The binding argument and pragmatic enrichment, or, why philosophers care even more than weathermen about 'raining'
Graduate studies at Western
Philosophy Compass 3 (1):135-157 (2008)
|Abstract||What is the proper way to draw the semantics-pragmatics distinction, and is what is said by a speaker ever enriched by pragmatics? An influential but controversial answer to the latter question is that the inputs to semantic interpretation contains representations of every contribution from context that is relevant to determining what is said, and that pragmatics never enriches the output of semantic interpretation. The proposal is bolstered by a controversial argument from syntactic binding designed to detect hidden syntactic structure. The following contains an exposition and consideration of the argument.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jonathan Cohen & Samuel C. Rickless (2007). Binding Arguments and Hidden Variables. Analysis 67 (1):65–71.
Robyn Carston (2008). Linguistic Communication and the Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Synthese 165 (3):321 - 345.
Kent Bach (1999). The Semantics Pragmatics Distinction: What It is and Why It Matters. In K. Turner (ed.), The Semantics-Pragmatics Interface From Different Points of View. Elsevier.
Alison Hall (2008). Free Enrichment or Hidden Indexicals? Mind and Language 23 (4):426-456.
Stephen Neale (2005). Pragmatics and Binding. In Zoltán Gendler Szabó (ed.), Semantics Versus Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads73 ( #14,051 of 739,400 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,287 of 739,400 )
How can I increase my downloads?