Advertisement

Journal of Philosophical Logic

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 495–521 | Cite as

Structured propostions and sentence structure

  • Jeffrey King
Article

Abstract

It is argued that taken together, two widely held claims ((i) sentences express structured propositions whose structures are functions of the structures of sentences expressing them; and (ii) senteces have underlying structures that are the input to semantic interpretation) suggest a simple, plausible theory of propositional structure. According to this theory, the structures of propositions are the same as the structures of the syntactic inputs to semantics they are expressed by. The theory is defended against a variety of objections.

Key words

direct reference propositions structural propositions syntax 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Almog, J., J. Perry, and H. Wettstein, eds., 1989, Themes from Kaplan, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barwise, J. and R. Cooper, 1981, ‘Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language’, Liguistics and Philosophy 4, 159–219.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chomsky, Noam, 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cresswell, M. J., 1985, Structured Meanings, The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Edelberg, Walter, 1994, ‘Propositions, Circumstances, Objects’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 23, 1–24.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaplan, David, 1977, Demonstratives. Draft 2, published in Almog et al. [1989].Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaplan, David, 1989, ‘Afterthoughts’, in Almog et al. [1989].Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Katz, Jerold, 1981, Language and Other Abstract Objects, Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    King, Jeffrey C., 1994, ‘Can Propositions be Naturalistically Acceptable?’, Midwest Studies in Philosophy XIX, University of Notre Dame Press, French Uehling, Wettstein (eds.).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    King, Jeffrey C., 1995, ‘Structured Propositions and Complex Predicates’, NOUS 29(4), 516–535.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    May, Robert, 1985, Logical Form, The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Richard, Mark, 1990, Propositional Attitudes: An Essay on Thoughts and How We Ascribe Them, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Salmon, Nathan, 1986, Frege's Puzzle, The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Salmon, Nathan, 1989, ‘Illogical Belief’, in Philosophical Perspectives, 3 Philosophy of Mind and Action Theory, James Tomberlin (ed.).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Soames, Scott, 1987, ‘Direct Reference, Propositional Attitudes, and Semantic Content’, Philosophical Topics (15), pp. 47–87.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey King
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of California-DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations