{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04711425206124853, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005889281507656066, 'mean_word_length': 4.821917808219178, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Semantics and Context-Dependence : A Strawsonian Account Draft of March 7 , 2011

The argument need not be formulated in terms of truth-conditions. The first premise could equally be stated as: Semantics is about the expression of propositions. The rest of the argument then adapts smoothly. So (i) is meant to be obvious and uncontroversial. With regard to the second premise, it is important to appreciate the force of the word “only”: (ii) asserts that, perhaps with a very few exceptions (such as statements of pure mathematics), sentences never have truth-conditions; only utterances do. So what underwrites (ii) is not just the existence of context-dependence but, rather, the ubiquity of contextdependence. It has become clear over the last few decades that it is not just the obvious expressions, like “I”, “here”, and “this”, that introduce