, 2, 168–202.CrossRef Google Scholar

Prakken, H. (2010). An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation, 1(2), 93–124.Google Scholar

Railton, P. (1978). A deductive-nomological model of probabilistic explanation. Philosophy of Science, 45(2), 206–226.Google Scholar

Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In Yoon, J.-H. & Kathol, A. (Eds.), OSU Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol 49: Papers in Semantics. Columbus: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar

Rumfitt, I. (2015). The Boundary Stones of Thought: An Essay in the Philosophy of Logic. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Schwager, M. (2006). Conditionalized imperatives. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 16, 241–258.Google Scholar

Searle, J., & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In Portner, P. & Partee, B. H. (Eds.), Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings (pp. 147–161). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Starr, W. (2014a). A uniform theory of conditionals. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 43(6), 1019–1064.Google Scholar

Starr, W. (2014b). What ‘if’? Philosophers’ Imprint, 14(10), 1–27.Google Scholar

Starr, W. (2020). A preference semantics for imperatives. Semantics and Pragmatics, 13(6), http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.13.6 CrossRef Google Scholar

Stojnić, U. (2022). Anatomy of arguments in natural language discourse. In Lepore, E. & Sosa, D. (Eds.), Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Language (pp. 184–233). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Stokke, A. (2017). Conventional implicature, presupposition, and lying. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 91(1), 127–147.Google Scholar

Vaassen, B., & Sandgren, A. (2021). And therefore. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2021.2010430 Google Scholar

van Eemeren, F., & Grootendorst, R. (1982). The speech acts of arguing and convincing in externalized discussions. Journal of Pragmatics, 6(1), 1–24.Google Scholar

van Eemeren, F., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Veltman, F. (1985). Logics for Conditionals. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Veltman, F. (1996). Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25(3), 221–261.Google Scholar

von Fintel, K., & Gillies, A. (2007). An opinionated guide to epistemic modality. In Gendler, T. S. & Hawthorne, J. (Eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 2 (pp. 32–62). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

von Fintel, K., & Gillies, A. (2010). Must… stay… strong! Natural Language Semantics, 18(4), 351–383.Google Scholar

Walton, D. (1990). What is reasoning? What is an argument? The Journal of Philosophy, 87(8), 399–419.CrossRef Google Scholar

Wan, H., Grosof, B., Kifer, M., Fodor, P., & Liang, S. (2009). Logic programming with defaults and argumentation theories. In International Conference on Logic Programming (pp. 432–448). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Wayne, D. (2014). Implicature. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/implicature/Google Scholar

Westmoreland, R. (1998). Information and Intonation in Natural Language Modality. PhD thesis, Indiana University.Google Scholar

Weydert, E. (1995). Default entailment. In Annual Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 173–184). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Willer, M. (2013). Dynamics of epistemic modality. Philosophical Review, 122(1), 45–92.Google Scholar

Yalcin, S. (2005). A puzzle about epistemic modals. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 51, 231–272.Google Scholar

References

Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bendall, K. (1979). Negation as a sign of negative judgment. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 20(1), 68–76.Google Scholar

Bledin, J., & Rawlins, K. (2016). Epistemic resistance moves. In Moroney, M., Little, C. R., Collard, J., & Burgdorf, D. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 26 (pp. 620–640).Google Scholar

Brandom, R. (1983). Asserting. Noûs, 17(4), 637–650.Google Scholar

Brandom, R. (1994). Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Bussière, L. (n.d.). Dissent and Rejection. Unpublished manuscript, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Cappelen, H. (2011). Against assertion. In Brown, J. & Cappelen, H. (Eds.), Assertion: New Philosophical Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Carston, R. (1996). Metalinguistic negation and echoic use. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 309–330.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cohen, A., & Krifka, M. (2014). Superlative quantifiers and meta-speech acts. Linguistics and Philosophy, 37(1), 41–90.Google Scholar

Dickie, I. (2010). Negation, anti-realism, and the denial defence. Philosophical Studies, 150(2), 161–185.Google Scholar

Dummett, M. (1991). The Logical Basis of Metaphysics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Farkas, D. F, & Bruce, K. B. (2010). On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics, 27(1), 81–118.CrossRef Google Scholar

Frege, G. (1879). Begriffsschrift: Eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Halle: Louis Nebert.Google Scholar

Frege, G. (1919). Die Verneinung: Eine logische Untersuchung. Beiträge zur Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus, 1, 143–157.Google Scholar

Frege, G. (1923). Gedankengefüge. Beiträge zur Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus, 3(1), 36–51.Google Scholar

Geach, P. T. (1958). Imperative and deontic logic. Analysis, 18(3), 49–56.Google Scholar

