TL;DR: The distinction between semantics and pragmatics is easier to apply than to explain, but the fact that many conflicting formulations have been proposed over the past sixty years suggests that there is no one way of drawing the distinction.
Abstract: The distinction between semantics and pragmatics is easier to apply than to explain. Explaining it is complicated by the fact that many conflicting formulations have been proposed over the past sixty years. This might suggest that there is no one way of drawing the distinction and that how to draw it is merely a terminological question, a matter of arbitrary stipulation. In my view, though, these diverse formulations, despite their conflicts, all shed light on the distinction as it is commonly applied, in both linguistics and philosophy. Although it is generally clear what is at issue when people apply the distinction to specific linguistic phenomena, what is less clear, in some cases anyway, is whether a given phenomenon is semantic or pragmatic, or both. Fortunately, there are other phenomena that are uncontroversially semantic or, as the case may be, uncontroversially pragmatic. Their example will help us get clear on what the semantics-pragmatics distinction is.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that e-sports are not sports and propose a definition of sport, which they use to define the concept of sport in the context of e-games.
Abstract: The conclusion of this paper will be that e-sports are not sports. I begin by offering a stipulation and a definition. I stipulate that what I have in mind, when thinking about the concept of sport...
TL;DR: The authors amplify the conceptual clarification and methodological stipulation of habitus begun in 'Homines in extremis' to help us move from a sociology of the body as a socia...
Abstract: In this response to my critics, I amplify the conceptual clarification and methodological stipulation of habitus begun in ‘Homines in extremis’ to help us move from a sociology of the body as socia...
TL;DR: It is argued that the correct interpretation falls out naturally from a relativist theory, but requires special stipulation in a theory which appeals instead to the use of hidden indexicals; and that a hidden indexical analysis presents problems for contemporary syntactic theory.
Abstract: Recent arguments for relativist semantic theories have centered on the phenomenon of “faultless disagreement.” This paper offers independent motivation for such theories, based on the interpretation of predicates of personal taste in certain attitude contexts and presuppositional constructions. It is argued that the correct interpretation falls out naturally from a relativist theory, but requires special stipulation in a theory which appeals instead to the use of hidden indexicals; and that a hidden indexical analysis presents problems for contemporary syntactic theory.
TL;DR: In this article, a non-zero sum game is used to model the quality supply by a supplier and quality inspection by a producer, where the supplier can control the effort invested in the delivery of quality and the producer may or may not inspect incoming materials.