David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Linguistics and Philosophy 18 (3):281 - 296 (1995)
The restricted semantic ellipsis hypothesis, we have argued, is committed to an enormous number of multiply ambiguous expressions, the introduction of which gains us no extra explanatory power. We should, therefore, reject it. We should also spurn the original version since: (a) it entails the restricted version and (b) it incorrectly declares that, whenever a speaker makes an assertion by uttering an unembedded word or phrase, the expression uttered has illocutionary force.Once rejected, the semantic ellipsis hypothesis cannot account for the many exceptions to the syntactic ellipsis hypothesis. So, we can safely infer that the Claim is true.(1)The Claim: Speakers can make assertions by uttering ordinary, unembedded, words and phrases.To the degree that the Claim reallyis in tension with the primacy of sentences (i.e., the view that (a) only sentences can be used to make assertions and (b) only sentences are meaningful in isolation) this doctrine must also be rejected
|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
Jennifer Hornsby & Jason Stanley (2005). II Reply by Jason Stanley. Hornsby on the Phenomenology of Speech. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 79 (1):131–145.
Aaron Barth (2012). A Refutation of Frege's Context Principle? Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 1 (1):26-35.
Michael Glanzberg & Susanna Siegel (2006). Presupposition and Policing in Complex Demonstratives. Noûs 40 (1):1–42.
Philip Robbins (2005). The Myth of Reverse Compositionality. Philosophical Studies 125 (2):251 - 275.
Aaron Barth (2013). Anti- Naturalism: The Role of Non-Empirical Methods in Philosophy. History and Philosophy of Logic 34 (3):196-206.
Similar books and articles
Kyle Johnson (2001). What VP Ellipsis Can Do, and What It Can't, but Not Why. In Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Blackwell. 439--479.
Jukka Mikkonen (2009). Assertions in Literary Fiction. Minerva 13:144-180.
Mary Dalrymple, Stuart M. Shieber & Fernando C. N. Pereira (1991). Ellipsis and Higher-Order Unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14 (4):399 - 452.
Reinaldo Elugardo & Robert J. Stainton (2004). Shorthand, Syntactic Ellipsis, and the Pragmatic Determinants of What Is Said. Mind and Language 19 (4):442-471.
Jason Merchant (2005). Fragments and Ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27 (6):661 - 738.
Robert Stainton (2005). In Defense of Non-Sentential Assertions. In Zoltán Gendler Szabó (ed.), Semantics Versus Pragmatics. Oxford University Press. 383--458.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads14 ( #164,544 of 1,696,589 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #250,101 of 1,696,589 )
How can I increase my downloads?