Geach, P. T. (1965). Assertion. The Philosophical Review, 74(4), 449–465.CrossRef Google Scholar

Geach, P. T., and Black, M. (Eds). (1952). Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Geurts, B. (1998). The mechanisms of denial. Language, 74(2), 274–307.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1991). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Hindriks, F. (2007). The status of the knowledge account of assertion. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(3), 393–406.Google Scholar

Horn, L. (1989). A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Incurvati, L., & Schlöder, J. J. (2017). Weak rejection. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 95(4), 741–760.Google Scholar

Incurvati, L., & Schlöder, J. J. (2019). Weak assertion. The Philosophical Quarterly, 69, 741–770.Google Scholar

Kaufmann, M. (2012). Interpreting Imperatives. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Krifka, M. (2013). Response particles as propositional anaphors. In Snider, T. (Ed.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 23 (pp. 1–18).Google Scholar

Krifka, M. (2015). Bias in commitment space semantics: Declarative questions, negated quetions, and question tags. In D’Antonio, S., Moroney, M., & Little, C. R. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 25 (pp. 328–345).Google Scholar

Lackey, J. (2007). Norms of assertion. Noûs, 41(4), 594–626.Google Scholar

MacFarlane, J. (2011). What is assertion. In Brown, J. & Cappelen, H. (Eds.), Assertion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Maitra, I. (2011). Assertion, norms, and games. In Brown, J. & Cappelen, H. (Eds.), Assertion: New Philosophical Essays. (pp. 277–296). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Meijer, A. M., Claus, B., Repp, S., & Krifka, M. (2015). Particle responses to negated assertions: Preference patterns for German ja and nein. In Proceedings of the 20th Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 286–295).Google Scholar

Murray, S. E. (2009). A Hamblin semantics for evidentials. In Cormany, E., Ito, S., & Lutz, D. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 19 (pp. 324–341).Google Scholar

Murray, S. E, & Starr, W. B. (2018). Force and conversational states. In Fogal, D., Harris, D. W., & Moss, M. (Eds.), New Work on Speech Acts (pp. 202–236). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Portner, P. (2018a). Commitment to priorities. In In Fogal, D., Harris, D. W., & Moss, M. (Eds.), New Work on Speech Acts (pp. 296–316). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Portner, P. (2018b). Mood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Price, H. (1990). Why ‘not’? Mind, 99(394), 221–238.Google Scholar

Price, H. (1998). Three norms of assertibility, or how the MOA became extinct. Philosophical Perspectives, 12, 241–254.Google Scholar

Priest, G. (2006). Doubt Truth to Be a Liar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Roberts, C. (2012). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5(6), 1–69.Google Scholar

Rumfitt, I. (2000). “Yes” and “No”. Mind, 109(436), 781–823.Google Scholar

Rumfitt, I. (2014). Truth and meaning. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 88(1), 21–55.Google Scholar

Schlöder, J. J., & Fernández, R. (2019). How to reject what in dialogue. In Howes, C., Hough, J., & Kenning, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue – Full Papers.Google Scholar

Schlöder, J. J., & Fernández, R. (2015). Pragmatic rejection. In Purver, M., Sadrzadeh, M., & Stone, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computational Semantics (pp. 250–260).Google Scholar

Schlöder, J. J., Venant, A., & Asher, N. (2017). Aligning intentions: Acceptance and rejection in dialogue. Sinn und Bedeutung 21, 1073–1090.Google Scholar

Schroeder, M. (2008). What is the Frege–Geach Problem? Philosophy Compass, 3(4), 703–720.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Smiley, T. (1996). Rejection. Analysis, 56(1), 1–9.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In Cole, P. (Ed.), Pragmatics (Syntax and Semantics 9). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

von Fintel, K., & Gillies, A. (2007). An opinionated guide to epistemic modality. In Gendler, T. S. & Hawthorne, J. (Eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology, Vol. 2 (pp. 32–62). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

von Fintel, K., & Iatridou, S. (2017). A modest proposal for the meaning of imperatives. In. Arregui, A., Rivero, M., & Salanova, A. P. (Eds.), Modality across Syntactic Categories (pp. 288–319). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Weiner, M. (2007). Norms of assertion. Philosophy Compass, 2(2), 187–195.Google Scholar

Williamson, T. (1996). Knowing and asserting. Philosophical Review, 105(4), 489–523.Google Scholar

Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and Its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Yalcin, S. (2018). Expressivism by force. In Fogal, D., Harris, D. W., & Moss, M. (Eds.), New Work on Speech Acts (pp. 400–426). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Book contents

Part VII - Arguing and Rejecting

Summary

Access options

References

References

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive