What Are the Pragmatics of Explanation?
- PDF / 667,489 Bytes
- 21 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 99 Downloads / 221 Views
What Are the Pragmatics of Explanation? John W. Carroll1
© Springer Nature B.V. 2020
Abstract An enticing view about explanation consists of two theses. First, there is the Relevance Thesis, the thesis that the truth of explanation sentences depends on a contextually selected relevance relation. The idea is that whether an utterance is true depends on what factors the context counts as relevant. Second, there is the Contrastivity Thesis, the thesis that the truth of explanation sentences depends on a contextually determined contrastive focus. This metalinguistic view is enticing, and elements of it have been defended by van Fraassen (1980), Woodward (1984), Schaffer (2005a; 2013), and others. Nevertheless, the enticing view is flawed; both the Contrastivity Thesis and the Relevance Thesis are mistaken. Keywords Explanation · Relevance · Contrastivity · Context · Presupposition “The Pragmatics of Explanation”, the fifth chapter of Bas van Fraassen’s The Scientific Image provides a useful basis for an enticing view consisting of two theses, each of which identifies a source of context dependence regarding unadorned1 explanation sentences. First, there is the Relevance Thesis, the thesis that the truth of these sentences depends on a contextually selected relevance relation. Consider: (1) This conductor is warped because the switch was thrown. The idea is that whether an utterance of this sentence is true will depend on what factors the context of utterance counts as relevant. Sentence (1) may be perfectly true in a context in which what is being looked for is a change leading up to the warping. Yet, this same sentence may be false in contexts in which what is being looked for is a standing condition leading up to the warping (cf. van Fraassen 1980, 142). Second, there is the Contrastivity Thesis, the thesis that the truth of the unadorned explanation sentences depends on a contextually deter‑ mined contrastive focus for the explanandum. So, for example, consider the sentence: 1 As will become clear, the unadorned explanation sentences are, roughly, the declarative ones without cleft, emphasis, or an explicit contrastive focus.
* John W. Carroll [email protected] 1
Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, NC State University, Raleigh, NC 27695‑8103, USA
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
J. W. Carroll
(2) Adam ate the apple because he was hungry. According to the Contrastivity Thesis, the propositions expressed by Sentence (2) in given contexts are revealed by corresponding explicitly contrastive sentences. Here are two of many possible examples: (2a) Adam ate the apple, rather than give it back to Eve, because he was hungry. (2b) Adam ate the apple, rather than some other fruit in the garden, because he was hungry. According to the Contrastivity Thesis, whether an utterance of an explanation sentence is true will depend on what focus is picked out by the context. While Sentence (2) might be true in a context that selects the focus made explicit in (2a), it might be false if uttered in a context that selects th
Data Loading...
