Welcome! and syllabus

Here is our course blog. I will email you when a new post is up. Feel free to comment on anything. I will consider it as class participation. Do not worry about making a smart or interesting comment. This stuff is some of the toughest material in all of philosophy (and academia in general).

Here is our course syllabus (I will correct it as we go :-))

Instructor Information:          
Dr. David Alexander
Phone:  359-4305 

Email: dalexander@huntington.edu

Office Location: LB 223
Office Hours: Email me for a specific time, or I will be on campus all day MWF (roughly 9-5).  Please feel free to stop by my office anytime I am in it.  

Course Description:                
There are a number of ways to approach language and many of these ways overlap.  A scientific study of language may include a number of examples of different languages in order to attempt to discover universal laws that govern language use or language acquisition.  Such studies may even get mixed-up with neuroscience and attempt to discover various brain patterns associated with language use.  A different sort of scientific study may attempt to explicate the various preconditions necessary for language use and try to distinguish human language from others sorts of language.  Some linguists focus on very narrow areas and attempt to uncover the hidden structure of certain linguistic forms.  

Philosophers interested in language may (or may not) be interested in the findings in each of the above (and more) areas of inquiry.  However, a philosophical approach to language often deals with different kinds of concerns.  For example, while scientists and some linguists may presuppose that language is a vehicle for communication, philosophers may wonder exactly how this works and whether language is necessary for communication. Philosophers are also interested in uncovering the hidden structure of various linguistic items and putting such discoveries to work in other areas of philosophical inquiry.  

In this course, we will try to tackle some of the most interesting philosophical issues surrounding certain aspects of language.  While I am very interested in language acquisition and its relation to theories of the mind we will not cover this during our course. Instead we will look at issues relating to the nature of language, meaning, reference, truth, and the relation between language and the world (along with some other stuff that doesn’t sound as cool but is, I promise).
            
Textbooks Required: 
Cappelen and Dever, Context and Communication, Oxford University Press, 2016

Requirements:             
Papers: You may choose to write onelongish paper (10-12 pages, with a bibliography of at least 4 sources) or twoshortish papers (5-7 pages, each one with a bibliography of at least two sources). These papers are your opportunity to present and critically evaluate a position presented in one (or more) of the texts.  I will provide you with some paper topics (you are not required to write on one of the topics I give, however, if you do not choose one of the topics I give, you must get your topic approved by me) and paper-writing guidelines. You must follow the guidelines in order to receive a passing grade on your papers.  The longish paper is worth 100 points and the two shortish papers are 50 points each (100 points total).  

            -You are requiredto have your first paragraph to me 2 weeks prior to the due date
-You are requiredto have an outline with a one paragraph summary of each source 1 week prior to the due date

Participation:Since our class size is super small, participation is a must.  I realize that not everyone is a philosopher.  Your participation in class will take many forms.  

Discussion Leader (50 points total): Each student will lead class discussion twice (once during the first 10 weeks; once during the last 5 weeks).  I’ll pass around a sign-up sheet.  The discussion leader should come to class prepared to quickly summarize the text as best he or she can, ask a number of questions, make comments, draw connections, etc. about the readings for that week (and previous discussions) as well as guide the discussion along. Note that if you do not understand the text that may make you an even better discussion leader! 

Discussion leaders are requiredto have their material (notes or outline of summary), questions, etc to me at least 1 hour prior to our class. 

Reading Outlines/Focused Papers (100 points): Below is a list of the readings we will do this semester.  You musthave done the readings before you come to class.  

In order to help facilitate classroom discussion and your own growth you must either outline10 of the readings(7 from the first part of the course and 3 from the book—only one a week is permitted)or write up focused papers(see below) on10 of the readings(7 from the first part of the course and 3 from the book—only one a week is permitted) or mix and match (do a few outlines and a few focused papers that total 10 of the readings). 

Outlines: There is no page min or max, but the outlines should cover the entire reading.  These outlines are due at the end of the class on the day of the reading and may notbe turned in late.  You mustbe in class (on time) in order to turn in these outlines.  If you are not in class, do nottry to turn in an outline.  Do notemail an outline to me.  Assessment: I will notify you if you need to rewrite your outline; otherwise I will not hand them back. I am always available to talk about one of your outlines if you’d like. Lastly, you must type your name, the title of the course and the number of outlines you have completedin the header of the paper (see me if you do not know what this is).  The header should look something like this:

Jill Johnson
Philosophical Theology
Outline #7

Focused Papers:These must be at least 600 words (you may go over 600). As you read, an argument or claim made in the text might be so interesting (or crazy or wrong or whatever) that you would like to focus your attention on it. You must complete the reading, but you may write up a short paper that attempts to explain the point in the text more deeply, draw out additional implications of the point, refute the point, etc.

