Dissolving the Border: How Structural Semantics Absorbs the Pragmatic Horizon

Abstract

For decades, the philosophy of language has operated under a strict division of labor. Semantics maps the invariant, structural truth-conditions of an utterance, while pragmatics manages the fluid, context-dependent dynamics of communication and use. This paper examines the classic dichotomy between structural semantic knowledge and pragmatic discourse context. I argue that the traditional boundary between these domains dissolves under contemporary formal frameworks. Specifically, the pioneering work of Floris Roelofsen on Inquisitive Semantics and Philippe Schlenker on Local Contexts demonstrates that what theorists once relegated to external, conversational pragmatics integrates directly into structural logical architecture. By formalizing dialogue mechanics and presupposition projection inside structural rules, these researchers prove that semantic knowledge possesses a deeply structural foundation, even when handling the contextual elements of human discourse.

I. The Historical Fault Line: Truth-Conditions vs. Use

The architecture of contemporary linguistic theory built its foundations upon a clean, binary division: the separation of semantic meaning from pragmatic performance. This distinction, cemented by mid-century philosophers like Paul Grice, separates the abstract, logical structure of a language from its real-world implementation. The traditional landscape divides semantic and pragmatic properties into clear-cut domains:

• Semantics (Truth-Conditions): Rooted in the mathematical traditions of Gottlob Frege, Alfred Tarski, and Richard Montague. It asserts that understanding a sentence requires knowing its truth-conditions—the exact states of affairs in the world required for that sentence to evaluate as true. This knowledge remains structural, invariant, and compositional.

• Pragmatics (Use and Context): Rooted in the ordinary language philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein, John Austin, and Paul Grice. It treats language as a form of social behavior. Meaning in pragmatics originates from intentional action, conversational maxims, and context-driven inferences (implicatures) that occur far downstream from logical form.

To grasp this traditional divide through a concrete example, imagine a scenario where a speaker utters the phrase, "The stove remains hot." Classical truth-conditional semantics maps the literal parameters of this statement; the utterance evaluates as true if and only if the thermal energy of the appliance exceeds a specific safety threshold. Pragmatics, however, handles the communicative layer. Depending on the conversational context, the same statement might function as a warning to a child, an explanation for a high utility bill, or a request to avoid touching the counter.

Under the classic Gricean model, the formal semantic engine computes a static, literal output, passing it along to an external pragmatic processor that factors in human intentions and context. However, this absolute separation assumes that semantic interpretation occurs in an isolated vacuum. When formal semanticists began confronting complex natural language phenomena—such as cross-clausal pronouns, the behavior of questions, and background assumptions—the rigid wall between truth-conditions and conversational use began to shatter.

II. Floris Roelofsen and the Inquisitive Turn

One of the most direct challenges to the truth-conditional paradigm comes from Inquisitive Semantics, a framework developed by Ivano Ciardelli, Jeroen Groenendijk, and Floris Roelofsen. Roelofsen challenges the foundational assumption that the primary function of language involves transmitting information via truth-conditional assertions. While classical semantics models sentences as simple sets of possible worlds, it struggles to capture information exchange as an interactive, multi-agent process.

Roelofsen’s insight positions information exchange as a cooperative process of raising and resolving issues. Therefore, the semantic value of a sentence must capture both its informative weight and its inquisitive potential. In Inquisitive Semantics, Roelofsen redefines a proposition from a single set of possible worlds to a structured set of alternatives, where each alternative represents a distinct potential path for the conversation.

Consider a standard disjunctive statement like, "We will hire a screenwriter or we will hire a musician." Classical logic simply views this sentence as a flat description that rules out worlds where the team hires neither candidate. Roelofsen’s framework, by contrast, treats this utterance as an inherently inquisitive proposal. It offers two distinct updates to the conversational common ground, structurally inviting the hearer to choose between them.

By enriching the core definition of semantic content to include these alternatives naturally, conversational turn-taking and cooperative dialogue principles no longer exist as external pragmatic maxims applied after the fact. Instead, they integrate directly into the sentence’s logical structure. Roelofsen proves that dialogue dynamics do not represent messy, unprincipled pragmatic use; rather, they operate under a highly structured, compositional semantics that tracks information and inquiry simultaneously.

III. Philippe Schlenker and the Calculation of Context

While Roelofsen brings conversational inquiry into semantic types, Philippe Schlenker targets another classic pragmatic battleground: presupposition projection. A presupposition represents a background assumption embedded within an expression that a hearer must take for granted for the utterance to maintain coherence. For instance, the sentence, "The director stopped revising the script," carries the structural presupposition that the director previously revised the script.

