This work is an investigation into a phenomenon introduced by John Perry that I call ‘totally unarticulated constituents.’ These are entities that are part of the propositional content of a speech act, but are not represented by any part of the sentence uttered or of the thought that is being expressed - that is, they are fully unarticulated. After offering a novel definition of this phenomenon, I argue that totally unarticulated constituents are attested in natural language, and may in fact be quite common. This raises fatal problems for a prominent theory of underspecification defended by Jason Stanley, according to which all context- sensitivity (including unarticulated constituents) can be traced to covert variables in the syntax. I then use these findings to draw out important lessons for the philosophy of language, including a rejection of a long-standing Gricean issue known as the “meaning- intention problem.” I also explore the dialectic between Paul Grice’s intention-based semantics and Ruth Millikan’s teleosemantics, arguing that Millikan’s perception-based response to the problem of underspecification is untenable unless it is modified to give prominence to the speaker’s intentions.
","abstract_html":"<p>This work is an investigation into a phenomenon introduced by John Perry that I call ‘totally unarticulated constituents.’ These are entities that are part of the propositional content of a speech act, but are not represented by any part of the sentence uttered or of the thought that is being expressed - that is, they are fully unarticulated. After offering a novel definition of this phenomenon, I argue that totally unarticulated constituents are attested in natural language, and may in fact be quite common. This raises fatal problems for a prominent theory of underspecification defended by Jason Stanley, according to which all context- sensitivity (including unarticulated constituents) can be traced to covert variables in the syntax. I then use these findings to draw out important lessons for the philosophy of language, including a rejection of a long-standing Gricean issue known as the “meaning- intention problem.” I also explore the dialectic between Paul Grice’s intention-based semantics and Ruth Millikan’s teleosemantics, arguing that Millikan’s perception-based response to the problem of underspecification is untenable unless it is modified to give prominence to the speaker’s intentions.</p>","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Rappaport, Jesse"],"institution":"The Graduate School and University Center of The City University of New York","degree_name":"Doctor of Philosophy","degree_level":"Doctoral","degree_discipline":"Philosophy","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Stephen Neale"],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":["David Rosenthal","David Papineau","Gary Ostertag"],"year":2018,"date_issued":"2018-09-01T07:00:00Z","date_published":"2018-09-01T07:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T01:58:22Z","subjects":["Philosophy of Language","Philosophy of Mind","unarticulated constituents","pragmatics","communication","the meaning-intention problem","teleosemantics","Relevance theory"],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/2885","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Stephen Neale"]},{"key":"dc:contributor.committeemember","label":"Committee Member","values":["David Rosenthal","David Papineau","Gary Ostertag"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Rappaport, Jesse"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2018-09-12T07:00:00Z"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Philosophy"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Doctoral"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Doctor of Philosophy"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["The Graduate School and University Center of The City University of New York"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Philosophy of Language","Philosophy of Mind","unarticulated constituents","pragmatics","communication","the meaning-intention problem","teleosemantics","Relevance theory"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/2885"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["This work is an investigation into a phenomenon introduced by John Perry that I call ‘totally unarticulated constituents.’ These are entities that are part of the propositional content of a speech act, but are not represented by any part of the sentence uttered or of the thought that is being expressed - that is, they are fully unarticulated. After offering a novel definition of this phenomenon, I argue that totally unarticulated constituents are attested in natural language, and may in fact be quite common. This raises fatal problems for a prominent theory of underspecification defended by Jason Stanley, according to which all context- sensitivity (including unarticulated constituents) can be traced to covert variables in the syntax. I then use these findings to draw out important lessons for the philosophy of language, including a rejection of a long-standing Gricean issue known as the “meaning- intention problem.” I also explore the dialectic between Paul Grice’s intention-based semantics and Ruth Millikan’s teleosemantics, arguing that Millikan’s perception-based response to the problem of underspecification is untenable unless it is modified to give prominence to the speaker’s intentions.
"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Unarticulated Constituents and Theories of Meaning"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Stephen Neale"],"dc:contributor.committeemember":["David Rosenthal","David Papineau","Gary Ostertag"],"dc:creator":["Rappaport, Jesse"],"dc:date.available":["2018-09-12T07:00:00Z"],"dc:description.abstract":["This work is an investigation into a phenomenon introduced by John Perry that I call ‘totally unarticulated constituents.’ These are entities that are part of the propositional content of a speech act, but are not represented by any part of the sentence uttered or of the thought that is being expressed - that is, they are fully unarticulated. After offering a novel definition of this phenomenon, I argue that totally unarticulated constituents are attested in natural language, and may in fact be quite common. This raises fatal problems for a prominent theory of underspecification defended by Jason Stanley, according to which all context- sensitivity (including unarticulated constituents) can be traced to covert variables in the syntax. I then use these findings to draw out important lessons for the philosophy of language, including a rejection of a long-standing Gricean issue known as the “meaning- intention problem.” I also explore the dialectic between Paul Grice’s intention-based semantics and Ruth Millikan’s teleosemantics, arguing that Millikan’s perception-based response to the problem of underspecification is untenable unless it is modified to give prominence to the speaker’s intentions.
"],"dc:identifier":["https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/2885"],"dc:subject":["Philosophy of Language","Philosophy of Mind","unarticulated constituents","pragmatics","communication","the meaning-intention problem","teleosemantics","Relevance theory"],"dc:title":["Unarticulated Constituents and Theories of Meaning"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Philosophy"],"thesis:degree_level":["Doctoral"],"thesis:degree_name":["Doctor of Philosophy"],"thesis:institution_name":["The Graduate School and University Center of The City University of New York"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T01:58:22Z"}