Exam: There will be a take home final exam. 100 points
  
Attendance: From the instructor's point of view, your first and primary responsibility is academic.  Accordingly, I expect you to manage your time with this in mind.  You are expected to be in class, to have studiedthe assignment, and to have your work ready. Research and my experience strongly suggest that your understanding of the material will be hindered by your absence and will be increased by your presence in class.  Your reading and homework assignments are on the course schedule below.  2 percentage points will be deducted from your final grade for each absence beginning with the fourth.  2 tardies = 1 absence. Students missing one-quarter of the course (or more) will automatically fail.   

Course Schedule:  This course syllabus is subject to revision as needed.  We may get seriously behind at some points.  We will adjust accordingly.

Unless otherwise noted every Friday is a discussion day.  This will give us some time to breathe, reflect, and catch-up if needed.


Date
Course Topic
Homework Assignment 
Week 1


Week 2
Sense and Reference


Definite Descriptions
No Class: Mon
Wed: Frege, “On Sense and Reference”

Mon Russell, “On Denoting” 
Wed cont’d

Week 3



Week 4
Donnellan



Kripke


Mon Donnellan on definite descriptions 
Wed cont’d

Mon: Kripke, Naming and Necessity: Lecture 1
Wed: cont'd

Week 5
Kripke 
Mon Kripke, Naming and Necessity: Lecture 2
Wed cont’d

Week 6
Kaplan
Mon Kaplan on Dthat
Wed cont’d

Week 7
Semantic Externalism
1st short paper due on Wed
Mon Putnam
Wed Burge (maybe)


Week 8
Semantic Theories
No class: Mon

Wed Davidson on Truth and Meaning
Week 9
Pragmatics
Mon Grice

Week 10
Context & Communication

Mon Intro thru Ch. 1
Wed Ch. 2

Week 11
Context & Communication

Mon Ch. 3
Wed Ch. 4

Week 12
Context & Communication
No class: Mon & Wed
Fri Ch. 5


Week 13
Context & Communication
No Class: Wed & Fri
2nd short paper due on Mon
Mon Ch.6



Week 14
Context & Communication
Long paper due Fri

Mon Ch. 7
Wed Ch. 8

Week 15






Context & Communication


Take home final due at time of final
Mon Ch. 9
Wed Ch. 10 & 11







Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Kaplan and Lewis

Let's see if we can make sense of the differences between Kaplan and Lewis.  Here is one way to see what Lewis is up to: Kaplan-to-Lewis Translation Method S is true relative to context C iff the character of S determines in C some content CON and CON is true relative to C It is important to see that what the above says is that Kaplan’s two levels of meaning are reducible to one level of meaning (remember my remark that Lewis is the arch-reductionist). The left side (the stuff before the ‘iff’) is equivalent to the right side (the stuff after the ‘iff’). So, if the above is correct, Kaplan’s two levels of meaning can be reduced to one level of meaning. It is not as though character and content are gone. They are just combined in one stage. The context C gets all of the stuff relevant to the character stage AND all of the stuff relevant to the content stage. So, C gets bloated in order to handle everything that is relevant for determining a truth-value of S. We just...
Read more

Grice's First Try

1 st Try : “x meantNN that p” iff x was intended by S to induce a belief in H First, let’s get clear on what this 1 st Try is saying: ‘x’ refers to an utterance of some sort, where even gestures and various other kinds of conventional signals count as utterances (e.g. three rings of the bell…). ‘MeantNN’ stands for ‘conventionally means’ or ‘has a meaning that is not determined by some natural law or whatever.’ ‘p’ refers to the proposition that the utterance expresses. For example, the proposition that my utterance of “Snow is white” and your utterance of “La nieve es blanca” both express the same exact proposition.  So, on the left side we have: an utterance of x conventionally means that p The right side should be fairly clear. It is saying that the utterance is intended to bring about a belief in someone. Putting this all together we get: an utterance of x conventionally means that p iff the utterance of x is intended by S (the utterer) to bring about a belief in someo...
Read more

Donnellan on Russell

Attributive “A speaker who uses a definite description attributively in an assertion states something about whoever or whatever is the so-and-so”  Referential “A speaker who uses a definite description referentially in an assertion ... uses the description to enable his audience to pick out whom or what he is talking about and states something about that person or thing” “Smith’s murderer is insane.”  Russell : definite descriptions only apply to attributive uses (if it applies to anything) Donnellan : it is possible for someone to say something true even though nothing satisfies the description ‘the F’ in ‘the F is G.’ Semantics or Pragmatics              “Smith’s murderer is insane.”              Does the meaning of this sentence change on different occasions of use?          ...
Read more