Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 135–166

Unarticulated Constituents Revisited

Article

Abstract

An important debate in the current literature is whether “all truth-conditional effects of extra-linguistic context can be traced to [a variable at; LM] logical form” (Stanley, ‘Context and Logical Form’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 23 (2000) 391). That is, according to Stanley, the only truth-conditional effects that extra-linguistic context has are localizable in (potentially silent) variable-denoting pronouns or pronoun-like items, which are represented in the syntax/at logical form (pure indexicals like I or today are put aside in this discussion). According to Recanati (‘Unarticulated Constituents’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 25 (2002) 299), extra-linguistic context can have additional truth-conditional effects, in the form of optional pragmatic processes like ‘free enrichment’. This paper shows that Recanati’s position is not warranted, since there is an alternative line of analysis that obviates the need to assume free enrichment. In the alternative analysis, we need Stanley’s variables, but we need to give them the freedom to be or not to be generated in the syntax/present at logical form, a kind of optionality that has nothing to do with the pragmatics-related optionality of free enrichment.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Breheny R.: 2003a, ‘On Bindability’, Proceedings of the Fourteenth Amsterdam Colloquium, ILLC, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  2. Breheny R.: 2003b, ‘A Lexical Account of Implicit (Bound) Contextual Dependence’, Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 13, University of Washington, CLC Publications, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  3. Cappelen, H., Lepore, E. 2002‘Indexicality, Binding, Anaphora and a priori Truth’Analysis6227181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carston, R. 2002Thoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit CommunicationBlackwellOxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  5. Chierchia, G. 1993‘Questions with Quantifiers’Natural Language Semantics1181234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dayal V. (1997) ‘Free Relatives and Ever: Identity and Free Choice Readings’,Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 7, Stanford University, CLC Publications, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  7. Dowty, D. 1978‘Lexically-Governed Transformations as Lexical Rules in a Montague Grammar’Linguistic Inquiry9393426Google Scholar
  8. Dowty, D. 1982a

    ‘Grammatical Relations and Montague Grammar’

    Jacobson, P.Pullum, G. eds. The Nature of Syntactic RepresentationReidelDordrecht79130
    Google Scholar
  9. Dowty D.: 1982b, ‘Quantification and the Lexicon: A Reply to Fodor and Fodor’, in T. Hoekstra H. van der Hulst and M. Moortgat (eds.), The Scope of Lexical Rules, pp. 79–106, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  10. Engdahl, E. 1986Constituent QuestionsReidelDordrechtGoogle Scholar
  11. von Fintel K. (2000) ‘Whatever’, Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 10, Cornell University, CLC Publications, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  12. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof: (1983) ‘Interrogative Quantifiers and Skolem Functions’, in K. Ehlich and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), Connectedness in Sentence, Discourse and Text, Tilburg Studies in Language and Literature 4, pp. 71–110, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  13. Jacobson, P. (1995) ‘On the Quantificational Force of Free Relatives’, in E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer and B. Partee (eds.), Quantification in Natural Languages, pp. 451–86, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  14. Martí, L. (2003) Contextual Variables, PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.Google Scholar
  15. McConnell-Ginet, S. 1982‘Adverbs and Logical Form’Language5814484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mitchell, J. 1986The Formal Semantics of Point of ViewUniversity of MassachusettsAmherst, MAPhD dissertationGoogle Scholar
  17. Parsons, T. 1990Events in the Semantics of EnglishMIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  18. Partee, B.: (1989) ‘Binding Implicit Variables in Quantified Contexts’, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society 25 (Part One: The General Session), pp. 342–365, University of Chicago, The Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  19. Perry, J. 1993The Problem of the Essential Indexical and Other EssaysOxford University PressNew York, NYGoogle Scholar
  20. Perry, J. (1998) ‘Indexicals, Contexts, and Unarticulated Constituents’, in D. Westerståhl et al. (eds.), Computing Natural Language, pp. 1–11, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  21. Recanati, F. 2002‘Unarticulated Constituents’Linguistics and Philosophy25299345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Recanati, F. 2003Literal MeaningCambridge University PressCambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  23. Stanley, J. 2000‘Context and Logical Form’Linguistics and Philosophy23391434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stanley, J., Szabó, Z. 2000‘On Quantifier Domain Restriction’Mind and Language1521961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Taylor, K. 2001‘Sex, Breakfast, and Descriptus Interruptus’Synthese1284561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wilson, D., Sperber, D. 2000‘Truthfulness and Relevance’UCL Working Papers in Linguistics1221554Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Advanced Study in Theoretical Linguistics (CASTL)Universitetet i TromsøTromsøNorway

Personalised recommendations