PHIL 3029 - Philosophy of Language

North Terrace Campus - Semester 2 - 2024

Language is one of the most distinctive and pervasive features of human life. But its theoretical foundations are still a matter of great controversy. These controversies often lie dormant in ordinary life, only coming to the fore we try to understand precisely how some piece of language works. (This happens a lot in philosophy, where the examination of arguments involves teasing out the precise meaning of the sentences involved.) The nature of meaning has been of interest to philosophers since Plato, but the development of precise theories of meaning really accelerated in the twentieth century, with contributions from philosophers, logicians, and linguists. This course reflects the interdisciplinary history of the subject, though drawing primarily on linguistics and philosophy. We will look at a number of foundational issues about the nature of meaning. We will investigate the meanings of interesting classes of English expressions, such as: proper names (`Alice?), kind terms (`gold?), descriptions (`the most diligent student?), indexicals and demonstratives (`here?, `there?), and modal auxiliaries (`must?). We will look at the meaning of complex sentences, as well as whether there are any aspects what is communicated by a sentence beyond what it literally means. Finally, we turn to the question of language and thought ? does the language we speak constrain the thoughts we can think and the beliefs we can have?

Open All

Course Details

Course Code	PHIL 3029
Course	Philosophy of Language
Coordinating Unit	Philosophy
Term	Semester 2
Level	Undergraduate
Location/s	North Terrace Campus
Units	3
Contact	Up to 3 hours per week
Available for Study Abroad and Exchange	Y
Prerequisites	At least 6 units of Level II undergraduate study
Incompatible	PHIL 2043, PHIL 2015, PHIL 3015
Assessment	Short Essay (25%), Research Essay (55%), Small Group Discovery tasks (20%)

Course Staff

Course Coordinator: Associate Professor Antony Eagle

Course Timetable

The full timetable of all activities for this course can be accessed from Course Planner.

Course Learning Outcomes

Upon successful completion of this course, student should:

Display familiarity with the main philosophical positions on at least some of the following issues in the philosophy of language and formal semantics and pragmatics: meaning, reference, names, descriptions, semantic content, sentences and propositions, context-sensitivity, compositionality, pragmatics, and the influence of language on thought.
Show an in-depth understanding of the content and strengths/weakenesses of one of more philosophical theories among the following: direct reference theory, descriptivism, Russell’s theory of descriptions, internalism and externalism about semantic content, temporalism and eternalism about propositions, Gricean pragmatics, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
Display an ability to critically analyse texts from contemporary analytic philosophers and semanticists on philosophy of language and formal semantics.
Demonstrate the use of relevant evidence to support arguments concerning various positions in the philosophical debates over language and semantics.
Construct well-argued and appropriately referenced written arguments supporting a particular position in the philosophy of language or formal semantics.
Display in discussion an ability to grasp extended complex philosophical arguments, and to pay sustained attention to oral philosophical discourse.

University Graduate Attributes

This course will provide students with an opportunity to develop the Graduate Attribute(s) specified below:

University Graduate Attribute	Course Learning Outcome(s)
Attribute 1: Deep discipline knowledge and intellectual breadth Graduates have comprehensive knowledge and understanding of their subject area, the ability to engage with different traditions of thought, and the ability to apply their knowledge in practice including in multi-disciplinary or multi-professional contexts.	1, 2, 3, 4
Attribute 2: Creative and critical thinking, and problem solving Graduates are effective problems-solvers, able to apply critical, creative and evidence-based thinking to conceive innovative responses to future challenges.	3,4,5,6
Attribute 3: Teamwork and communication skills Graduates convey ideas and information effectively to a range of audiences for a variety of purposes and contribute in a positive and collaborative manner to achieving common goals.	3,5,6
Attribute 4: Professionalism and leadership readiness Graduates engage in professional behaviour and have the potential to be entrepreneurial and take leadership roles in their chosen occupations or careers and communities.	6
Attribute 5: Intercultural and ethical competency Graduates are responsible and effective global citizens whose personal values and practices are consistent with their roles as responsible members of society.	1,2

Learning Resources

Required Resources

There is one textbook assigned for this course:

Elbourne, Paul (2011) Meaning: A Slim Guide to Semantics. Oxford University Press, 978-0-199-69662-8.

Students should acquire this text before semester begins; chapter 1 is required reading before the first meeting of the course. It is fairly cheap, but I will also put it on reserve in the library.

