How should we revise the paratactic theory?
Analysis 56 (4):251–262 (1996)
| Abstract | 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 | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,679 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesSaul 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.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads2 ( #232,501 of 549,084 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
