|Abstract||James Higginbotham (1986) presents a theory of semantic interpretation which violates the principle of semantic compositionality. He gives an argument by means of an example construction in favor of his contention. I show that compositioinal theories have more resources than some researchers give it credit for, and that these can be used in two different ways to account for the phenomenon Higginbotham describes.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
J. L. Schellenberg (2005). The Hiddenness Argument Revisited (II). Religious Studies 41 (3):287 - 303.
Holger Andreas (2010). Semantic Holism in Scientific Language. Philosophy of Science 77 (4):524-543.
Peter Pagin (1997). Is Compositionality Compatible with Holism? Mind and Language 12 (1):11-33.
Peter Pagin (2009). Compositionality, Understanding, and Proofs. Mind 118 (471):713-737.
Miklós Erdélyi-Szabó, László Kálmán & Agi Kurucz (2008). Towards a Natural Language Semantics Without Functors and Operands. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 17 (1).
Ernie Lepore (2004). Out of Context. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 78 (2):77 - 94.
Hannes Leitgeb (2008). An Impossibility Result on Semantic Resemblance. Dialectica 62 (3):293-306.
Sarah-Jane Leslie (2008). 'If', 'Unless', and Quantification. In R. Stainton & C. Viger (eds.), Compositionality, Context, and Semantic Values.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads16 ( #74,649 of 549,069 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,069 )
How can I increase my downloads?