There will also be an online reading list containing key journal articles and book chapters we will read to supplement and advance beyond the textbook, as befits an advanced level course.

Online Learning

Required resources will be supplemented by further articles and chapters supplied through an online content list via MyUni.

Lecture notes and lecture recordings, tutorial questions, and assignments will all be made available through MyUni.

Learning & Teaching Modes

This course is taught by a mixture of online lectures and whole-class workshops. There are about 2 hours worth of lecture recordings per week, broken up typically into 3–5 topic-focussed videos.

The workshops are devoted to discussion of weekly lecture material. Students engage with an online discussion board prior to the workshop, which gives everyone a chance to engage with the material substantively before the class takes place. Participation is assessed based on the pre-class discussion board; attendance at the workshop itself is optional. Workshops are two hours in length to give plenty of time for discussion and questions.

Workload

The information below is provided as a guide to assist students in engaging appropriately with the course requirements.

Workload	Total Hours per semester
Structured Learning
1 x 2 hour lecture per week	24
1 x 2 hour workshop, 10 per semester	20
Self-directed Learning
Required reading (5 hours per week)	60
Discussion forum preparation, 1 hour per workshop	10
Assignment preparation (3 hours per week)	36
TOTAL	150

Learning Activities Summary

Week	Topic
Part I: Lexical semantics
1	Meaning and Definitions
2	Referentialism and Internalism
3	Sophisticated Referentialism and Descriptivism
4	Proper Names
Part II: Semantic Content
5	The Nature of Propositions
6	Presupposition and Definite Descriptions
7	Ambiguity and Compositionality
Part III: Beyond Semantics
8	Indexicals and Context
9	Implicature and Speech Acts
Part IV: Advanced Topics
10	Language and Thought
11	Modality and Tense
12	Review

The University's policy on Assessment for Coursework Programs is based on the following four principles:

Assessment must encourage and reinforce learning.
Assessment must enable robust and fair judgements about student performance.
Assessment practices must be fair and equitable to students and give them the opportunity to demonstrate what they have learned.
Assessment must maintain academic standards.

Assessment Summary

ASSESSMENT TASK	TASK TYPE	WEIGHTING	COURSE LEARNING OUTCOME(S)
Essay 1	Summative/Formative	30%	1,2,3,4,5
Essay 2	Summative/Formative	30%	1,2,3,4,5
Essay 3	Summative/Formative	30%	1,2,3,4,5
Active Participation	Formative	10%	1,2,3,4,6

Assessment Detail

This course will make use of an innovative grading structure this year: specifications grading.

There are three essays for this course. Essays are drawn from a common list of topics, but different essays must cover a spread of topics. Each essay is marked on a satisfactory/unsatisfactory basis, and will receive a score of 1 (satisfactory) or 0 (unsatisfactory). The standard for a satisfactory essay is not a mere pass; a satisfactory essay must display, to a significant degree, achievement of the course learning outcomes. It is a relatively demanding task to produce a satisfactory essay. Luckily you are given a great deal of flexibility in your attempts to do so.

Active participation in at least 70% of workshops – attendance, preparation, and informed contribution to discussion – constitutes satisfactory performance, and will receive a score of 1. This is evidenced by student contributions to discussion boards, shared documents, and collaborative markup of readings – it does not rely only on instructor judgment.

The overall score for the course is the total of all scores attained for essays and participation, and will range from 4 (satisfactory performance on all three essays and in participation), to 0 (unsatisfactory on all assessment tasks). The score determines a grade as follows:

Scores	Grade	Mark	Comment
4	HD	90	Satisfactory on each essay; met participation threshold
3	D	80	Satisfactory on three essays; or two satisfactory essays and satisfactory participation
2	C	70	Satisfactory performance on two of four assessment tasks
1	P	60	Satisfactory performance on one essay - note you cannot pass by satisfactory participation alone.
0	F	40	Unsatisfactory performance on all attempted assessment tasks

You will note that it is possible to pass this course by submitting one satisfactory essay without even attempting the other essays. It is possible to get up to a distinction by only writing essays and never attending workshops.

This assessment structure is intended to do several things.

