David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Noûs 36 (s16):17 - 41 (2002)
Following Aristotle (who himself was following Parmenides), philosophers have appealed to the distributional reflexes of expressions in determining their semantic status, and ultimately, the nature of the extra-linguistic world. This methodology has been practiced throughout the history of philosophy; it was clarified and made popular by the likes of Zeno Vendler and J.L. Austin, and is realized today in the toolbox of linguistically minded philosophers. Studying the syntax of natural language was fueled by the belief that there is a conceptually tight connection between the syntax of our language and its semantics, and the belief that there is a similarly tight connection between the semantics of our language and metaphysical facts about the world. We are less confident than our colleagues about the relation syntax has to semantics and metaphysics. In particular, we do not believe that the current status of theoretical syntax (or semantics or metaphysics) provides much support for either of the above two beliefs. We will illustrate our view with a case study regarding the status of complex demonstratives. We will show that a recent and particularly subtle syntactically based argument for the semantic/metaphysical status of complex demonstratives does not in fact show what semantic category complex demonstratives are..
|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
Paul Elbourne (2008). Demonstratives as Individual Concepts. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (4):409-466.
Daniel Altshuler (2007). WCO, ACD and What They Reveal About Complex Demonstratives. Natural Language Semantics 15 (3):265-277.
Similar books and articles
Emmon Bach, ACTL Semantics: Compositionality and Morphosemantics: I: Syntactic and Semantic Assumptions: Compositionality.
Ernest Lepore & Kirk Ludwig (2000). The Semantics and Pragmatics of Complex Demonstratives. Mind 109 (434):199-240.
Kirk Ludwig (2000). The Semantics and Pragmatics of Complex Demonstratives. Mind 109 (434):199 - 240.
J. E. Miller (1985). Semantics and Syntax: Parallels and Connections. Cambridge University Press.
David Braun (2008). Complex Demonstratives and Their Singular Contents. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (1):57-99.
Jeffrey C. King (2008). Complex Demonstratives as Quantifiers: Objections and Replies. Philosophical Studies 141 (2):209 - 242.
Denis Bouchard (1995). The Semantics of Syntax: A Minimalist Approach to Grammar. University of Chicago Press.
Alastair Butler (2004). The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions: A Comparative Study. Palgrave Macmillan.
Ernest Lepore (2002). Does Syntax Reveal Semantics?: A Case Study of Complex Demonstratives. Philosophical Perspectives 16:17--41.
Added to index2010-08-10
Total downloads35 ( #100,703 of 1,780,078 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #122,348 of 1,780,078 )
How can I increase my downloads?