David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Analysis 56 (4):251–262 (1996)
This paper takes another look at Davidson's paratactic theory of indirect discourse and evaluates some revisions to it, proposed recently by Ian Rumfitt (Mind, 1993). Davidson's original version of the theory – according to which indirect speech reports refer to token utterances – has a problem dealing with ambiguity. Rumfitt suggests that we can solve this problem by supposing that the immediate objects of verbs in indirect speech are token representations of disambiguated LF tree-structures. I argue that this proposal is inadequate and suggest that it is better to think of indirect speech as relating speakers to utterance types
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Saul A. Kripke (2008). Frege's Theory of Sense and Reference: Some Exegetical Notes. Theoria 74 (3):181-218.
Herman Cappelen & Ernie Lepore (1997). Varieties of Quotation. Mind 106 (423):429-450.
R. J. Haack (1971). On Davidson's Paratactic Theory of Oblique Contexts. Noûs 5 (4):351-361.
Nicholas Asher & Alex Lascarides (2001). Indirect Speech Acts. Synthese 128 (1-2):183 - 228.
Ian Rumfitt (1993). Content and Context: The Paratactic Theory Revisited and Revised. Mind 102 (407):429-454.
J. Biro (2011). What is 'That'? Analysis 71 (4):651-653.
Julian Dodd (1997). Indirect Speech, Parataxis and the Nature of Things Said. Journal of Philosophical Research 22:211-227.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #234,534 of 1,679,339 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #183,792 of 1,679,339 )
How can I increase my downloads?