Foundational concepts for theorizing context

In order to assess the significance for theories of context of Levinson’s many observations, it is important to get clear on the theoretical concepts involved. In these comments I clarify a number of distinctions: context versus common ground; common ground (publicity) versus the Stalnakerian characterization of it; context as background versus context as target. I point out that debates about the structural complexity of context have consequences for how to think about its epistemic status. Finally, I point out that the “actionhood” of speech acts is nicely accommodated in a plan-based model of language use, and discuss some consequences.