Philosophical Studies 141 (2):209 - 242 (2008)
|Abstract||In “Complex Demonstratives: A Quantificational Account” (MIT Press 2001) (henceforth CD), I argued that complex demonstratives are quantifiers. Many philosophers had held that demonstratives, both simple and complex, are referring terms. Since the publication of CD various objections to the account of complex demonstratives I defended in it have been raised. In the present work, I lay out these objections and respond to them.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Kent Johnson & Ernie Lepore (2002). Does Syntax Reveal Semantics? A Case Study of Complex Demonstratives. Noûs 36 (s16):17 - 41.
David Braun (2008). Problems for a Quantificational Theory of Complex Demonstratives. Philosophical Studies 140 (3):335 - 358.
Jeffrey C. King (2008). Complex Demonstratives, QI Uses, and Direct Reference. Philosophical Review 117 (1):99-117.
David Braun (2008). Complex Demonstratives and Their Singular Contents. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (1):57-99.
Kirk Ludwig (2000). The Semantics and Pragmatics of Complex Demonstratives. Mind 109 (434):199 - 240.
Ernest Lepore & Kirk Ludwig (2000). The Semantics and Pragmatics of Complex Demonstratives. Mind 109 (434):199-240.
Emma Borg (2000). Complex Demonstratives. Philosophical Studies 97 (2):229-249.
David Braun (2008). Persisting Problems for a Quantificational Theory of Complex Demonstratives. Philosophical Studies 141 (3):243 - 262.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads22 ( #62,693 of 722,935 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 722,935 )
How can I increase my downloads?