For decades, the behavior of presuppositions in compound sentences seemed to validate dynamic semantics, which abandoned static truth-conditions entirely. Dynamic frameworks replaced traditional meaning with Context Change Potentials (CCPs), treating words as active programs that transform the information state of a conversation. However, critics noted that this approach lacked explanatory power; theorists had to manually rewrite the dynamic definition for every single logical operator to explain how it manipulated context.

Schlenker completely restructures this debate through his theory of Local Contexts. He demonstrates that linguists do not need to build complex context-transformation properties directly into the definitions of logical operators. Instead, semantic theory can retain classical, static truth-conditions and compute local contexts algorithmically. Schlenker defines the local context of an expression as the smallest domain that an observer must restrict attention to when evaluating that expression, without altering the global truth-conditions of the overarching sentence.

To illustrate this algorithm, consider the conditional sentence: "If the actor previously performed on Broadway, then their agent understands that they performed on Broadway." A classical approach might assume that the phrase "understands that they performed on Broadway" triggers a global presupposition that the actor has Broadway experience.

Schlenker’s local context calculation, however, processes the sentence incrementally from left to right. When evaluating the second clause, the local context already incorporates the information provided by the initial conditional clause ("If the actor previously performed on Broadway"). Because this information matches and satisfies the presupposition locally, the global sentence does not project any background requirement to the broader conversation. Schlenker proves that presupposition projection operates via an optimal mathematical calculation determined by the architectural constraints of human cognitive processing working in tandem with classical logic.

IV. Paradigm Resolution and Theoretical Syntheses

When we synthesize the contributions of Roelofsen and Schlenker, a striking conceptual shift occurs. The classical question—how much of our semantic knowledge is structural, and how much is pragmatic?—reveals a mistaken premise. It assumes that structure and pragmatics operate as competing forces in a zero-sum game, where any gain for context must mean a loss for formal logic.

The contemporary frameworks analyzed here prove that our semantic knowledge possesses an almost entirely structural foundation, precisely because logical structure internalizes context. Roelofsen shows that the conversational alternatives of discourse belong to the core semantic architecture of a phrase. Simultaneously, Schlenker proves that the fluid shifts of local contexts derive mathematically from static, classical semantic content.

Consequently, these frameworks do not merely blur the line between truth-conditions and use; they dissolve it completely. They demonstrate that conversational use does not represent an external, unprincipled force acting upon dead syntax. Rather, human language use manifests as a deeply logical, highly structured, and mathematically trackable phenomenon.

V. Broader Implications and Future Horizons

The dissolution of the traditional semantics-pragmatics boundary carries profound implications that extend far beyond formal linguistic theory, reshaping our understanding of human communication, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science.

1. The Future of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Translation

Current large language models rely heavily on brute-force statistical probabilities to mimic human conversation, often hallucinating facts or failing to grasp the underlying logic of context. If semantic knowledge inherently internalizes contextual rules, then true artificial intelligence requires more than massive data sorting.

Engineers must build computational architectures that replicate the structural features of Inquisitive Semantics and Local Contexts. An AI engine equipped with a Roelofsen-style semantic processor would track conversational alternatives as explicit mathematical vectors, allowing the machine to understand the underlying purpose of a question rather than just matching keywords. Similarly, applying Schlenkerian algorithms would allow models to compute presuppositions accurately, preventing logical contradictions in multi-turn dialogues.

2. Cognitive Science and Human Interaction

In the realm of cognitive science, this integrated framework suggests that the human brain does not process literal meaning and social context in separate, sequential stages. Instead, human cognitive architecture utilizes a unified interpretive system. When a person participates in a rapid, high-stakes conversation—such as a group of actors improvising lines or a team of scientists collaborating during a crisis—the brain relies on structural constraints to navigate the space of reasons instantly. Context does not complicate the processing burden; instead, structural rules utilize context to narrow down the space of logical possibilities, optimizing human communication.

Ultimately, the formal system of human grammar maps discourse dynamics from the inside out. By understanding that pragmatic context simply represents higher-dimensional logical structure, formal linguistics can discard outdated dualisms and develop a truly integrated science of meaning.

Works Cited

• Ciardelli, Ivano, Jeroen Groenendijk, and Floris Roelofsen. Inquisitive Semantics. Oxford University Press, 2018.

• Grice, Paul. Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press, 1989.

• Heim, Irene. "On the Projection Problem for Presuppositions." Proceedings of the Second West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 1983, pp. 114-125.

• Roelofsen, Floris. "Inquisitive Semantics and Pragmatics." Institute for Logic, Language, and Computation Research Report, 2013.

• Schlenker, Philippe. "Be Articulate: A Pragmatic Theory of Presupposition Projection." Theoretical Linguistics, vol. 34, no. 3, 2008, pp. 157-212.

• ---. "Local Contexts." Semantics and Pragmatics, vol. 2, no. 3, 2009, pp. 1-78.