Advertisement

Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 299–345 | Cite as

Unarticulated Constituents

  • François Recanati
Article

Abstract

In a recent paper (Linguistics and Philosophy23, 4, June 2000), Jason Stanley argues that there are no `unarticulated constituents', contrary to what advocates of Truth-conditional pragmatics (TCP) have claimed. All truth-conditional effects of context can be traced to logical form, he says. In this paper I maintain that there are unarticulated constituents, and I defend TCP. Stanley's argument exploits the fact that the alleged unarticulated constituents can be `bound', that is, they can be made to vary with the values introduced by operators in the sentence. I show that Stanley's argument rests on a fallacy, and I provide alternative analyses of the data.

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence Logical Form Computational Linguistic Alternative Analysis Unarticulated Constituent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Bach, K.: 1994a, 'Semantic Slack: What is Said and More', in S. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Foundations of Speech Act Theory, Routledge, London, pp. 267-91.Google Scholar
  2. Bach, K.: 1994b, 'Conversational Impliciture', Mind and Language 9, 124-162.Google Scholar
  3. Barwise, J.: 1989, The Situation in Logic, CSLI Publications, Stanford.Google Scholar
  4. Carston, R.: 1988, 'Implicature, Explicature, and Truth-Theoretic Semantics', in R. Kempson (ed.), Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 155-181.Google Scholar
  5. Carston, R.: forthcoming, 'Explicature and Semantics', to appear in S. Davis and B. Gillon (eds.), Semantics: A Reader, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Chalmers, D.: 1996, The Conscious Mind, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N.: 1976, 'Conditions on Rules of Grammar', Linguistic Analysis 2, 303-351.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, N.: 1986, 'Changing Perspectives on Knowledge and Use of Language', in M. Brand and M. Harnish (eds.), The Representation of Knowledge and Belief, The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 1-58.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, H. and S. Haviland: 1974, 'Psychological Processes as Linguistic Explanation', in D. Cohen (ed.), Explaining Linguistic Phenomena, Hemisphere Publication Corporation, Washington.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, H. and S. Haviland: 1977, 'Comprehension and the Given-New Contract', in R. Freedle (ed.), Discourse Production and Comprehension, Ablex, Norwood New Jersey.Google Scholar
  11. Cresswell, M.: 1996, Semantic Indexicality, Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  12. Crimmins, M.: 1992, Talk About Belief, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  13. Fillmore, C.: 1986, 'Pragmatically Controlled Zero Anaphora', BLS 12, 95-107.Google Scholar
  14. Heal, J.: 1997, 'Indexical Predicates and Their Uses', Mind 106, 619-640.Google Scholar
  15. Higginbotham, J.: 1985, 'On Semantics', Linguistic Inquiry 16, 547-593.Google Scholar
  16. Jacobson, P.: 1999, 'Towards a Variable-Free Semantics', Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 117-184.Google Scholar
  17. Kaplan, D.: 1989, 'Demonstratives', in J. Almog, J. Perry and H. Wettstein (eds.), Themes from Kaplan, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 481-563.Google Scholar
  18. Larson, R. and G. Segal: 1995, Knowledge of Meaning, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  19. Levin, B.: 1993, English Verb Classes and Alternations, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  20. McConnell-Ginet, S.: 1982, 'Adverbs and Logical Form', Language 58, 144-184.Google Scholar
  21. Mitchell, J.: 1986, The Formal Semantics of Point of View, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  22. Nunberg, G.: 1992, 'Two Kinds of Indexicality', in C. Barker and D. Dowty (eds.), Proceedings of SALT II, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, pp. 283-301.Google Scholar
  23. Partee, B.: 1989, 'Binding Implicit Variables in Quantified Contexts', CLS 25, 342-365.Google Scholar
  24. Perry, J.: 1993, The Problem of the Essential Indexical and Other Essays, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Perry, J.: 1998, 'Indexicals, Contexts, and Unarticulated Constituents', in D. Westertahl et al. (eds.), Computing Natural Language, CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 1-11.Google Scholar
  26. Quine, W. V. O.: 1960, 'Variables Explained Away', in his Selected Logic Papers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995, pp. 227-235.Google Scholar
  27. Recanati, F.: 1993, Direct Reference: from Language to Thought, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  28. Recanati, F.: 1995, 'The Alleged Priority of Literal Interpretation', Cognitive Science 19, 207-232.Google Scholar
  29. Recanati, F.: 1999, 'Situations and the Structure of Content', in K. Murasugi and R. Stainton (eds.), Philosophy and Linguistics,Westview, Boulder, Colorado, pp. 113-165.Google Scholar
  30. Recanati, F.: 2001, 'What Is Said', Synthese 128, 75-91.Google Scholar
  31. Recanati, F.: forthcoming, 'Truth-Conditional Pragmatics: An Overview', in P. Bouquet and L. Serafini (eds.), Context, CSLI Publications, Stanford.Google Scholar
  32. Rumelhart, D.: 1979, 'Some Problems with the Notion of Literal Meanings', in A.Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993, pp. 71-82.Google Scholar
  33. Searle, J.: 1992, The Rediscovery of the Mind, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  34. Sperber D. and D. Wilson: 1986, Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  35. Stalnaker, R.: 1999, Context and Content, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  36. Stanley, J.: 2000, 'Context and Logical Form', Linguistics and Philosophy 23, 391-434.Google Scholar
  37. Stanley, J.: forthcoming, 'Making It Articulated', to appear in Mind and Language.Google Scholar
  38. Stanley, J. and Z. Szabo: 2000, 'On Quantifier Domain Restriction', Mind and Language 15, 219-261.Google Scholar
  39. Taylor, K.: 2001, 'Sex, Breakfast, and Descriptus Interruptus', Synthese 128, 45-61.Google Scholar
  40. Tesniè re, L.: 1969, Eléments de Syntaxe Structurale, 2nd ed., Klincksieck, Paris.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • François Recanati
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut Jean-Nicod (CNRS)ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations