Craige Roberts explains how formal semantics and pragmatics model meaning by tracking context, presupposition, and modality to show why what we say depends so deeply on discourse structure.
My links: https://linktr.ee/frictionphilosophy.
1. Guest
Craige Roberts is Professor Emerita at the Department of Linguistics of Ohio State University. Her work has focused on the philosophy of language, primarily on formal semantics and pragmatics.
2. Interview Summary
Craige Roberts is introduced as a leading figure in formal semantics and pragmatics, with work on topics like modal subordination, anaphora, and the way context shapes interpretation. In the interview, the emphasis is repeatedly on using explicit, formal tools (in the Montague-style tradition the host flags) to build increasingly good models of linguistic data—models that make predictions you can test and then refine.
A central thread is how Roberts thinks about the semantics/pragmatics boundary: rather than treating pragmatics as an unstructured “everything else,” the discussion treats it as something that can itself be modeled, especially once you track context, discourse goals, and what counts as an appropriate contribution in conversation. This comes out as the host contrasts “more ‘formal’ approaches” with speech-act frameworks (with John Searle as the reference point) and presses on whether there’s any deep tension here. A related point that’s explicitly highlighted is that for certain expressions—like epistemic modals—you can’t just “read off” the relevant domain without knowing the conversational setting.
From there, the conversation spotlights several of Roberts’s hallmark topics: the possible-worlds way of modeling propositional content (the host frames this in a Stalnaker-style key and asks how much metaphysics about “possible worlds” the framework really commits you to), and how that connects to context dependence in modal talk. The host also brings up her work on presupposition “triggers” and “projection,” and then pivots to the broader philosophy-adjacent question of how (or whether) we can infer ontological commitments just from the semantics of natural language—where Roberts is described as comparatively conservative about what semantics alone can settle.
3. Interview Chapters
00:00 - Introduction
00:33 - Overview of field
20:01 - Pragmatic vs. formal semantics
53:59 - Searle’s taxonomy
58:29 - Speech act theory
1:06:51 - Formal pragmatics
1:13:59 - Propositions
1:23:45 - Necessary propositions
1:35:49 - Probabilities
1:41:23 - Might and must
1:56:44 - Presupposition and projection
2:20:39 - Existential language
2:25:38 - Open challenges
2:37:56 - Amazing capacities
2:42:53 - Value of philosophy
2:46:57 - Conclusion
