David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ken Safir, Rutgers University ABSTRACT: It is argued that the indexicality of first person pronouns is arises from a restriction on the pronouns themselves, as opposed to any operator that binds them. The nature of this restriction is an asyntactic constant function that picks out individuals to the context of utterance (following Kaplan, 1989)). Constant function pronouns do not require an antecedent, neither an operator nor an argument, although this does not prevent them from participating in bound readings if an appropriate antecedent is introduced. The notion that agents of contexts and agents of propositional attitudes are versions of the same operator-variable relation is thus rejected, along with certain less fine-grained versions of the nature of de se interpretation. Consequently, indexical pronouns such as first person ones contrast with logophoric pronouns, which are necessarily operator-bound by perspectival operators introduced by propositional attitude verbs. Scope-sensitive properties of operator-binding and the perspectival interpretations that are imposed on logophoricity distinguish the latter from constant function phenomena, which are sensitive neither to scope, as it is usually treated, nor perspectival shifts. Constant function phenomena are also detectable as restrictions on third person forms, and two such examples are lightly explored: the English generic pronoun one and the proximate/obviative distinction in languages like Fox.
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Philippe Schlenker (2003). A Plea for Monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26 (1):29-120.
Katrina Przyjemski (2008). Essentially Indexical Bound Anaphoric Pronouns. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 39:215-222.
Clemens Mayr (2012). Focusing Bound Pronouns. Natural Language Semantics 20 (3):299-348.
Mika Oksanen, Doxastic Logic of Demonstratives; Indexical and Reﬂexive Pronouns in Ascriptions of Propositional Attitudes.
Géraldine Legendre & Paul Smolensky (2012). On the Asymmetrical Difficulty of Acquiring Person Reference in French: Production Versus Comprehension. [REVIEW] Journal of Logic, Language and Information 21 (1):7-30.
Ash Asudeh (2005). Relational Nouns, Pronouns, and Resumption. Linguistics and Philosophy 28 (4):375 - 446.
Barbara Hall Partee (1970). Opacity, Coreference, and Pronouns. Synthese 21 (3-4):359 - 385.
Robert Van Rooy (2001). Exhaustivity in Dynamic Semantics; Referential and Descriptive Pronouns. Linguistics and Philosophy 24 (5):621-657.
Robert Van Rooy (2001). Exhaustivity in Dynamic Semantics; Referential and Descriptive Pronouns. Linguistics and Philosophy 24 (5):621 - 657.
Anna Szabolcsi (2003). Binding On the Fly: Cross-Sentential Anaphora in Variable— Free Semantics. In R. Oehrle & J. Kruijff (eds.), Resource Sensitivity, Binding, and Anaphora. Kluwer. 215--227.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads12 ( #146,821 of 1,679,382 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #78,612 of 1,679,382 )
How can I increase my downloads?