Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 123–146

It is raining (somewhere)

Research Article

Abstract

The received view about meteorological predicates like ‘rain’ is that they carry an argument slot for a location which can be filled explicitly or implicitly. The view assumes that ‘rain’, in the absence of an explicit location, demands that the context provide a specific location. In an earlier article in this journal, I provided a counter-example, viz. a context in which ‘it is raining’ receives a location-indefinite interpretation. On the basis of that example, I argued that when there is tacit references to a location, it takes place for pragmatic reasons and casts no light on the semantics of meteorological predicates. Since then, several authors have reanalysed the counter-example, so as to make it compatible with the standard view. I discuss those attempts and argue that my account is superior.

Keywords

Semantics/pragmatics interface Free enrichment Argument roles Meteorological predicates Events Locations Unarticulated constituents 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bierwisch M. (1982) Formal and lexical semantics. Linguistische Berichte 80: 3–17Google Scholar
  2. Bierwisch M. (1989) The semantics of gradation. In: Bierwisch M., Lang E. (eds). Dimensional adjectives. Springer, Berlin, pp. 71–261Google Scholar
  3. Capone A. (2005) Review of Literal Meaning. Journal of Linguistics 341: 45–49Google Scholar
  4. Copestake A., Briscoe T. (1992) Lexical operations in a unification based framework. In: Pustejovsky J., Bergler S. (eds). Lexical semantics and knowledge representation. Springer, Berlin, pp. 101–119Google Scholar
  5. Crimmins M. (1992) Talk about belief. MIT Press/Bradford Books, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  6. Fillmore C. (1969) Types of lexical information. In: Kiefer F. (eds). Studies in syntax and semantics. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 109–137Google Scholar
  7. Fillmore C. (1986) Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 12: 95–107Google Scholar
  8. Fillmore C. (1997) Lectures on deixis. CSLI Publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Gardent C. (2005) Interprétations minimales et interprétations maximales. In: Corblin F., Gardent C. (eds). Interpréter en Contexte. Lavoisier, Paris, pp. 279–303Google Scholar
  10. Lasersohn P. (1999) Pragmatic Halos. Language 75: 522–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Marti L. (2006) Unarticulated constituents revisited. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 135–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McConnell-Ginet S. (1982) Adverbs and logical form. Language 58: 144–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mitchell, J. (1987). The formal semantics of point of view. PhD Dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of Massachussetts.Google Scholar
  14. Neale, S. (forthcoming). On Location. In M. O’Rourke & C. Washington (Eds.), Situating semantics: Essays on the philosophy of John Perry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Nunberg, G. (1992). Two kinds of indexicality. In C. Barker, & D. Dowty (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT II, The Ohio State University, Working Papers in Linguistics n°. 40 (pp. 283–301).Google Scholar
  16. Nunberg, G., & Zaenen, A. (1992). Systematic polysemy in lexicology and lexicography. In H. Tommola, et al. (Eds.) Proceedings of Euralex 2, University of Tampere, Part II (pp. 387–398).Google Scholar
  17. Partee, B. (1973). Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. Journal of Philosophy, 70, 601–609. Reprinted in Partee 2004, pp. 50–58.Google Scholar
  18. Partee, B. (1984). Compositionality. In F. Landman, F. Veltman (Eds.). Varieties of formal semantics (pp. 281–312). Dordrecht: Foris. Reprinted in Partee 2004, 153–181.Google Scholar
  19. Partee, B. (1989). Binding implicit variables in quantified contexts. CLS, 25, 342–365. Reprinted in Partee 2004, 259–281.Google Scholar
  20. Partee B. (2004) Compositionality in formal semantics. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Perry, J. (1986/2000). Thought without representation. Reprinted in The problem of the essential indexical and other essays, expanded edition, (pp. 171188). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Quine, W. V. O. (1960/1995). Variables explained away. In his Selected Logic Papers (pp. 227–235). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Recanati, F. (2001). Implicit arguments and other unarticulated constituents. Communication to SPR 1, Donostia-San Sebastian, 23 November 2001.Google Scholar
  24. Recanati F. (2002) Unarticulated constituents. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 299–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Recanati F. (2004) Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Sgall P., Hajicova E., Panevova J. (1986) The meaning of the sentence in its semantic and pragmatic aspects. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  27. Stanley J. (2000) Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 391–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stanley, J. (2005). Review of Literal Meaning. In Notre Dame philosophical reviews, online at http://ndpr.nd.edu/.Google Scholar
  29. Strawson P. (1997) Entity and identity. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Taylor K. (2001) Sex, breakfast, and descriptus interruptus. Synthese 128: 45–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tesnière L. (1959) Eléments de Syntaxe Structurale. Klincksieck, ParisGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut Jean-NicodCNRS/EHESSParisFrance

Personalised recommendations