David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Linguistics and Philosophy 17 (5):429 - 445 (1994)
This paper arose from an attempt to determine how the very late medieval1 supposition theorists treated anaphoric pronouns, pronouns whose significance is derivative from their antecedents. Modern researches into pronouns were stimulated in part by the problem of "donkey sentences" discussed by Geach 1962 in a section explaining what is wrong with medieval supposition theory. So there is some interest in seeing exactly what the medieval account comes to, especially if it turns out, as I suspect, to work as well as contemporary ones. Besides, finding a good analysis of pronouns has proved to be very difficult, and so we might possibly find some insight in a historically different kind of approach. I discuss a version of supposition theory that aims at producing analyses of sentences containing quantified terms,2 as articulated around 1400 by Paul of Venice, and as further developed by certain logicians such as de Soto and Celaya in the 1400's and early 1500's.3 Much of what I will say also applies indirectly to earlier versions of supposition theory (before 1400)
|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
P. T. Geach (1962/1968). Reference and Generality. Ithaca, N.Y.,Cornell University Press.
Irene Heim (1990). E-Type Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13 (2):137--77.
H. Kamp (1981). A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation, 277-322, JAG Groenendijk, TMV Janssen and MBJ Stokhof, Eds. In Jeroen Groenendijk (ed.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language. U of Amsterdam
Nirit Kadmon (1990). Uniqueness. Linguistics and Philosophy 13 (3):273 - 324.
David Lewis (1975). Adverbs of Quantification. In Edward L. Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language. Cambridge University Press 178--188.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Robert Van Rooy (2001). Exhaustivity in Dynamic Semantics; Referential and Descriptive Pronouns. Linguistics and Philosophy 24 (5):621-657.
Terence Parsons (1997). Supposition as Quantification Versus Supposition as Global Quantificational Effect. Topoi 16 (1):41-63.
Catarina Dutilh Novaes (2008). An Intensional Interpretation of Ockham's Theory of Supposition. Journal of the History of Philosophy 46 (3):pp. 365-393.
Catarina Dutilh Novaes (2007). Theory of Supposition Vs. Theory of Fallacies in Ockham. Vivarium 45 (s 2-3):343-359.
Mikko Yrjönsuuri (1997). Supposition and Truth in Ockham's Mental Language. Topoi 16 (1):15-25.
Gareth B. Matthews (1997). Two Theories of Supposition? Topoi 16 (1):35-40.
Paul Vincent Spade (1997). Walter Burley on the Simple Supposition of Singular Terms. Topoi 16 (1):7-13.
Tze-wan Kwan (2007). Towards a Phenomenology of Pronouns. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 15 (2):247 – 268.
Terence Parsons (2013). Missing Modes of Supposition. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 27 (sup1):1-24.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads33 ( #97,829 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #66,646 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?