It gives you autonomy over your learning: you decide how many assessment tasks to attempt, based on the grade you are aiming at, and your comfort with various levels of risk. In this relatively pure form of specifications grading, students determine what grade they want and complete the assessment tasks that correspond to that grade.
It ensures that everyone who passes the course has written a high quality essay, and thus has satisfied the course learning outcomes to a significant degree. This contrasts with the more usual assessment structure where a student can pass the course by submitting many assignments that barely meet the threshold of passing, and which may only display the learning outcomes to a very minimal extent. Thus specifications grading upholds high academic standards while also acknowledging not all students will be able to achieve those standards on a sustained basis.
It encourages attendance and discussion; students report significant dissatisfaction with low rates of class engagement post-Covid and this is an attempt to address that complaint.
It is flexible; students who are content with a distinction or lower grade can prioritise their efforts during semester, perhaps working hard on the first essay to produce a satisfactory submission, and then spending the bulk of their efforts on other courses in the second half of semester.
The common list of topics means that students can submit an essay on any topic at any time. While it is not recommended to submit essays on topics before they are covered in lecture, it is possible to submit the final essay on a topic which was covered closer to the beginning of semester, if students have fallen behind on course content.

Submission

All essays and weekly discussion prompt answers must be submitted electronically through MyUni. This semester, I will be trying a new assessment approach, using Cadmus. This is a platform designed to scaffold best practice in assessment design and to encourage and bolster academic integrity. I will be interested to hear your feedback about how effective it is. I will update you during the first few weeks of semester on how to use the platform. It is ultimately your responsibility to submit assessments correctly.

Late essays without an extension will receive a score of 0; your responsibility for your own learning extends to responsibility meeting deadlines.

Essays are marked using an electronic rubric, in line with University grade descriptors. You will be able to access the electronic rubric used for marking from the assignment page, and you should familiarise yourself with the rubric while writing your essay.

I will be using anonymous grading for essays. So please omit your name and other identifying information from the pages of your submitted essays. The systems in place will assign you a unique identifier which connects with your name. (We will know the identity of students at the conclusion of the assessment process – but not during it.) Note that because of anonymous grading, we will not be able to contact you if there are problems with your essay submission.

Queries about grades should be directed to the course coordinator, unless it is just to clarify a comment on your assignment from one of the markers. The university's assessment grievances policy applies if you wish to request a re-mark. Note that disappointment with your mark is not grounds for a re-mark; see the University's guidance on grounds for assessment grievances for more detail.

In this course, essays will be submitted to the Turnitin database and checked against it.

Course Grading

Grades for your performance in this course will be awarded in accordance with the following scheme:

M10 (Coursework Mark Scheme)
Grade	Mark	Description
FNS		Fail No Submission
F	1-49	Fail
P	50-64	Pass
C	65-74	Credit
D	75-84	Distinction
HD	85-100	High Distinction
CN		Continuing
NFE		No Formal Examination
RP		Result Pending

Further details of the grades/results can be obtained from Examinations.

Grade Descriptors are available which provide a general guide to the standard of work that is expected at each grade level. More information at Assessment for Coursework Programs.

Final results for this course will be made available through Access Adelaide.

Student Feedback

The University places a high priority on approaches to learning and teaching that enhance the student experience. Feedback is sought from students in a variety of ways including on-going engagement with staff, the use of online discussion boards and the use of Student Experience of Learning and Teaching (SELT) surveys as well as GOS surveys and Program reviews.

SELTs are an important source of information to inform individual teaching practice, decisions about teaching duties, and course and program curriculum design. They enable the University to assess how effectively its learning environments and teaching practices facilitate student engagement and learning outcomes. Under the current SELT Policy (http://www.adelaide.edu.au/policies/101/) course SELTs are mandated and must be conducted at the conclusion of each term/semester/trimester for every course offering. Feedback on issues raised through course SELT surveys is made available to enrolled students through various resources (e.g. MyUni). In addition aggregated course SELT data is available.
Student Support
Policies & Guidelines
This section contains links to relevant assessment-related policies and guidelines - all university policies.
Fraud Awareness

Students are reminded that in order to maintain the academic integrity of all programs and courses, the university has a zero-tolerance approach to students offering money or significant value goods or services to any staff member who is involved in their teaching or assessment. Students offering lecturers or tutors or professional staff anything more than a small token of appreciation is totally unacceptable, in any circumstances. Staff members are obliged to report all such incidents to their supervisor/manager, who will refer them for action under the university's student’s disciplinary procedures.

The University of Adelaide is committed to regular reviews of the courses and programs it offers to students. The University of Adelaide therefore reserves the right to discontinue or vary programs and courses without notice. Please read the important information contained in the disclaimer.

Authorised by:	Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Academic)
Maintained by:	Course Outlines Administrator