Debate Between Semantic Minimalism And Contextualism On Pragmatis Process In Semantic Interpretation

The role context plays in linguistic interpretation and communication is somehow decisive in the development of semantics.Theorists on both minimalistic and contextualistic sides argue upon this topic for a long time.In this paper,I start with Paul Grice's theory of meaning and David Kaplan's distinction between two kinds of semantic contents,going through the major turning points in history of semantics.Then,I shall describe the key conflicts that come from the debates between semantics and pragmatics applied in semantics based on minimalists' view: Is syntax adequate for interpreting literal meaning? Is it possible to isolate literal meaning from pragmatics(or speech acts)? Is the key conflict between minimalism and contextualism the size of basic set or fundamental view on semantic content? What role does context play in minimal semantics/formal semantics? In the two big camp of minimalism and contextualism,different theorists hold different view on each question mentioned above,even inside the same camp.Yet,in this paper,I won't simply go through important theorists' view.However,I will hold Borg's view as basic line,trying to go through different views on questions.