Is it possible to defend Contextualism? Respond to Lukáš Likavčan

Marián Zouhar


This paper defends certain arguments against contextualism which were disputed by Lukáš Likavčan in his paper (Likavčan, 2012). It is shown (i) that contextualism fails to offer right predictions concerning what is said in certain cases; (ii) that contextualism postulates context-sensitivity beyond necessity; (iii) that either contextualism assumes that semantic minimalism (which contradicts contextualism) is correct, or is based on a circular argumentation.


Context-sensitivity, contextualism, minimal indexicalism, unarticulated constituent, what is said

Full Text:

PDF (Czech)


Show references Hide references

Borg, E. (2004) Minimal Semantics. 1. vyd. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cappelen, H. – Lepore, E. (2005) Insensitive Semantics. A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. 1. vyd. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Carston, R. (2002) Thoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. 1. vyd. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Likavčan, L. (2012) Význam kontextu. ProFil, vol. 13, no. 2, s. 93-98, [cit. 2013-02-16]. Dostupné z WWW: < >.

Mácha, J. (2012) M. Zouhar, Význam v kontexte (recenzia). Organon F, vol. 19, no. 4, s. 548-557. Dostupné z WWW: < >.

Recanati, F. (2004) Literal Meaning. 1. vyd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stanley, J. (2007) Language in Context. Selected Essays. 1. vyd. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Zouhar, M. (2011) Význam v kontexte. 1. vyd. Bratislava: aleph.

Published by the Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
ISSN: 1212-9097