Speaker: David Beaver (University of Texas at Austin)
Title: Presupposing practice
Time: Thursday, September 19th, 12:30pm – 2pm
Location: 32-D461
Abstract: I will discuss reformulations of the notions of presupposition and accommodation, themselves based on a non-standard model of meaning, as developed in The Politics of Language (Beaver & Stanley, Princeton University Press, 2023). The goal is to develop a general model of transmission and change of ideology, including language practices, a model that can help explain how terrifying or divisive practices can be innocuously normalized, reinforced, and spread.
Building on work of Lynne Tirrell and others, the background to the theoretical developments includes cases of people, or entire peoples, referred to as if they were monsters, snakes, cockroaches, lice, parasites, or even, in the case of a concentration camp warden Victor Klemperer reported on, industrial raw materials. Standard tools of semantic theory were not designed with such issues in mind. I argue that a generalization of the notions of presupposition and accommodation can carry some of the weight.
The reformulation of presupposition hinges on three definitions:
- Associative resonance: p(feature| instantiation of practice) − p(feature)
- Effect probability: The probability that a certain feature of the context is an effect of an action instantiating a practice, p(instantiation of practice caused feature).
- Presuppositional resonance: Associative resonance − Effect probability
The main goal of the LingLunch talk will be to discuss these definitions, their relationship to prior work on presupposition (and formal semantic theory more generally), and their application to difficult issues like presuppositions of divisive practices.
A secondary goal of the talk is to discuss an extension of accommodation that complements the changes in the notion of presupposition. Hearers accommodate not merely propositions, but practices, developing an increased tendency to behave in line with the practice. For example, if politicians and bureaucrats discussing a public health problem focus on the costs of alternative technologies that would potentially remediate the problem, their marginalization of human suffering carries a presupposition that it is reasonable to frame the issue in purely technocratic terms. What is accommodated is a tendency to treat a human life as a commodity. In response to sexist jokes, one may accommodate tendencies to discriminate based on gender.
In standard accounts of accommodation, the driving force is a driving desire to create common ground in the face of ignorance of a speaker’s assumptions. In the model I will discuss, however, accommodation is driven by a desire to avoid cognitive dissonance and find harmony, and these are in turn largely driven by a need to fit in with in-groups, and to mark oneself as distinct from out-groups.